I meant to reply to you. :) The myth that Linux isn't ready for the desktop continues to be perpetuated by discussions conceding that Windows is a more mature desktop platform and "just works out of the box." If you use Arch Linux and build your own kernel then yes, you're going to have to configure every little thing. Most distributions don't expect you to micromanage your computer that way and while Mint is a more extreme version of "it just works" in the Linux world, Redhat, Ubuntu and all the other major players don't need any more work to configure after first boot than Windows.
But I didn't say Windows was "a more mature desktop" - I said it is "good enough" for lots of people out of the box. And it is. Yes, the distros you mentioned don't need much more work out of the box. But the problem is that you still have to get new Linux users to the right "box." They don't have to do research (even simple research like asking a friend to recommend a distro) to find the "right" Windows.
I'm not perpetuating a "myth" here, I'm just not sneering at Windows for being Windows.
That was the impression I got when I read your initial comment. It's possible I'm misreading it when you say that 'But, I can't disagree that it comes out of the box with a measure of usability and is "good enough" for lots of people.' It sounds here like you're conceding that Windows is simply more usable out of the box than Linux, which is the point I mean to address. If I misunderstood your intent then I apologize.
I'm not perpetuating a "myth" here, I'm just not sneering at Windows for being Windows.
I understand. Windows isn't the Devil and it shouldn't be lambasted simply for being Windows. But Microsoft has put a lot of money and effort into denigrating Linux as "too technical" or "insecure" or otherwise "not ready for prime time" and your comment seemed to feed into that perception.
But, I can't disagree that it comes out of the box with a measure of usability and is "good enough" for lots of people.
This part of my comment really seems to be being misunderstood. I am stating that Windows comes out of the box being able to be used. That's it. Not that it's better or worse than Linux or anything else. Just that it is usable and that that is good enough for plenty of end users, and if it's good enough for them, then who am I to argue?
I can't tell if you are actually replying to me or to Tawsix here - but I don't need convincing that Linux is a viable choice :)
I meant to reply to you. :) The myth that Linux isn't ready for the desktop continues to be perpetuated by discussions conceding that Windows is a more mature desktop platform and "just works out of the box." If you use Arch Linux and build your own kernel then yes, you're going to have to configure every little thing. Most distributions don't expect you to micromanage your computer that way and while Mint is a more extreme version of "it just works" in the Linux world, Redhat, Ubuntu and all the other major players don't need any more work to configure after first boot than Windows.
But I didn't say Windows was "a more mature desktop" - I said it is "good enough" for lots of people out of the box. And it is. Yes, the distros you mentioned don't need much more work out of the box. But the problem is that you still have to get new Linux users to the right "box." They don't have to do research (even simple research like asking a friend to recommend a distro) to find the "right" Windows.
I'm not perpetuating a "myth" here, I'm just not sneering at Windows for being Windows.
That was the impression I got when I read your initial comment. It's possible I'm misreading it when you say that 'But, I can't disagree that it comes out of the box with a measure of usability and is "good enough" for lots of people.' It sounds here like you're conceding that Windows is simply more usable out of the box than Linux, which is the point I mean to address. If I misunderstood your intent then I apologize.
I understand. Windows isn't the Devil and it shouldn't be lambasted simply for being Windows. But Microsoft has put a lot of money and effort into denigrating Linux as "too technical" or "insecure" or otherwise "not ready for prime time" and your comment seemed to feed into that perception.
This part of my comment really seems to be being misunderstood. I am stating that Windows comes out of the box being able to be used. That's it. Not that it's better or worse than Linux or anything else. Just that it is usable and that that is good enough for plenty of end users, and if it's good enough for them, then who am I to argue?