Re: XP license to 2nd computer legal?


"David Maynard" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:128cevjs99e6q8e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Carlos wrote:
David Maynard wrote:

Carlos wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Carlos writes:


<multiple condensation snips>

There is one Windows, and one Mac OS. There are hundreds of systems
called "Linux."


There is only one GNU/Linux, with multiple distributions... however,
I see your point.


That's technically correct but it understates the case as the average
user would not even recognize 'the only one GNU/Linux' as a 'desktop
O.S.', not from any failing on their part but because there's no
desktop to it.

Many, if not most, distributions trying to be 'windows like' use the
KDE desktop but, for example, TurboLinux "currently offers the choice
of Gnome, KDE or the TurboDesk GUI," and there are others.

One of the problems to all that 'flexibility' is that new programs may
not show up on any menus and the user may be left wondering where the
new program is, or if it was even installed, since he doesn't see it
anywhere.


I don't disagree. There are some trade-offs to having so much
flexibility.

That's certainly a 'diplomatic' way of putting it but that kind of
'flexibility' translates to unworkable confusion for average users.

The most 'flexible' computer is one with no O.S. at all as you can write
your own to do 'anything' just the way you like it. It's also the most
useless to an average user.


That's not true. Viruses and spyware aren't necessarily even a
problem for Windows users; some have trouble, some don't. That's
still better than having to learn all about drivers and how to find,
compile, and install them just to get a system up and running.


Windows users do need to know to install drivers. They either come
on the disk with the hardware, or they are instructed on where to
download and install it.


Please pardon my so saying so but that is typical Linux nomenclature
of speaking categorically about 'a function' as if the 'function' is
the only thing to it.

It leaves out 'how' the task is accomplished.


Windows users must also understand that they need to install drivers...
I don't see your point.

The point is the word "how" up there.

If you wanted to drive a car to work in 1925 you'd 'understand you need to
drive'. Today you also 'understand you need to drive' but I assure you the
two experiences are quite different even though the 'understand you need
to
drive' categorical description appears to be the same.

Now, I'm not making a case that things get better or worse over time but
that speaking in categorical terms doesn't tell the story.

Short version: "the devil is in the details."

However, no, users do not, or should not, have to 'understand that they
need to install drivers'. Why should they? Why 'must' they even know what
a
'driver' is?

The ideal would be if the thing magically crawled out of the box and
installed itself but, barring that bit of fantasy, wouldn't it be 'best'
if
the computer simply said something akin to "found your <card name>, please
wait a moment" and ended with "all done and working fine now" without
anything required of the user? Why 'must' the user 'know', 'understand',
or
'do', anything else?


With the linux distributions I describe (aimed at newbies),
installing drivers for most hardware is just as simple... bring up
your gui package manager and off you go.


Heaven help the poor soul in a "package manager" as he's presented
with too many choices, namely every thing that can be installed if he
can decipher the package geek greek.


Some package managers are better than others. The better ones I've seen
organize the applications based on function. For example, multimedia
applications are grouped together to help you find a program you are
looking for.

The 'organized everything' is what I was speaking of.

I believe Windows users also have to choose software don't
they?

When a Windows user goes to install the driver for his new whatever he is
not presented with a 'choice' of every available program encompassing
every
possible function.

And pay for it I might add.

Open Office is available for Windows as well.

However, as to the 'pay for it' point, ease of use has value.

What he wants is the thing to just 'automatically work'. Next best is
if the O.S., on it's own, finds the new card, finds the driver, and
installs it.


This is the case for most software under linux.

You brought up a specific case and I was talking about that case.

'Most' doesn't cut it if 'the one' is something like your display driver,
or some other mission critical function, as determined by what the user
wants the machine to do.

Figuring out when to insert the driver CD is confusing enough for most
without injecting "bring up your gui package manager and off you go."


I don't think either of these is too difficult for any user.

Precisely what I predicted three paragraphs down.


Linux tends to organize things around how the O.S., or the
programmer's favorite program, works, or was 'developed', rather than
what the user wants to accomplish, which is why you get package
descriptions like "flphoto 1.3 (An FLTK-Based Basic Image Management
and Display Program)."

The user has no idea, nor does he care, what the heck FLTK is but if
he's tried to install anything from package manager more than once
he'll wonder if he needs to find and install that thing, whatever it
is, too.

Invariably some Linux user will argue that "Oh pooh, it's not that
hard to figure out" but that Linux Community mindset is precisely one
of the problems: the presumption that if the user 'can figure it out'
then the burden lies with the user, and should lie with the user,
rather than having the O.S. make things as 'idiot intuitive' as
possible.


Not all package managers are the same. Like I mentioned above, some are
very clear and organized by function.

I'm not talking about whether it's clear to *you*.

I work a lot with 'typical users' and I'm telling you it's confusing to
*them*. They don't really care what 'the function' is, they just want the
new display card to work.



Sooooo what your saying is I can't send E-mail untill I get a connection
to the internet? That sucks.






It's difficult to describe because these things are just as obvious to me
as they are to you but the typical user doesn't care to learn jargon and
what they do know is picked up by association. 'Function' is like, uh,
those numbered 'F' keys and "driver" is... who knows... saw it once on a
CD
that came with something.

So *you* think the package manager is all neatly organized but it's an
'organized' pile of geek to others. "Oh, look. All the things I have no
clue about in alphabetical order."


I didn't mean linux would become the dominant player that windows
is. I just meant that I think linux will become more mainstream as
it improves and the population become more educated regarding
technology. You are now seeing more linux in electronics,


Linux is almost ideal for embedded applications, largely because it's
'free', where you're usually writing specialized code for whatever
device is being made as Linux was 'derived', so to speak, from Unix
and the original Unix mantra was "An O.S. of the programmer, by the
programmer, and for the programmer" so it's little surprise that a
popular Linux Community retort to a program critique is "if you don't
like it write your own."

'End user' is notably missing since, at the time, there was no concept
of 'end user' in the manner we speak of it today.

Which gets back to the GUI since the 'typical end user' does not
interact with 'the O.S.' directly, nor do they want to, but, rather,
they interact with the GUI so, in keeping with that visualization, it
would be better in some ways to call them the "KDE Operating System"
or the "Gnome Operating System," or whatever, with "based on Linux
Technology" in the same manner that Windows XP is 'based on NT
technology'.


I think you are making large generalizations about the "Linux Community"
that are untrue. I've never heard of any developer coding without the
end user as the most important factor in his development.

I've been dealing with various elements of the Linux Community off and on
for 10 years, or more, and Unix much longer than that. However, you
mischaracterize what I said. I said 'end user', as we call it today, was
noticeable missing from what Linux grew out of: original UNIX.

I also don't dispute that many in the Linux Community *think* they
consider
the user the 'most important factor'. What I've said, however, is their
mindset is like yours: that the confusing things are actually
non-confusing
because *you* think they're 'clear'.

This, btw, is where "peer review," I.E. 'the experts' finding it 'clear
and
simple', is near useless. Bring in Joe Clueless and ask him.


and linux on the desktop is improving everyday. As linux becomes
more prevalent I think the industry will begin to write more drivers
for linux thus minimizing one of the larger obstacles for linux.


Been hearing that for 10 years.


Linux has been improving and more and more native linux applications and
drivers are now available then there were 10 years ago.

So has everything else.

While 'improving every day' (tm) the Linux community still, to some
extent, considers taking a hundred incomprehensible options in a text
file and slapping them onto a framed window to be 'user friendly'. And
it is, compared to the 'traditional' Linux way of needing to know
where the file is located and pulling up a text editor, but it's a
long way from comprehensible English, wizards, context sensitivity,
instant validity checking, consistency, and usable defaults, to name a
few.

It isn't that Linux is 'crap', or any other such pejorative, it's just
that I don't think the Linux community has grasped, or wants to grasp,
what could be claimed is a Windows mantra, 'computers for idiots', and
there was a time not so long ago when Linux users touted running Linux
(working!) as 'proof' of having achieved true geekdom, but if the
'goal' is to 'capture the desktop market' one should take note that
there are a hell of a lot more idiots than geeks.


Again, I think you are making large generalizations about the linux
community. Like I said, various distros have different end users in
mind and some are not meant for the average user. The distros I refer
to are meant for desktop use

Those are the ones I'm talking about.

and I believe you'll find are much easier
to use than linux was in the past.

Yes, and I said so. It's also still way behind because everything else is
also 'much easier to use than in the past'.




.

Relevant Pages

  • >>>> INSTALL LINUX <<<<
    ... Linux Http Install Syntax ... Install Linux On Usb In Windows ...
    (comp.mail.sendmail)
  • Re: Cursor mysteriously moves all by itself
    ... >>> Download and install the latest drivers for your video card and mouse. ... > then you haven't run most of the Linux distros available for Free ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • HP OfficeJet and Linux -- a mini HOW-TO / short-story.
    ... experienced when installing an OfficeJet... ... It was to be the reincarnation of my last Linux box ... and I got the Windows systems to use their own drivers ... I downloaded the entire 980 MB install package in 15 minutes. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Linux, the final decision
    ... >> how Windows deals with an analogous situation. ... > That drivers have access to the gui is not a hard and fast rule. ... >> Unreal engines can run under Linux. ... no one has to install Windows because the ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Install which Linux? (or avoiding dirty birds)
    ... >>that ran on Linux, then if the drivers were running on Debian, then ... DriverLoader is a revolutionary compatibility-wrapper allowing standard Windows NDIS drivers shipped by hardware vendors to be used as-is on Linux x86 systems .... ... I was able to install a baic Debian GNU/Linux etch system on the Thinkpad with the ...
    (Debian-User)