4 ms·

>If someone were using Linux to teach I as a student would think their using some crap computers. Why does the installed OS imply anything at all about the qua

>If someone were using Linux to teach I as a student would think their using some crap computers. Why does the installed OS imply anything at all about the quality of the hardware? > Like it or not students don't see the potential of Linux ... Why would they, if they have never been exposed to it? >and truth is Windows is still more user friendly then Linux when it comes to doing some moderately advanced things. I've always felt the opposite is true, that most Windows based solutions enable people to do easy things easier than with Linux, but that implementing more complex solutions often quickly becomes harder on the Windows platform than on Linux. That's been my experience, YMMV. >It would be cool if schools had a mix of windows and Linux computers though that way students can learn that Windows doesn't equal computer there are other OS's as well. And before you ask no, where I'm from Apple was as if it didn't exist. I agree. I think it makes for better educated graduates, and a better marketplace for computing products. >I only learned about Linux when i was 14 and to be honest i though it was crap at first since all Linux windowing systems that I tried were awful. That may have been a fair assessment at the time.

Fuxy 13y ago
> Why does the installed OS imply anything at all about the quality of the hardware? It doesn't for people who understand the technology but a kid learning in school will asses the entire package as a whole with the limited skills he has at using it mind you. > Why would they, if they have never been exposed to it? I doubt they would even if they were exposed to it. I takes a lot of dedication to reach the point where you're comfortable with the terminal and see it's potential. I don't think students would reach that point in school. > I've always felt the opposite is true, that most Windows based solutions enable people to do easy things easier than with Linux, but that implementing more complex solutions often quickly becomes harder on the Windows platform than on Linux. That's been my experience, YMMV. It is from a technical point of view but for the average person who will never need to do anything more complex it isn't. And even if they do need something more complex they're already invested into windows so it's unlikely they'll switch. Since windows made it easier in the beginning they'll assume that the pattern continues.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >I doubt they would even if they were exposed to it. I takes a lot of dedication to reach the point where you're comfortable with the terminal and see it's potential. I don't think students would reach that point in school. Linux is perfectly capable for use as a general purpose computing appliance. It is not ideal for every task, but no OS is. The terminal isn't necessary for everyone. >It is from a technical point of view but for the average person who will never need to do anything more complex it isn't. If you're talking about the most casual users, then I disagree, those people don't care or need to know much about their facebook appliance. >And even if they do need something more complex they're already invested into windows so it's unlikely they'll switch. Because someone made that arbitrary choice for them. > Since windows made it easier in the beginning they'll assume that the pattern continues. Which is an argument against reinforcing those patterns.

Fuxy 13y ago

> Why does the installed OS imply anything at all about the quality of the hardware? It doesn't for people who understand the technology but a kid learning in school will asses the entire package as a whole with the limited skills he has at using it mind you. > Why would they, if they have never been exposed to it? I doubt they would even if they were exposed to it. I takes a lot of dedication to reach the point where you're comfortable with the terminal and see it's potential. I don't think students would reach that point in school. > I've always felt the opposite is true, that most Windows based solutions enable people to do easy things easier than with Linux, but that implementing more complex solutions often quickly becomes harder on the Windows platform than on Linux. That's been my experience, YMMV. It is from a technical point of view but for the average person who will never need to do anything more complex it isn't. And even if they do need something more complex they're already invested into windows so it's unlikely they'll switch. Since windows made it easier in the beginning they'll assume that the pattern continues.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>I doubt they would even if they were exposed to it. I takes a lot of dedication to reach the point where you're comfortable with the terminal and see it's potential. I don't think students would reach that point in school. Linux is perfectly capable for use as a general purpose computing appliance. It is not ideal for every task, but no OS is. The terminal isn't necessary for everyone. >It is from a technical point of view but for the average person who will never need to do anything more complex it isn't. If you're talking about the most casual users, then I disagree, those people don't care or need to know much about their facebook appliance. >And even if they do need something more complex they're already invested into windows so it's unlikely they'll switch. Because someone made that arbitrary choice for them. > Since windows made it easier in the beginning they'll assume that the pattern continues. Which is an argument against reinforcing those patterns.