radical revamping of techpubs

[Chris Borokowski]

I'm not sure the question here is one of quality as much as different
purposes.

If you want most stuff to install quickly and work the first time, want
flexibility about what hardware you can use, and want compatibility
with most people out there, Windows is a clear winner, and most users
never see a blue screen of death.

If you want a UNIX-like operating system that's free and gives you some
flexibility of hardware, but don't mind fiddling with software and OS
settings, Linux is a good choice.

If you want a stable snazzy operating system, and want few hardware
choices and don't care what it costs you or how often it breaks down,
you pick Macintosh.

I think there's an important lesson there for TWs. User profiles are
generally a big time-waster when people make up users complete with
names and histories. But recognizing the different general functions
users want to fulfil, and as a result the choices they make, is really
important.

Not everyone wants the bulletproof operating system. If they did, we'd
all run BSD ;)

--- Technical Writer <tekwrytr at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Quality is primarily a subjective opinion; witness the 90+% of the
> population of the planet using Windows, despite the occasional Blue
> Screen of Death, or necessary re-booting orre-installing required.
> Similarly, whether a product is crap or not is again an opinion, not
> an objective evaluation that can applied in all cases. The Debian
> flavor of Linux is considered "the best" by some, and "the worst" by
> some. The opinions are subjective.


http://technical-writing.dionysius.com/
technical writing | consulting | development

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com