Re[2]: [Cumbria] Adding fuel to the fire...

[Michael Saunders]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Ian Linwood wrote:

> OK, try W2K or XP on them, see if there is an improvement.  :-(

There is no improvement; desktop performance differences become
negligible. Which is my point. Our aim shouldn't be "as long as we're no
slower than Windows, we're alright".

> But you infer that they are equally as slow. Which is more reliable and
> doesn't cost you 250ukp retail?

To most computer users I know, XP is free (beer) thanks to widespread
copying. Which has greater mindshare among the unwashed masses? Which has
the larger selection of games? The ideals of Free Software matter not one
jot to the average user -- from my own experience of helping people to
switch, an XP-esque sluggish desktop doesn't impress. I prefer to show
them Window Maker and RoX.

The other benefits Free Software offers can eventually become significant
to a new user, but initially they want something faster, more powerful,
more stable. I have no interest in MS' OSes but XP, sad as this is to say,
is pretty reliable for desktop use now...

> Maybe if people supported *free* software, things might develop a tad
> faster. By this I mean donating either your time (testing), submitting
> code, or money to projects to help them survive. Bear in mind, the
> people who develop the software you use rely on this support.

I'll bear that in mind. I've only been using Linux for 4 or 5 years,
having contributed stacks of documentation, filed an uncountable number of
bug reports and talked with developers, bought more boxed distros than
I've had hot dinners, and written roughly 75,000 words for 24 issues of
Linux Format and related mags in that time. Hey, I've tried to do my bit
to boost the community :)

Mike

-- 
Michael Saunders
www.aster.fsnet.co.uk