Bill Smith wrote:
[...] I often find myself sighing at the "Windows is easier" crowd. i want to educate them to what is available to them, to show them that "easier" does not necessarily mean "best for the job". Easier might be just that (easy), but it sometimes means making the wrong choice.
For our poor little IRC channel, it was particularly bad. This kid had joined the LUG list, and offered to do all kinds of web development etc. with the hopes he'd get some free advertising for his "big business venture." No problem there, but he proceeded to rant on-list about wanting to use ASP etc., arguing against open-source content management tools as "boring." That carried over to the IRC channel, and he'd essentially scare off any potential Linux converts with his lousy attitude.
If a person wants to favor an operating system simply because it's "easy", then that person deserves all the resulting heartache s/he gets. often, the person looking for "easy" will think "ease of use" instead of "ease to get going without immediate worry"...
There was a great post a few years back (forgot which list) comparing web development using front page to the (original, good) Matrix movie precept. It got into the "warm, wet, comfortable goo" of FP, and how long and painful it was extricating himself and his code. Although it fit apple better in years previous, I think "Freedom From Choice" is what a lot of people want (with apologies to Devo).
If that became a major concern instead, I think we would see a decided shift towards unix variants. Sure, Win* might be easy to USE, but if you want it networked, there's a bit of know-how and effort involved to make it SECURE. (that could probably be said for any OS, but it is more true for Win* than for many others.)
We'd best watch it, or they'll start mandating the equivalent of seatbelt and helmet laws for computers. I agree that users should be responsible, but I don't want the government dictating how "safe" software should be developed. I like the idea of an INFORMED user base. - Bob