> 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.
>
I agree that "from scratch" is not user frieldly now, but it could be made
just as turnkey as any of the major existing distros. The only difference
would be that you end up with a minimal system that boots up in command line
mode, and you install your favorite GUI distro as a second step.
> 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.
>
> 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're right, and that is already happening. The problem is that
expectations are set by Windows users. It was Windows (and Apple/Mac) that
brought computing to non-technical users to begin with. The difference is
that most people have no commitment in principal to Linux, and would rather
pay for convenience than learn something complex just to save a few bucks.
If you could get the kernel for free and get a will-written GUI front end
relatively cheap, I think that could be a viable contender for the mass
market. Right now KDE/Gnome are the weak elements in Linux for attracting
the mass market.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
I wouldn't argue with that. But the fact remains that many of the "Windows
surrogates" for Linux are not very well written. It is precicely that
philosophy of always building on the existing foundation that makes many of
those applications into kludges. Very often it also results in poor
performace and high latency in the UI. I still say that without a practical
commercial motivation that effectively addresses the needs of the mass
market, Linux will never be a viable competitor to Windows. The experiences
of guys like you and me are not relevant because we actually *like* the
technical aspect.
> 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.."
>
> 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
(text/plain)