With that post, you nailed the spirit of my position on this.
I also notice something we have somewhat in common: we dealt with making computers work in a corporate environment. We perceive computers primarily as tools and something we don’t have to overcomplicate or deal with when we “punch out”.
I remember when I had to become a memory expert (remember dos “himem”?) just to get Aces Over the Pacific to run in dos mode on my Windows 3.1 machine. I’m burned out on messing with my computer. I had to replace a cooling fan on my cpu last year and that was hassle enough. I used to build all my computers from scratch. Now, when a computer acts up I just go to costco and drop another $299 and bring one home. Heck, I even use the motherboard video and audio.
I also stuck with beta for way too long. I sold video and knew it was much better than VHS. Big frickin’ deal. When I made the switch to VHS my life actually got a lot simpler. :-)
I live the subtitle to Dr. Strangelove: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. Or, in modern vernacular, I took the blue pill or drank the coolaid - and it was goooooood.
Yeah, actually having to support machines that serve a variety of users somewhat alters your perspective. Plus having to take into account the complete cost of a machine/os/device and not just it’s initial purchase price.
But that’s why we get the big bucks.
(Made myself laugh there with that last line)
See, I don't think you do--or most people for that matter. I'm not blaming you. It's a matter of definition, I think.
Tools require some form of (at least) rudimentary training in order to operate properly. yet we (as a society) think if we just plug in a computer, or sit some kid down in front of it, all our problems will be solved. Sitting someone down in the control cabin of a construction crane will virtually guarantee destruction of some sort. The same goes for computers.
Insisting that all OSes and computers need to run/look like Windows because that is what "everyone" is used to is not only wrong-headed, but can be dangerous. It leads to stagnation--not only in computer/software design, but also in our ability to think and remain in control of these tools that we use all the time.
What I think would really be helpful, at least from a desktop perspective, is for the whole Linux desktop community to agree on a single standard desktop, and the closer to Windows look and feel the better.
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Limiting a tool of this power and complexity to one interface is like saying that a tablesaw should only be able to cut pine 2x4s at 90-degree angles. What's the point?
The truly great thing about Linux is the choice that it offers. Not only the choice of not giving your money to a liberal corporation like MS, but also of usability. Desktop choices like Gnome, KDE, LXDE, and XFCE (to name but a few), kernel choices and whether you really want to upgrade or not--this is what we're really about. We're not really trying to to get rid of MS, but thinking that we should imitate them is short-sighted to say the least.
If you don't want to invest the time and effort needed to learn about the tool sitting on the desk in front of you, that is also your prerogative. However, don't complain that it's too difficult when you don't really want to learn how to properly operate it.
Windows is like a base-model automatic (to use an analogy from you), with its hood welded shut and no real controls inside. Other OSes provide more functionality, but you have to learn to use it. More freedom does require more learning.