Hi folks,
Have I missed the point? Did Digital Research create the GUI in vain? (DR was before Gates, Jobs or Linus mind). Was the 'desktop' that graphic thingy on screen showing replicas of file folders you could point at with the mouse cursor and click click to open to find your files all in vain? I think not! If it is so bad, why do most Linux distros offer the GUI desktop?
Surely booting your machine to view on screen some icons that by pointy-clicky gets you where you want to be to do what you want to do - even play with C++ if that is your wish. Why do it the hard way - even if you can do it the hard way? So it is purer computing - so what??? I suppose if you spend your day typing machine code you may not need the desktop that the 99.999% of computer users do. I can open a directory on a drive, navigate to a program folder, find the exe file or other trigger - I used to do it in CP/M and DOS but why type out a path when you can point and click? The icon is after all a short cut to where you want to be, it is in effect a virtual command line.
I think it is the command line mindset that puts most people off Linux and locks 'em into 'doze. If Linux was perceived as 'doze but better and dare I say cheaper ('cos most of it is FREE) but as easy to use via pointy-clicky 'doze style 'desktops then I'm sure there'd be many many more users. Lets face it, most home computers have a form of doze pre-installed so the can switch on and point. They couldn't care two hoots how the magic of pointy-clicky works - just that it works for them. And then when it all falls apart, they call the guru in or go back to PC World. In most cases that's extra profit for some-one! Ain't I a cynic eh?
Just my twopen'orth mind!
BD.