Re: FreeRadius server

> > It's true with Windows 2000--If you're not willing to learn to use
Windows
> > 2000, you shouldn't be using it.
>
> COMMENT: That would eliminate the majority of Windows users, and the "cube
> farms" of business and industry would have few inhabitants.  There are
people
> in business who run a specific program every day.  They know enough about
it
> to do the common stuff the program was designed to do, and that's ALL they
> know.  Are you saying these people aren't productive?  Evidently their
> employers think they are, or they wouldn't have jobs.  Are you saying they
> shouldn't be using Windows OR Linux?

I don't understand your problem with my statement.  If all they need to do
is run one program, and that's all they do, then there's no problem.

Perhaps my philosophy should be modified slightly:  If you're not willing to
learn to use _____ TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR YOUR NEEDS, then you
shouldn't be using it at all.

The only exception I can think of is when you're willing to hire someone
else to take over where your knowledge ends.

The majority of Windows users know how to use Windows to the extent
necessary for their needs.

Most of the people who inhabit "cube farms" of business and industry who run
a specific program and that's ALL they know, know how to run that specific
program to the extent necessary for their needs.

The problem arises when you start trying to do something you don't know how
to do, and refuse to do the necessary "leg work"--in whatever form that may
take, whether it be reading a manual, taking a class, trial and error, or
whatever.

The other alternative is to hire someone who can do it for you.  That's what
most "cube farms" do.  That's what the majority of Windows users do (in the
form of support contracts that come with their PCs, etc).

Why should the Open Source community be any different?  Open Source means
that the source is open.  It does NOT mean that anyone who uses Linux owes
it to spoon-feed anyone else who wants to use Linux but isn't willing to
read the manual, take a class, experiment via trial and error, or hire a
consultant.


> > > Come off it, Jon.  That's crap and you know it.  Unless, of course you
> > > REALLY DO believe that (quoting Matt here) "Linux (is) the stomping
> > > grounds for boorish, elitist, and exclusionary geeks."
> >
> > I do believe that, <snip>
>
> COMMENT: In which case I retract my statement.  I still think it's crap,
but I
> can't say you know it.  I find it sad that this comes from the president
of
> the major Linux advocacy group (at least I think that was one reason for
> founding ACLUG) in this area.  Which may help explain why there has been
very
> little Linux advocacy of late.

Why ACLUG was formed is an interesting issue.  I don't think it relates
directly to Linux advocacy.

I might also point out that the earlier "statement of purpose" was not
agreed upon by anyone--I think one person (John G.?) wrote it.  I'm not
saying it's good or bad... just that it's the opinion of a single person.

We at one point began work on a constitution, and nowhere did it say
anything about promoting Linux as an alternative to Windows.  If the
constitution is ever implimented, I think that it would be a mistake to say
that any purpose of our group is to teach Linux as an alternative to any
specific brand or product.  That's just hostile and not within the nature of
the Linux/Open Source community.


> > > It seems to me that if we really want to promote Linux, <snip> then
> > > the idea that Linux is only a toy for geeks will have to go away.
> >
> > Again, you're assuming I want something I don't want.
>
> COMMENT: You're right.  I assumed that.  On this point we disagree.
> >
> > And I'd never give my mom a computer with Linux.
>
> COMMENT: If your mom was a heavy gamer, or needed a program only available
on
> Windows, I could understand that statement.  I have always believed that
if
> you want to run Windows programs - run them on Windows.  I consider
projects
> to develop emulators a waste of time.  If she was getting started with
> computers, and wanted something to send email to her grandchildren, write
> letters, maybe even do some financial stuff, then Linux would be fine, and
she
> would'nt know the difference.  "NEVER" is a strong word.  I find it sad
that
> you are unwilling even to consider this an option.

I can explain my reasoning a bit:  My mom is a "standard computer user."
She does word processing, email, the occasional web browsing, and
QuickBooks.  QB is enough reason to give her Windows--there's no real
alternative for Linux yet.  Even without that, I'd give her Windows in a
second.  Why?  Primarily b/c it's more cost-effective.  Here's why:

"Reasons not to give Linux to your mother":

1) To install a user-friendly DE/WM, email client, web browser, and word
processor for Linux would require at least 128mb RAM and probably a 400Mhz
CPU.  To do so with Windows 95 requires a Pentium 100 with 32mb.

2) To install a user-friendly DE/WM, email client, web browser, and word
processor for Linux would require several hours of my time.  For Windows, it
takes about an hour.

3) To support a user-friendly DE/WM, email client, web browser, and word
processor for Linux would require *MY* availability.  With Windows, my dad,
siblings, or other friends are able to help her.

4) The cost of the software for Linux is free, granted.  The cost of the
software for Windows is probably about $45-$55 (~$30 for a Win95 license,
~$15 for WordPerfect).  But the time I save by using Windows makes Windows a
more economical alternative very quickly.

Now, if I had no life, and enjoyed installing and mantaining Linux, then I
might give her a Linux PC.  But I have things I like doing with my life
other than mantaining Linux boxen for family members, so I choose Windows
for that particular application.




-- This is the [email protected] list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi