Comment Niche Misunderstood (yet again) (Score 2) 570
If you want a PC that you can just take out of the box, plug in, and type your report/spreadsheet/letter/whatever and sign onto AOL and check your mail/chat/whatever, get a Macintosh. The new iMacs and (especially) the G3's provide a lot of power and are very easy to use for the technically-unenthusiastic. Apple has "ease of learning" (NOT THE SAME AS "EASE OF USE"!) down pat.
If you want flexibility, (almost) limitless possibilities, cool toys, interesting software to play with, excellent free programs, including compilers, graphics applications, etc, and you're WILLING TO READ LOTS AND LOTS OF DOCUMENTATION, you want Linux. And even then, if you're coming from Windows, you'll probably have to change your whole philosophy: shells, X, window managers, LaTeX, etc. Hey, guess what? That leaves NO PURPOSE for Windows 95/98/2000/whatever. It's mediocre, it barely works (I thought it worked pretty well until I started using Linux back in '95), the software is bloated, mediocre, and expensive, and I simply don't understand where people get off on this stuff. Purchase of Windoze is Not Recommended.
My real purpose here isn't to start a war about the usability of various operating systems, because it doesn't matter. File formats (and games = ) aside, the bases are covered between Linux and the Macs. Think about that. What the article says is that Linux won't ever be anything for the masses unless it adopts certain ease-of-learning techniques used by other OS's. What do we care how many people use Linux? Linux isn't for the non-technically-literate masses; that's what the Mac is for.
Furthermore, what's this business about the "Linux killer"? Last time I checked, there was no company you could buy out to eliminate Linux from the market. And New Technology that would make Linux obsolete would have to be pretty darn spectacular, IMO. = )
Take care.
