On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 07:32 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> Yes this is the correct way but Mr and Mrs Average User will not know
> how to choose the correct hardware in the first place. 

Which is yet another reason I don't recommend Linux to an average user

> Only when there
> is a critical mass of Linux user, the hardware vendors will provide the
> driver or the information to write a driver.

But many hardware vendors are already doing that. Most of the "big ones"
do for much of their hardware (either supply a driver, or supply the
info needed to write a driver).

> > Now, is Linux ready for the "normal" user? Nope. It still is something
> > that sometimes needs tweaking at the command line, and that's
> > beyond the majority of the computing public.
> 
> I believe command line is not a big problem. 

For an average user? It's a HUGE problem. Most average users are
completely terrified of the command line, they don't know what it is,
they don't WANT to know what it is.

> The hardware driver
> is a big problem. 

Not anymore, almost any type of hardware you want these days comes in a
form compatible with Linux.

> The incompability between different distributions
> is a big problem.

It used to be a huge problem, these days most distros are largely based
on a very small subset of distros. Incompatibilities still exist, but in
my experience are pretty minor these days. Certainly for "average" users
these incompatibilities are handled by most install scripts without
issue.

> > So, what do I recommend? Windows? Absolutely not.
> >
> > I recommend Macs. Yes, they are more expensive then they should be, yes,
> > I've never owned one, but heck, they sure are simple to get going. They
> > just work. They are limiting compared to Windows, but so what, most
> > computer uses don't use their computers for much more then word
> > processing, email and the web.
> >
> 
> That is a very strange recommendation since you have never owned
> one Mac...

Just because I've never owned a Mac doesn't mean I have alot of
experience with them, and know enough to recommend them.

> I do not have a Mac. However, take a new PIC hobbyist, what can
> he do with a Mac? There is no MPLAB. He needs to build gputils
> and sdcc. Does gpsim work under a Mac? Does piklab works under
> a Mac? At least MPLAB/gputils/sdcc/gpsim work under Windows.

Due to MacOS now being very *nix based (and even better, the hardware
now being x86 based), the porting of Linux type tools has become very
easy. As such PIC support in MacOS is very good. No MPLAB though, but
that doesn't bug many.

That said, we are talking about average users, and average user isn't
going to be programming a PIC.

> I will say all Apple product are over-hyped. 

How so? In what way are their PCs over hyped? They are more pricey then
I think they should be, but the hardware and software is pretty darn
decent, and very easy to use.

> Windows XP is pretty
> solid if used wisely. 

But we're talking average user. Average users aren't very wise very
often and will click on this "here's a photo of Britney Spears"
attachment. Have you ever supported Windows for an average user? It can
be beyond frustrating. MacOS support OTOH is pretty minimal (more
pointers on where to get stuff, less figuring out what button they
clicked to screw everything up).

> Linux is also getting better and better. Mac
> will only be a niche player. And Apple has dropped the"computer"
> from its name.

The amount Linux has improved these past 5 years is astonishing. Every
new drop has been better. It's not there yet for the average user, but
for most advanced users it's advantages over Windows FAR outweigh what
you give up, IMHO.

TTYL

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist