On Wednesday 01 December 2004 09:25, you wrote:
> I agree with you that coming from a Windows background, it is easy to have
> the misunderstanding that Linux = Winodws so certain items, such as
> KDE/X/etc ARE Linux and there is no distinction made. However, I think your
> assertion is wrong. Linux is ONLY a kernel. It is not any of the GNU tools
> that are commonly installed in most distributions. As a result, to truly do
> what you recommend would require an installation procedure such as "Linux
> from Scratch" -- definitely not user friendly.
>
> Ultimately it is up to the distributions to determine who their target
> market is and what is considered acceptable for those users. I believe the
> larger issue is the simple fact that the majority of open source
> development is geared toward the user base. As of right now, a significant
> amount of the user base are administrators, programmers and other technical
> users. It has been my experitence that these users always have a terminal
> open on their desktop and are doing most of the file management via the
> shell. As a result, these areas get the eyeballs and the bugs get fixed
> faster.
>
> I think as Linux distributions start attracting more non-technical users,
> you will see many of these rough edges smoothed out and odd crashes
> corrected. I can easily see when companies start rolling out Linux boxes
> w/KDE to the desktop, any issue that arrises would be correctable by the
> companies IT staff (open source) and the patch rolled back to the main
> developers.
>
It is frustrating that apps such as Konqueror tend to crash now and then.
But I think even unsophisticated users can appreciate the difference between
an app crashing and the system crashing. Though I guess XP may be getting
close to Linux in its reliability.
> This is very much how Linux, Apache and other back-end systems have ended
> up becoming very good at what they do. This brings up another point -- if
> the software is designed by the people for the people, then I would imagine
> that if the people who use the software found issues with the ease of use,
> then perhaps they would decide that the solution needed to be improved
> either through a fork of the code, patches to the existing system or an
> entire new piece of software for that particular task.
>
> You are attempting to make an argument that Windows is easier to use.
> However, isn't it true that those same people in your example ONLY know
> Windows? Isn't it true that their entire concept of computing was shaped by
> using Windows? I think the issue is not so much that Linux is necessarily
> harder (infact, I find it more consistent, more predictable and therefore,
> easier to use) but the fact that people expect that Linux is a replacement
> for Windows and as a result, expect it to work the same.
>
I agree; Linux can be easier once you know it. Windows is easier for newbies
because it's usually preconfigured, and because hardware manufacturers ALWAYS
support it, with LInux as an afterthought.
> For example, when I started using Linux, I was shaped by a decade of
> Windows and DOS usage. Files were files, devices hid behind complex drivers
> and APIs, Windows shortcuts were absolute crap (they didn't link to files
> inside applications, attaching a link to an email gave the link not the
> file .. who wants the link??), DOS (command line) was dead and cumbersome,
> one user could use the system at a time, applications all used their own
> file formats, viruses/malware/etc was just "how computing is".
>
> Going to Linux, I am presented with the shell. After learing that dir was
> ls, copy was cp, etc, I thought to myself that this is a "dead system".
> Infact, after toying with it for not more than a few days, I DID go back to
> Windows for several years until the need arose to find a solution to a
> horribly unstable WinNT server. At that time, there was a lot of buzz
> around Linux and I thought it was best to know it. I ended up reading
> several books on Linux and open source (Ie the Cathedral and the Bazaar)
> and was slowly started to start thinking in the *nix mindset -- everything
> is a file, programs are small and can be linked together, the shell is very
> powerful for automating virtually everything, links (shortcuts) work,
> multiuser, use of client/server setups, configuration files as text makes
> sense, etc.
>
I started out on Unix so I always liked using the shell, in fact I ported a
lot of the Unix command-line utilities to DOS way before they were available
on the web. I got spoiled though by the GUI concept which is stronger in
some applications (particularly it's good for graphic programs, but for any
application you use intermittently and can't remember all the switch
options.) So I was glad when the Linux GUI's started becoming powerful and
reliable enough to use.
> It did take a while, but after I was truly able to distinguish between the
> Windows mindset and *nix mindset, Linux finally made sense. Infact, it
> started to become quite easy and (dare I say it..) fun to use.
>
> The issue is that commitment to immerse oneself into the mindset. People
> are resistent to change and *nix is a big mindset change from Windows. Is
> this a bad thing? I don't think so. The *nix unifying ideas (everything is
> a file, pipe metaphor, etc..) has survived through over 3 1/2 decades. The
> fact it is still being used and relavent today says a LOT about the
> foundation in which it was built. Compare this to the poor, conflicting
> ideas in Windows (Which the company every few years feels the need to scrap
> and "bet the company" on the latest incarnation (dos, win3, win95, winNT,
> winXP..)) and one has to step back and thing "I'm relearning how to do
> things every few years in Windows. With the *nix variants, they all share
> the same unifying ideas and have for decades .. learn once and expand on
> those ideas.."
>
This is what I love about Linux - you need to solve a problem, you can often
find a solution on the web, download and compile it and have it working in
minutes, all for free. The windows world lags behind in the advancement of
these open source solutions.
> Just something to think about ... :) I have been reading "The Art of Unix
> Programming" by ESR (http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/) -- the first section
> of the book talks about the philosophy, culture, and history of Unix. It
> also compares operating systems. Needless to say, I have (so far) found it
> quite interesting.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 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
---------------------------------------------------
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
(text/plain)