On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 06:04, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> 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.
----
that may be your advice but OS 9 is legacy and weak in terms of UI

OS X is just simply confused UI

Windows XP is close to a good UI - most people don't get the idea of the
difference between the two mouse buttons and hiding 'My Computer' and
'My Network Places/Network Neighborhood' is simply stupid.

I think that Gnome and KDE are close to usability to either OS X or
Windows XP

That isn't a big problem for desktop Linux.
----
> 
> > In this light it is worth noting that Red Hat has basically withdrawn 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.
----
All Applications pretty much have done away with the manual and replaced
it with online html help. Platform is not material. What is material is
that you have the people that are considered knowledgeable computer
people who buy the latest video card, sound card, etc. and struggle
getting them to work on Linux and their views often influence other
people's views who are less knowledgeable and less likely to spend money
and time on Linux. 

As for Red Hat, it was too problematic to try to be all things to all
types of users. To have a stable system for servers and cutting edge for
end users was impossible to keep together in the same distribution. They
have a system in place now that affords much more of both worlds -
allows them to tinker with the edge stuff but committed to delivering
stable to paying customers. It's a good program.

The Linux desktop is available for the taking and it seems as though
Novell is more than positioned to do just that. 

Craig

---------------------------------------------------
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