How simple are newbies anyway? - Linux

This is a discussion on How simple are newbies anyway? - Linux ; * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo: > Linonut wrote: >> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo: >> >>> If you spend any time learning to do anything other than the most basic >>> things in Linux (web browsing, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 422

Thread: How simple are newbies anyway?

  1. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> If you spend any time learning to do anything other than the most basic
    >>> things in Linux (web browsing, Emails, etc.) then you'll probably have
    >>> at least some experience with the CLI. But it's not something to throw
    >>> at newbies the moment they have their first problem with the OS.

    >>
    >> Actually, it is sometimes easier to talk them through the command-line
    >> over the phone, than it is to talk them through a GUI.

    >
    > Yes, if you want them to call you again next time they have the same
    > problem because they didn't remember what the heck you told them.
    >
    > It's worth the extra time to explain it on a GUI once and never have to
    > tell them again because they can remember it, IMO.


    Nah, if it were a recurring thing, I'd send them a script to run.

    --
    Confession is good for the soul, but bad for the career.

  2. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Linonut wrote:
    > * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> If you spend any time learning to do anything other than the most basic
    >>>> things in Linux (web browsing, Emails, etc.) then you'll probably have
    >>>> at least some experience with the CLI. But it's not something to throw
    >>>> at newbies the moment they have their first problem with the OS.
    >>> Actually, it is sometimes easier to talk them through the command-line
    >>> over the phone, than it is to talk them through a GUI.

    >> Yes, if you want them to call you again next time they have the same
    >> problem because they didn't remember what the heck you told them.
    >>
    >> It's worth the extra time to explain it on a GUI once and never have to
    >> tell them again because they can remember it, IMO.

    >
    > Nah, if it were a recurring thing, I'd send them a script to run.
    >


    I still prefer teaching people how to use their computers independently
    without having to resort to other people's resources every time they
    have a problem, whether that's calling people asking for tech help
    because they can't remember the CLI commands, or relying on a script
    which someone else made. And I think GUIs are a good way of achieving that.

  3. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Linonut writes:

    > * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> If you spend any time learning to do anything other than the most basic
    >>>> things in Linux (web browsing, Emails, etc.) then you'll probably have
    >>>> at least some experience with the CLI. But it's not something to throw
    >>>> at newbies the moment they have their first problem with the OS.
    >>>
    >>> Actually, it is sometimes easier to talk them through the command-line
    >>> over the phone, than it is to talk them through a GUI.

    >>
    >> Yes, if you want them to call you again next time they have the same
    >> problem because they didn't remember what the heck you told them.
    >>
    >> It's worth the extra time to explain it on a GUI once and never have to
    >> tell them again because they can remember it, IMO.

    >
    > Nah, if it were a recurring thing, I'd send them a script to run.


    And explain about paths? And how to change them? And what script would
    solve their "recurring" problem?

    You're a fraud.

    --
    "**** you, you lying bitch. "
    -- Rick in alt.true-crime, comp.os.linux.advocacy

  4. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Ben writes:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>>
    >>>>> If you spend any time learning to do anything other than the most
    >>>>> basic things in Linux (web browsing, Emails, etc.) then you'll
    >>>>> probably have at least some experience with the CLI. But it's not
    >>>>> something to throw at newbies the moment they have their first
    >>>>> problem with the OS.
    >>>> Actually, it is sometimes easier to talk them through the command-line
    >>>> over the phone, than it is to talk them through a GUI.
    >>> Yes, if you want them to call you again next time they have the
    >>> same problem because they didn't remember what the heck you told
    >>> them.
    >>>
    >>> It's worth the extra time to explain it on a GUI once and never
    >>> have to tell them again because they can remember it, IMO.

    >>
    >> Nah, if it were a recurring thing, I'd send them a script to run.
    >>

    >
    > I still prefer teaching people how to use their computers
    > independently without having to resort to other people's resources
    > every time they have a problem, whether that's calling people asking
    > for tech help because they can't remember the CLI commands, or relying
    > on a script which someone else made. And I think GUIs are a good way
    > of achieving that.


    And, funny enough, so does the rest of the desktop world. Liarnut is
    showing off he knows a bit about shell scripting. Nothing new there.

    --
    "**** you, you lying bitch. "
    -- Rick in alt.true-crime, comp.os.linux.advocacy

  5. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    On 2008-07-21, Ben wrote:
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> If you spend any time learning to do anything other than the most basic
    >>> things in Linux (web browsing, Emails, etc.) then you'll probably have
    >>> at least some experience with the CLI. But it's not something to throw
    >>> at newbies the moment they have their first problem with the OS.

    >>
    >> Actually, it is sometimes easier to talk them through the command-line
    >> over the phone, than it is to talk them through a GUI.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, if you want them to call you again next time they have the same
    > problem because they didn't remember what the heck you told them.
    >
    > It's worth the extra time to explain it on a GUI once and never have to
    > tell them again because they can remember it, IMO.


    ....assuming they are any more prone to remember the GUI steps.

    They probably won't remember either.

    --
    Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
    better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
    want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
    rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  6. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > I still prefer teaching people how to use their computers independently
    > without having to resort to other people's resources every time they
    > have a problem, whether that's calling people asking for tech help
    > because they can't remember the CLI commands, or relying on a script
    > which someone else made. And I think GUIs are a good way of achieving that.


    Maybe. On the other hand, I've experienced users for whom even a GUI
    was no help.

    People have different approaches to things, and sometimes they have the
    /goofiest/ conceptions of things!

    And it takes a lot of handholding to get them over their mental hurdles.

    Anyway, a Windows example: Which is easier, talk a user through
    navigating to the correct network interface GUI to restart the network,
    or get them to open a DOS window and type "ipconfig /renew"?

    --
    I'm EMOTIONAL now because I have MERCHANDISING CLOUT!!

  7. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Hadron wrote:
    > Ben writes:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> If you spend any time learning to do anything other than the most
    >>>>>> basic things in Linux (web browsing, Emails, etc.) then you'll
    >>>>>> probably have at least some experience with the CLI. But it's not
    >>>>>> something to throw at newbies the moment they have their first
    >>>>>> problem with the OS.
    >>>>> Actually, it is sometimes easier to talk them through the command-line
    >>>>> over the phone, than it is to talk them through a GUI.
    >>>> Yes, if you want them to call you again next time they have the
    >>>> same problem because they didn't remember what the heck you told
    >>>> them.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's worth the extra time to explain it on a GUI once and never
    >>>> have to tell them again because they can remember it, IMO.
    >>> Nah, if it were a recurring thing, I'd send them a script to run.
    >>>

    >> I still prefer teaching people how to use their computers
    >> independently without having to resort to other people's resources
    >> every time they have a problem, whether that's calling people asking
    >> for tech help because they can't remember the CLI commands, or relying
    >> on a script which someone else made. And I think GUIs are a good way
    >> of achieving that.

    >
    > And, funny enough, so does the rest of the desktop world. Liarnut is
    > showing off he knows a bit about shell scripting. Nothing new there.
    >


    Same as the Linux world towards newbies.

    "I can write a shell script for you! Can you write them? Obviously not,
    because you're coming to my sad little hole for help!"

    It's a way for the Linux tards to get off on their technical "knowledge"
    and help themselves think they're more important than they really are.

  8. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2008-07-21, Ben wrote:
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> If you spend any time learning to do anything other than the most basic
    >>>> things in Linux (web browsing, Emails, etc.) then you'll probably have
    >>>> at least some experience with the CLI. But it's not something to throw
    >>>> at newbies the moment they have their first problem with the OS.
    >>> Actually, it is sometimes easier to talk them through the command-line
    >>> over the phone, than it is to talk them through a GUI.
    >>>

    >> Yes, if you want them to call you again next time they have the same
    >> problem because they didn't remember what the heck you told them.
    >>
    >> It's worth the extra time to explain it on a GUI once and never have to
    >> tell them again because they can remember it, IMO.

    >
    > ....assuming they are any more prone to remember the GUI steps.
    >
    > They probably won't remember either.
    >


    In my experience, people are far more likely to remember how to use the
    GUI than the CLI if you walk them through the steps.

  9. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:

    > It may have been a serious question ten years ago.


    Ten years ago we didn't have dumbed-down distros, and hence attracted a
    greater proportion of the type of people who were more likely to
    contribute than just leech.

    > If you want Linux to ever be a majority OS


    Well that's where your reasoning falls flat, right there, because I
    don't. I don't care one way or another, other than I care that Linux
    remains true to its roots.

    > you will have to accept that it will eventually be used by a lot of
    > dumbasses.


    It isn't so much their stupidity (or rather ignorance) that concerns me,
    it's their unwillingness to learn and contribute.

    > By now, there is enough look-and-feel padding on top of Linux that
    > rather few people should or should have to be using its CLIs.


    Exactly.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
    | armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
    | neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
    | technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    20:20:28 up 213 days, 16:56, 4 users, load average: 0.54, 0.32, 0.28

  10. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    > * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:


    >> I still prefer teaching people how to use their computers
    >> independently without having to resort to other people's resources
    >> every time they have a problem, whether that's calling people
    >> asking for tech help because they can't remember the CLI commands,
    >> or relying on a script which someone else made. And I think GUIs
    >> are a good way of achieving that.

    >
    > Maybe. On the other hand, I've experienced users for whom even a GUI
    > was no help.


    Teaching someone to dance round a GUI is a waste of time if that GUI
    changes (e.g. Office 2007), or if the user switches to a different GUI
    (i.e. Gnome -> KDE). Better by far to teach them the underlying
    principles, and yes also command-line switches, which tend to change far
    less often and less radically, and are interoperable between different
    GUI's on the same platform.

    > People have different approaches to things, and sometimes they have
    > the /goofiest/ conceptions of things!


    That's because they learned "Word" rather than /word processing/, or
    learned "Explorer" rather than directory navigation.

    This is one of the major issues with so-called teaching in today's
    schools, which don't so much teach computing, as "teach" Microsoft, and
    is one of the many reasons I despise encouraging people to accept the
    dumbed-down paradigm as "normal"; desirable or even /acceptable/.

    [snippage]

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
    | armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
    | neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
    | technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    20:31:14 up 213 days, 17:06, 4 users, load average: 0.40, 0.28, 0.27

  11. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >> * Ben peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >
    >>> I still prefer teaching people how to use their computers
    >>> independently without having to resort to other people's resources
    >>> every time they have a problem, whether that's calling people
    >>> asking for tech help because they can't remember the CLI commands,
    >>> or relying on a script which someone else made. And I think GUIs
    >>> are a good way of achieving that.

    >> Maybe. On the other hand, I've experienced users for whom even a GUI
    >> was no help.

    >
    > Teaching someone to dance round a GUI is a waste of time if that GUI
    > changes (e.g. Office 2007), or if the user switches to a different GUI
    > (i.e. Gnome -> KDE). Better by far to teach them the underlying
    > principles, and yes also command-line switches, which tend to change far
    > less often and less radically, and are interoperable between different
    > GUI's on the same platform.
    >


    See, this is the problem. Show them the basics first (GUI) and then
    teach them how to do it in the command line if and when they want to
    learn to use that. Yes, GUIs will change, but it usually suits a newbie
    just fine, at least until they're ready to see what's beneath.

    The fallacy here can be expressed with the following rhetorical
    question; how can an average user understand the underlying workings
    when they don't first understand what's slapped on top of it and what
    they spend most of their time working with?

  12. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:


    >> If you want Linux to ever be a majority OS

    >
    > Well that's where your reasoning falls flat, right there, because I
    > don't. I don't care one way or another, other than I care that Linux
    > remains true to its roots.



    I admire your Puritanism, and I can see that your skin crawls when you
    rub elbows with the rabble, but without a big usage share (say at least
    10%), Linux users are forever in a software desert.


    >> you will have to accept that it will eventually be used by a lot of
    >> dumbasses.

    >
    > It isn't so much their stupidity (or rather ignorance) that concerns me,
    > it's their unwillingness to learn



    Isn't that what ignorance is?


    > and contribute.



    I don't see that user contribution is an essential element of Linux or
    of free software generally. The GPL doesn't say that users have to
    contribute. It says that nobody can monopolize their own or others'
    contributions.

    Noblesse oblige.

  13. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:
    > Homer wrote:
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:


    >>> If you want Linux to ever be a majority OS

    >>
    >> Well that's where your reasoning falls flat, right there, because I
    >> don't. I don't care one way or another, other than I care that
    >> Linux remains true to its roots.

    >
    > I admire your Puritanism, and I can see that your skin crawls when
    > you rub elbows with the rabble


    You apparently perceive my reasoning to be "elitism", whereas all I am
    trying to do is save Linux from becoming redundant through assimilation
    of the Windows paradigm. If Linux "becomes" Windows, both in a technical
    and financial (and even political) sense, then there would simply be no
    reason for it to exist at all, since one might just as well buy Windows
    and be done with it. Essentially I am advocating /choice/, by attempting
    to protect one particular choice that seems to be in imminent danger of
    being eradicated by those less "puritanical" elements in our community.

    > but without a big usage share (say at least 10%), Linux users are
    > forever in a software desert.


    Well allegedly Linux is already far below that market share, and yet I
    don't exactly feel like I'm living in a technological desert. Other than
    this unhealthy trend towards popularism, I don't have much of a problem
    with the current state of Linux at all.

    >>> you will have to accept that it will eventually be used by a lot
    >>> of dumbasses.

    >>
    >> It isn't so much their stupidity (or rather ignorance) that
    >> concerns me, it's their unwillingness to learn

    >
    > Isn't that what ignorance is?


    You didn't think very hard about that at all, did you?

    Ignorance is a /lack/ of knowledge, not an /unwillingness/ to acquire
    it. People may be /currently/ ignorant and yet still willing to learn
    (indeed every single one of us /was/, earlier in life).

    >> and contribute.

    >
    > I don't see that user contribution is an essential element of Linux
    > or of free software generally.


    You didn't think about that very hard either.

    Free Software exists because those who use it contribute to it, and
    pretty much /only/ for that reason.

    Yes, there are also paid engineers at places like Red Hat; Novell; and
    even the NSA ... pretty much everywhere, but the momentum that keeps
    Linux going is its /user/ generated "content", since it is only those
    users who know what /they/ want from their Free Software (unlike
    proprietary software, where the vendor dictates what /you/ want).
    Without users' enthusiasm to contribute, Linux will end up becoming a
    one-size-fits-all system (like Windows) that bears no relation to what
    users want. IOW, as I indicated above, it will "become" Windows, and
    thus utterly redundant. I advocate /choice/, not unification.

    > The GPL doesn't say that users have to contribute.


    This isn't about what they /must/ do, it's about what we should
    /encourage/ them to do. Dumbing-down the Linux XPerience does the
    complete opposite, since it encourages people to not think; not learn;
    and not contribute. We're breeding sheep.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
    | armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
    | neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
    | technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    11:43:03 up 214 days, 8:18, 3 users, load average: 0.39, 0.29, 0.28

  14. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Homer writes:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:
    >> Homer wrote:
    >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:

    >
    >>>> If you want Linux to ever be a majority OS
    >>>
    >>> Well that's where your reasoning falls flat, right there, because I
    >>> don't. I don't care one way or another, other than I care that
    >>> Linux remains true to its roots.

    >>
    >> I admire your Puritanism, and I can see that your skin crawls when
    >> you rub elbows with the rabble

    >
    > You apparently perceive my reasoning to be "elitism", whereas all I am
    > trying to do is save Linux from becoming redundant through assimilation
    > of the Windows paradigm. If Linux "becomes" Windows, both in a technical
    > and financial (and even political) sense, then there would simply be no
    > reason for it to exist at all, since one might just as well buy
    > Windows


    What about the legend stability and the OSS'ness of the kernel? You sure
    jump around in your beliefs. One could almost imagine that you are quite
    barmy.

    > and be done with it. Essentially I am advocating /choice/, by attempting
    > to protect one particular choice that seems to be in imminent danger of
    > being eradicated by those less "puritanical" elements in our
    > community.


    Nothing is in danger of being eradicated. I mean, how can you eradicate
    something that is Free and free? Don't you get a boner about there being
    500 distros? Admittedly 495 of these have an install base of about 3,
    but thats choice for you!

    >
    >> but without a big usage share (say at least 10%), Linux users are
    >> forever in a software desert.

    >
    > Well allegedly Linux is already far below that market share, and yet I


    Allegedly? LOL. Dont be a moron. It's well below that. If it wasn't
    people out to make a penny would have figured it out and be advertising
    their compatibility with it.

  15. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    * Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > I admire your Puritanism, and I can see that your skin crawls when you
    > rub elbows with the rabble, but without a big usage share (say at least
    > 10%), Linux users are forever in a software desert.


    Sounds like you're claiming Linux is at 10%. I don't see any "software
    desert".

    If you mean Linux is arid as far as "popular commercial programs" go,
    well, I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.

    --
    * * * * * THIS TERMINAL IS IN USE * * * * *

  16. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:59:14 -0500, Matt wrote:


    > I don't see that user contribution is an essential element of Linux or
    > of free software generally. The GPL doesn't say that users have to
    > contribute. It says that nobody can monopolize their own or others'
    > contributions.
    >
    > Noblesse oblige.



    I would argue that just by using Linux they're introducing more people to
    the idea of an alternate OS, which is a good thing. I don't understand
    this concern about "leeches", unless you're talking distros.

    Sabayon mystifies me. It's gentoo, but screwed up so that emerge is
    crippled and bugs don't make it to gentoo. weird and pointless.

    However, the users are fine.



    -Thufir

  17. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Linonut wrote:

    >* Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> I admire your Puritanism, and I can see that your skin crawls when you
    >> rub elbows with the rabble, but without a big usage share (say at least
    >> 10%), Linux users are forever in a software desert.

    >
    >Sounds like you're claiming Linux is at 10%. I don't see any "software
    >desert".
    >
    >If you mean Linux is arid as far as "popular commercial programs" go,
    >well, I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.


    I think it is. Would not the world in general be better-off of more
    people switched to Linux? Think of the saved $billions of resources -
    not only in the price of M$ software, but in fighting spam and
    malicious software.

    And what's a BIG reason why many do not switch? The unavailability
    of key commercial apps like Quicken.

    --
    "Please give up pretending you're an advocate." - "True Linux
    advocate" Hadron Quark


  18. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Linonut wrote:
    > * Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> I admire your Puritanism, and I can see that your skin crawls when you
    >> rub elbows with the rabble, but without a big usage share (say at least
    >> 10%), Linux users are forever in a software desert.

    >
    > Sounds like you're claiming Linux is at 10%. I don't see any "software
    > desert".
    >
    > If you mean Linux is arid as far as "popular commercial programs" go,
    > well, I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.
    >


    Agreed. Many people use Linux because it gives them a better option of
    using non-commercial (FOSS) software. The only commercial software I'm
    inclined to use is games. Apart from that, I'm happy with all of the
    free software which works just as well as the commercial stuff I'd have
    to pay extortionist prices to use.

  19. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Ben writes:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> I admire your Puritanism, and I can see that your skin crawls when
    >>> you rub elbows with the rabble, but without a big usage share (say
    >>> at least 10%), Linux users are forever in a software desert.

    >>
    >> Sounds like you're claiming Linux is at 10%. I don't see any "software
    >> desert".
    >>
    >> If you mean Linux is arid as far as "popular commercial programs" go,
    >> well, I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.
    >>

    >
    > Agreed. Many people use Linux because it gives them a better option of
    > using non-commercial (FOSS) software. The only commercial software I'm
    > inclined to use is games. Apart from that, I'm happy with all of the
    > free software which works just as well as the commercial stuff I'd
    > have to pay extortionist prices to use.


    Fancy a game of OpenArena some time? its come on very nicely. Corkscrew
    is amazing.

    --
    I really think XP is going to be a flop. Between the glut of hardware out
    there (and slowing down of purchasing), and the fact that W2K is
    sufficient for so many casual users.... I just don't see it taking off.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  20. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    * chrisv peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >>If you mean Linux is arid as far as "popular commercial programs" go,
    >>well, I'm not convinced that is a bad thing.

    >
    > I think it is. Would not the world in general be better-off of more
    > people switched to Linux? Think of the saved $billions of resources -
    > not only in the price of M$ software, but in fighting spam and
    > malicious software.


    Yeah, but you're also yoking your system to the desires of a horde of
    selfish interfering jerks who want to lock you into their products.

    > And what's a BIG reason why many do not switch? The unavailability
    > of key commercial apps like Quicken.


    I wonder just how many people, who already have Quicken, would pay for
    another copy of it just to be able to run it on Linux?

    I would simply export my Quicken data and import it into GNUcash.

    --
    It is necessary to have purpose.
    -- Alice #1, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast