On Apr 14, 2004, at 11:19 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:

> Only with managerial discipline could a FOSS project benefit from 
> contributed
> documentation, marketing, and usability resources.  Thus, we only 
> expect to
> see an emphasis on non-programming aspects of software development in 
> loss
> leader and externalized cost center projects.  Academic projects could 
> also
> emphasise non-progamming software development components but one 
> expects that
> departmental structures and grantsmanship would de-emphasize 
> para-programming
> in academic software development projects.

I used to believe that FOSS, particularly Linux, should try to improve 
on commercial software in terms of UI. Now I've moved over to the 
'slavishly copy' school. My advice to all FOSS writers is:

Copy Mac OS 9

failing that copy Mac OS X

failing that copy Windows

failing that, innovate.

> In this light it is worth noting that Red Hat has basically withdrawn 
> from the
> end-user desktop market.  Perhaps we should simply accept that Linux 
> (and
> most other FOSS) is for servers.  FOSS on the desktop is for 
> techno-geeks and
> those too poor to purchase proprietary software with higher quality
> para-programmatic features.

The problem is that it is very hard to support end user applications on 
generic Linux. There are too many window managers, themes for window 
managers and other choices which are left up to the user. And then of 
course there's KDE vs Gnome. I makes it impossible for me to know 
exactly what my program looks like running on your computer.

When Red Hat was on the desktop in a big way, vendors could simply say 
"We support this program on a default Red Hat installation, period." 
They can't really do that any more.

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss