Replies

There was also a lot of discussion about what Linux should become, with some of the most interesting commentary coming from Geoffrey Moore, author of "Crossing the Chasm," who was right on in stating that Linux is going in the wrong direction with respect to the desktop.

...

Moore pointed out that things move slowly and that a good place to look for ideas for future products is among kids and young people -- and what they are currently using. Today kids are using devices like cell phones and iPods, often juggling several gadgets running at once. These devices are not all-in-ones, rather they're specialized to whatever the user wants to do. In short, they're nearly the opposite of what Windows currently is. What does that mean? It means Windows might be a poor model for future products. Future products probably won't be running on anything that looks like today's Windows.

We're still waiting to learn what this guy who was "right on" about what Linux should not be to tell us what it should be.

Maybe we should all be running spreadsheets on iPods?

My 2 cents...

After messing with all three platforms for the past ten years or so, I have come to the following conclusions:

Linux - Very stable, but way too complicated for most (novice) users. People want to be able to plug in hardware and have it work, not plug it in, search the web for drivers, fiddle with the drivers, have the device do less than it does on other platforms, etc. Similar problem with software, you should be able to put in a disk and have it work. Which brings us to...

Apple - Almost as stable as Linux, and very easy for the novice. Everything that Linux isn't, the Apple platform is. Hardware, that which is designed for Apple, is totally plug and play. Ditto software. Apple's problem is in availability of hardware and software and the price thereof. It has gotten better, but there have still been instances with my clients where they complain that *something* isn't available for their Mac.

Windows - The compromise. Generally cheaper hardware and software than Apple. Drivers are not a problem like with Linux. Not as easy to use as Apple, but not as complex as Linux. Most hardware and software is easy to install and use, but vulnerability to viruses and spy-ware is a problem that requires a lot of attention on the part of the user.

My recommendations to my clients on buying a computer:

1. If you are a total novice (and cost is not a major factor) and just want to do specific tasks, i.e. e-mail, music, Internet, etc., Apple is the way to go. More expensive initially, but less likely to cause future headaches.

2. If money is tight, but you don't have time (or talent) to mess with your system, go Windows. Spend some extra money on a good security suite.

3. Linux is a good choice for those who want to tinker. If you have modest means and you have specific needs that Linux can meet - web browsing, e-mail, word processing, etc. - it is a good low cost choice.

All three platforms have their place and none is perfect for everyone. This "mine is better than yours" argument is silly. Different strokes for different folks. Deal with it.

I am an OLD computer user. Based on my experience, motivates me were the killer applications at the time. That is what moved me from the Apple II+ to the severely limited early PCs.

At this time and place, I see no killer applications on any platform. I am using Macs now because of the unsolved virus problems with MS et al.

Perhaps the next really killer application will be a combination of everything that the kids want and love.

A word in passing: I was told by knowledgeable people that when your code got around 90.000 to 100,000 lines that no one could keep track of it all (including all of the constants). I understand that MS is now pushing 500,000+ lines of code in their applications. This implies to me that no one knows what is happening in it.IMHO