Dvorak: Linux too much like Windows

inode_buddha was among a handful of folks who submitted linkage to Dvorak's latest column where he talks about Linux being to much like Windows. It's not really a slam, just a challange to be more innovative and look beyond feature creep and UI concepts that are old and tired. Hard to disagree with most of it.

Comments

He doesn't like anything, huh?

[masonbrown]

He slams the Mac constantly for not being enough like Windows. It's innovating in a different direction, and that's an issue. Now Linux is copying Windows too much, and that's an issue.

I think this guy just bashes everything to get people riled up and to have people read his articles.

Re:He doesn't like anything, huh?

[Naikrovek]

That's what 99.999% (five nines) of journalists do, man. That's all they do. Its all they want to do. They lay awake at night thinking of ways to do it more often than they do it now. They want 6 nines. They love it.

My former boss was a journalist in New Zealand. She would find someone to interview on some travesty in thier lives or whatever, and she'd drive up to their house, and pretend her car was broken down and ask to use the phone. Then the number would be "busy" so she'd start talking, and then have tea and then they'd spilled their guts and it all went into the news paper.

A specific example: she was assigned to get the dirt on a woman that had been raped by a politician. The victim wouldn't talk to journalists, so my boss pretended to pass out outsite the woman's place of employment. the woman (as any woman would do) rushed to help the stranger. she "revived" my boss and she eventually blabbed her mouth off about everything, which went straight into the paper, with a twist of opinion gleaned from the personality traits she gathered from her "rescuer."

My point: I never ever ever ever ever trust any journalist that ever utters an opinion under a journalistic premise. The so called journalist Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor" show is a good example of someone to not listen to. John Dvorak is another.

of course do what you want, but be wary of anyone trying to sell you something - be it a car or an idea.

Re:He doesn't like anything, huh?

[SideshowBob]

As a Macintosh software developer for over 12 years, and a former Apple employee, let me try to explain why you think the Macintosh UE (User Experience) "just works' and the Linux one does not.

It's because of a combination of things:

1) Apple produces a comprehensive set of UE guidelines for application developers to follow

2) Apple spends ungodly amounts of man-hours ensuring that *all* of the API stacks (Carbon, Cocoa, Java) adhere to the guidelines

3) 3rd party software developers actually follow the guidelines (imagine that!)

4) The users are not only aware of the guidelines, they are activists when it comes to getting on a developer for breaking them (sometimes fanatically so, let me assure you!)

Do any of those 4 things seem doable in the Linux arena? If one group produced a set of guidelines, there would instantly be groups coming up with a competing set of guidelines, groups claiming that such guidelines are anti-Free(tm), and groups of developers thinking that by breaking the guidelines it makes them look rebellious.

Could one of the API stacks in Linux adhere to a set of UE guidelines? Sure, for all I know the Gnome or KDE developers already have a set of guidelines for their APIs. The key is that in order to have consistency, *all* API stacks need to adhere to the *same* set of guidelines.

The only way to have a UE on Linux that is 'good' in the same way as an Apple OS has a good UE is for a single company (say, Redhat) to develop a set of guidelines for its platform, put in the work to make all the APIs adhere to their guidelines, and evangelize developers of the advantages of following the guidelines. And then, perhaps most importantly, users need to get on the bandwagon and actually give a sh*t about how well applications that they use follow the guidelines, and give developers hell for breaking them.

Re:Hypocrite

[DShard]

I'm sure there is room for improvement. Simplicity and a quick learning curve should always be goals. From a seasoned users perspective I would like to see speed and ease of customization. I think there is still a little ways to go for Gnome, KDE and M$Windows.

embrace and extend

[kajoob]

My counter to Dvorak's argument is that is that if linux really wants to conquer the desktop, it needs to be EXACTLY like windows(sans all the security flaws). It's much too late in the game to try and woo new users with being 'different'. We must use Bill's own tactics against him. Embrace and extend, baby. Then once you have people scratching their heads and saying "hrmm, this linux thing....you mean it's exactly like windows but it's free? What the hell, I'm gonna use that!" At that point linux can begin to forge a new path in the desktop environment; It's just a matter of getting Joe User's attention right now and the almighty buck, I think, is the biggest factor.

Re:embrace and extend

[Shelled]

I doubt it's possible or necessary. If a group of Linux developers released a desktop environment which exactly cloned the XP desktop, they better start by retaining good legal representation. The MS legal team would come knocking at the first hint of market penetration.
The opinion is often expressed here that the average user can't cope with any variation from the MS desktop, yet they transitioned from 3.1 to 95/8 to 2k/xp easily enough. Most could handle a Mac. People aren't that stupid, give them a desktop close enough and they'll accept it. The major stumbling blocks as I see it are configuration utilities, lack of applications and, to a lesser extent, the insane dependancies of some programs.
Finally, I have to question the whole concept that the route to sucess is mimicry. Has it ever proven successful? In my chosen field of radio I've lost count of the number of program directors who've tried to clone a competing station and failed. At first glance the FVWM95 windowmanager could fool most into believing it was Windows, yet who uses it?

Re:Hypocrite

[Jason Earl]

Not to mention the fact that any differences from Windows are likely to get slammed by the users (and by pundits such as Dvorak) as being incompatible. Good, bad, or indifferent if Linux is going to take over the desktop it is going to have to be easy for the current group of Windows users to understand.

John shoots, John misses the mark

[Daniel Phillips]

Like a mainstream political party, Microsoft has firmly occupied the center, as that is way to maximize the allegiance of customers. John wants Linux to go off and be totally experimental and new - presumably so he can recapture that excitement of the early years of the PC revolution - but what happens is, as soon as you move away from center you lose appeal to those who don't like the direction you moved in. So John's recipe for Linux's success is really just a recipe for marginalization.

Another point he's missed so far is that Linux doesn't just move in one direction, it moves in many directions at once, so that you have a number of complete, well-developed environments each of which caters to certain tastes, all the way from text mode consoles to kde, which is more-or-less Linux for windows refugees, to experimental 3D environments. I suppose he would come back with the usual argument about how it doesn't make sense to divide effort across all those different projects, but then he'd just be ignoring one of Linux's great strengths, which is the sheer number of coders involved. In fact, trying to get them working obediently all on the same project at the same time would be shear insanity.

John, if you're reading this, and I guess you will, what you have to realize is that you do get to escape your boring old desktop metaphor and try something different, like a Tivo, which doesn't look like a desktop at all, plus you get to keep working the same way you always did, if that's what you want. It's about choice, and that's what Linux has. How's that for something new?

Re:Hypocrite

[archeopterix]

2D UI has become pretty much perfected, there is almost no way to improve upon it.

If by "UI" you mean "widget set" then perhaps you are right. Sadly, most developers think that a cool widget set will get them there, so a typical program is a labyrinth of menus and a few dozen buttons with strange and undecipherable icons.

The interaction sucks. Users have to perform many unnecessary actions. Why do I have to press "OK", read the "field value missing" dialog box, close it, fill the damn field and repeat the whole thing? Don't tell me that graying out the "OK" button untill all the required fields (which should be clearly marked as such) are filled is "dumbing down". It's a shame that document editors still need the "Save" button (this is an old example), when the edited file could easily and transparently get saved in the background. Irreversible changes? Why should they be irreversible? The disk space taken by saving the whole undo buffer is microscopic compared to modern disk sizes. Well, perhaps "label version" should get there instead of the "save" button, so that i can conveniently roll back to an old version without hitting "undo" 100 times. These are just a general examples that can be found in almost every application. Specific application have even more inconvieniences.

We got used to this so much that we don't even notice how crappy the UI is, but it is crappy and it can get better.

Hmmmm... Is there a silent majority here?

[aussersterne]

It seems to me that over the last year or two, there has been a flood of commentary focusing on what Linux should become in order to be useful, helpful, nice, good value, etc. etc. etc.

And all the while, each time I read one of these stories, I am secretly thinking to myself that I am quite satisfied with Linux as it is now. Linux+KDE3+OpenOffice+Mozilla+GIMP gives me the most enjoyable, productive computing environment I've ever had -- and I've had a lot of computers over the years (I was a 128k Mac owner, $3500 for a tiny monochrome scren and a 400k floppy!)

I sometimes wonder if there isn't a silent majority of Linux users who aren't at all interested in Linux-chases-Windows or Linux-chases-MacOS or Linux-needs-XYZ and who instead are just using Linux on a day to day basis and being glad it's the system that it is.

I'd hate to see this silent majority gradually lose the system they love as Linux is transformed into a Windows clone by vendors and project leaders who give too much credence to the voices of pundits (many of whom probably don't use Linux as their primary desktop anyway).

My $0.02.

Re:Hypocrite

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yes...indeed. I remember one of the major critcisms of the linux desktop in '97-98 (think Redhat 3.0.3) was that "I can't find anything", and "Where's the start button? This thing is broken!"

Wait a second!

[picone]

Well, If you take a close look, you will see many Windows improvements that reminds Linux technologies. Windows Update and Theme support are examples.

I could sit here and list a thousand of other features. Automaticaly clock adjust over Internet. How did if first? You know it was Linux.

The "problem" is that we, developers, became satisfied with a command line tool.

But now time has changed. And if we want to proove the World who powerfull Linux/Unix are, we have to provide an GUI for every program/feature we known in our lovely OS, because the Authors out there dont know to use command-line tools.

Agreed.

[krmt]

Seriously, how much is Linux really like Windows when you get down to it? A highly user-configurable kernel? Not in Windows. A strong UNIX-like set of userland apps? Not in Windows. A powerful and flexible network-transparent windowing system? Not in windows. Exceptional package handling for every piece of software on a system a la' apt-get? Not in windows.

There are plenty of things that Windows has that Linux doesn't as well. There's a full-featured API for just about everything, and it's all standardized. There's a consistent UI. And there's things like market share and a single dominating power behind it.

If you look at this list, about the only thing on it that most people are interested in is more market share, and the folks in Debian (as one example) don't particularly seem to care a whole lot about that. They, along with the likes of Slack and Gentoo, aren't trying for a single unifying API or UI. Some people want to unify the UI but most of us wouldn't actually want to see it happen, and for good reason. I'd be pissed if someone took away my pwm in the name of everyone else.

And as for innovation, well that's a tired argument. John, like everyone else who brings it up, can sit around and whine whine whine that they don't have their new vague super UI right now, but it's a load of crap. Innovation is constantly happening on the linux side, it's just not so apparent. John can bitch about wanting a new paradigm, but unless he's willing to put up some code then it's just not going to happen. You want a MacOSX type UI? Go contribute to GNUStep and get the fundamental groundwork down. You think X sucks? Go contribute to Fresco. Ultimately, if you're going to do something in free software, in order to attract attention these days of a million and one sourceforge projects you're going to have to do something good. You can moan about how windows-like KDE is, but if that's what people want then that's what is going to get the lion's share of coder and media attention. If you want something better then no one, including the KDE team, is stopping you from making it.

Ultimately, linux innovation happens in slow stages over many years, rather than in quick bursts. It's just the nature of the beast. Gnome and KDE are racing to outdo one another in every possible area, and the users are all the beneficiaries. You can't say that these projects haven't done well for themselves. They might not have come up with the most innovative stuff, but they do each have unique ideas that aren't found in Windows, Mac, or anywhere else. Innovation also happens under the hood. I'm a Debian user, and other Debian users probably know what I'm talking about. There's things like porting all of Debian to different kernels (the HURD, NetBSD, etc.) There's incremental improvements to dpkg and apt-get, including new frontends and the like. There's the debconf system which makes a good interface for dealing with package configuration. There's things like the alternatives system and apt-src. There's other examples, but you get the picture. I know other distros also have plenty of innovations that I'm not familiar with as well and this is the entire point. Projects compete because they can coexist (as can not happen in windows) so innovation comes from the ground up rather than descending from on high every two years as Windows releases anew. Innovation does happen, but just like watching a tree grow, it's not as impressive to see in real time.

Re:Hypocrite

[AvitarX]

Damn you are the funniest troll ever.

The problem with hyper simplicity is lack of functionality/custimization.

The problem with custimization is that it adds incosistency and complexity.

There is no way for a single consistent desktop to appease all power users and noobs alike.

You can go like Windows and force 3rd parties to make custimizations, or you can go like Linux and allow any user to access them. Probably they idea way is have a beginner/expert setting in the custimizations to keep people that don't feel they are experts away from obscure things (to them) like windows focus.

Also, was the Grandparent trying to imply that OSX was perfected? Because lots of unnessacery animation (zoom on mouse over of something plenty big to see already) is hardly what I would call a feature of a perfected UI.

Re:Ok, this guy is just plain wrong

[David Leppik]

Long ago, Microsoft recognized that features sell software--not code size, efficiency, or even a pretty interface.

This statement is 100% wrong. Most users never touch all the 'features' that windows ships with, they just use it for 4 things- IM, email, internet, and games.

Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. People buy based on what they hope to use, not based on what they actually use. Most people do comparison shopping (not just for computers!) based on the number of features they might use, not on which ones they will actually end up using. Only for very expensive products (e.g. a $500 cell phone/PDA) are most people likely to make comments like "sure it can surf the web, but is that easy enough to do that I'll really do it?" and "95% of what I'll be doing is making phone calls; how easy is that?"

The reason microsoft is in such a good position is that their OS has a very intuitive interface, and linux has nothing even close to what windows has.

The reason that Microsoft is in such a good position is that, even after the antitrust case, they wield enough power that major PC manufacturers aren't willing to experiment with even small quantities of alternative desktop OSes. The latest Linux versions (e.g. RH 8, Xandros) have a very good look-and-feel. What they lack is:

• an integrated GUI where cut & paste works consistently across every application-- even for graphics, formatted text, and tables (it's worked right on the Mac/Lisa for 19 years!);

familiar features. One reason M$ Office is so bloated that 80 percent of users use only 20 percent of the features-- but each user has a different 20%! Only the goofiest things can get cut. And while OpenOffice is up to 90-95%, that leaves a huge number of people's favorite features.

a foot in the door. This will be the easiest to fix, though, since Linux has already found its way into many a back office. The hard part will be getting major PC vendors to support it, what with M$'s still-present powers of retribution. Personally, though, my biggest problem with the way Linux GUIs are going is that it gets harder with every new distribution to find a way to keep the close button in the top left corner of the window where it's been for me since 1984 and where it belongs! :-)

he's a whore.

[twitter]

The whole point of the article seems to be to reasure windoze users that it's OK to never leave the start menue and precondition expectations for those who do so that they feel miserable when they do. He offers up Connectix Virtual PC as a representative of Linux, then tells us that it will prove that Linux sucks. Have a look at the, will you, then go back to sleep and keep sending your money he tells us.

Yes, the whole article is an ignorant slam. It's so stupid, that a starting point of constructive criticism is hard to find. He describes the whole free software world as a windoze deriviative born on x86 by "boring coders" and other uncreative types that lacks "features" of the only true software, Microsoft. That's the kind of insight you might expect from someone who's only experience with the free software world comes from having popped a CD into his machine for five minutes or so. Of course not one word is correct. True to the pure troll, he offers no useful alternatives to the things he does not like, except to stick with the M$ word of undefined features.

For those of you who might not be aware of this, the millions of free and open software coders of the world are much better researched than Dvorac. GNU/Linux has taken the best sofware concepts from all operating systems. It takes it's multi user security model from the Unix world. WIMPs came from Bell and Xerox Park, and many different GUI systems are available as free software. The most prominant and one of the most powerful is XFree86, a network aware base for many fine Window managers. Window managers of all descriptions and sources are available to run on top of X. You can get Virtual Reality and 3D desktops if you want them. Yes, it's true that you can make these window managers act just like M$ junk, but you can change that with a press of a theme button. Some prominant window managers come with a default that looks like M$ junk so new users can learn how to make the thing work at their own pace. You see, choice is what free software is all about. Developers and users are free to follow any fancy they have and it all works together. Most free software has been ported to other hardware and even different software platforms. I have not even mentioned the Berkely Software Distribution universe and it's derivatives in use by many including the very artsy Apple. Free software is also being adopted by the opposite end of the computer using specturm as well - the dull likes of IBM and Wall Street Bankers. You can take it and make it what you want, so anyone and everyone is now doing just that. They are are generally happy and wonder in time how they ever managed to get along in the coiceless and ever more rapicious propriatory software world.

Re:he's a whore.

[shellbeach]

I think you're so evangelical that you can't see beyond the propaganda. Try showing KDE to a standard windows user (i.e. not a geek who likes to tweak interfaces, but just an ordinary person who users computers to get things done) - you'll be amazed at their comments: "This is ugly. This is just like Windows. But why is it so slow? Why does every application start with a "g" or a "k"??"

Look, the guy really does have a point - KDE (and to a lesser extent GNOME) has always tried to copy windows and it's made it a far worse product as a result. It looks contrived, it's slow, and there's no good reason why anyone would want to use it instead of Windows, unless they cared about (a) opensource philosophy or (b) having to pay money for windows. Both KDE and GNOME are just as ugly and souless as Windows, and no amount of pro-Linux propaganda is going to miraculously fix this!

Compare this to Mac OS X - people use Macs even though they cost more and use monopolistic, proprietary hardware because the interface appeals to them. It means something to them, and that's even worth more than the extra costs involved in buying a Mac. Macintosh has always wanted to be seen as being different, as revolutionary, not recycling. If linux really wanted to succeed then it (read Linux-on-the-Desktop, read GNOME/KDE) would be best to develop its own style and glory in its uniqueness, not harp on about it's similarity to Windows! If people want to switch from Windows, they're not going to do it because it costs less. They're going to do it because Linux can offer more.

As a disclaimer, I should add that I use linux exclusively and yes, I'm happy in linux because I stick well clear of either KDE or GNOME and use some of the wonderful alternative interfaces that have been developed. There is good stuff out there, you're absolutely right. But this is so well hidden that a newbie will never find it - and this is Dvorak's point. The first thing a new linux user will see is the KDE desktop, and it's only if they're brave enough to experiment (fairly unlikely) that they will discover any of the software that makes linux a joy to use.

So please, don't start believing your own propaganda. If the first look at linux doesn't appeal to someone, perhaps you should pause and think - "hey, maybe there might be a reason for that", not automatically say "hmph! they don't like linux, they must be some stupid luser, what would they know!"

Re:Hypocrite

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The best user interface that I have yet found is still a command line.

When you figure out how to draw a picture with the command line, or edit a video, or make a 3D model, or even play checkers, let me know. Until then, graphical interfaces are here to stay.

The old saying is true

[ToasterTester]

The old saying "You become what you criticize" is ringing loud and clear. Linux is trying to beat Windows by criticizing it while at the same time emulating it to attract Windows users.

John also nailed a MAJOR problem in open source, developers are designing applications. Developers only see things from their perspective, but their view is 180 degrees away from the typical computer user. I ran into this as a Product Manager trying to convince developers to add some features. I had user surveys requesting all asking for a couple specific features and developers say we don't do it that way, so real users don't do it that way. Major mistake, you need to listen to the users your applications (or OS) is targeted for. This is what Linux advocates don't understand. Microsoft product technically are just good enough, but for users they are intuitive and easy to use.

That brings up another problem with open source, intuitive interfaces. Just because you look like Mac or Windows, doesn't mean you are as intuitive or easy to use. Apple and Microsoft spend millions on interface research. Testing ease of use and intuitiveness. Who in open source going to spend the money for that research?

Last thing Dvorak forget to mention is QA and QE. This is an area that only get token effort. It is boring specialized work and few volunteer to do it. Anyone who know anything about real software development know just having a lot of people banging on software isn't real testing. It is also the scary part of open source. They brag about how fast bugs are fixed, but who did all the testing to ensure the fix isn't creating new bugs of its own. Again having lots of people banging on software isn't going to find all the side effects lurking in code.

Linux like Windows?! WTF?

[Balinares]

I'd hate to see this silent majority gradually lose the system they love as Linux is transformed into a Windows clone by vendors and project leaders who give too much credence to the voices of pundits

Erm, have you been using any Windows recently?

I am made to use Windows at work, and the interface is just plain freaking backwards.

STILL no virtual desktop, making it awkward to develop with an IDE in full screen mode while keeping some documentation open at the same time.

STILL no way to control, resize, or move a window at ALL if the app is busy (or frozen, for that matter)! I mean, it's, what, almost year 2003? On what is supposed to be a friendly OS?!

In terms of GUI convenience, KDE is a fucking order of magnitude ahead of Windows, man. Still much lagging behind MacOS X, but then, what isn't.

I don't know for Gnome, but KDE is freaking NOT being turned into a Windows clone. Take a look at the KDE framework, one day. That thing is fucking brilliant. Want to make it look and behave like Windows (without such retarded 'features' as the windows unmovable when busy)? Sure, you can. That's how my mother's account on my box works. And guess what, she can find her way around it out of the box. Want to make it completely different in the way YOU need it? Sure, you can. Want to lock features to make an easy to use but impossible to corrupt kiosk? Sure, you can!

What is it with people bleating that we shouldn't keep running after the Windows world? We've passed them MONTHS ago, people!

Now Linux as an OS still has some serious usability issues (primarily, there's no global software installation system that Just Works[*], that's the biggest showstopper right now), but in terms of GUI, the Windows world is severely lagging behind. I switched to Linux out of laziness, for crying out loud!

[*] I've tried to stir up discussion about that a couple time, but most of the Linux community seems to have an inertia you wouldn't believe. The answers were basically, "Shut up and use apt-get", "Shut up and use RPM", or "shut up and use configure; make; make install". Erm, hello? I can and do use any of those. But my mom and my (now ex, sigh) girlfriend can't. Now, why should it matter? Well, we want people to port their software to Linux, and that implies, giving them a way to make it easy to distribute their software in a global way. I've spent a while thinking about possible solutions to that most hairy problem, but I guess that's food for another thread. This post is long and ranty enough as it is.

Anyway. Rant over. Flame with moderation, thanks.

Feature Creep

[SideshowBob]

Its a dirty word (well actually a phrase). Still, features *do* sell software. Take any full featured commercial application. Only a few users use every feature in that app. However, of the rest of the users that may only use a fraction of the features, there is lots of overlap. User A may use features X and Y but not Z, user B uses features X and Z but not Y, and so on.

Add site licensing and this is how you get lock-in. An organization may have hundreds or thousands of users, none of whom use every single feature, but they all use different features. For the organization to replace that site licensed app with something different, the replacement would need to match all the features that they do use.

The alternative is to convince them that they don't need those features and should do without. Thats a perfectly reasonable claim, but you can understand why its more of an uphill battle.

So while Dvorak is right, software does get more bloated over time, I can assure you, no one would bother with the effort of implementing a feature if literally no one would use it. Someone somewhere finds that feature useful. Journalists love to criticize feature creep, but what they don't seem to get is that just because they don't find a particular feature to be useful in their own work doesn't mean nobody does.

Re:Hypocrite

[mbogosian]

There is no way for a single consistent desktop to appease all power users and noobs alike.

There is: sensible defaults with varying levels of customization, and a clear but informative interface by which to perform that customization. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about (yes, it does exist):

For those of you who have used ximian's gnome distro with the sawfish window manager, you may have already experienced this. Ximian goes to great lengths to make desktop look & feel -- by which I mean the file browser (nautilus) and window manager (sawfish) -- a pretty simple experience for those just getting into it. The first time you log in, you're presented with a few choiced about what you want things to look like (sawfish & gnome themes), but behaviorally, you're given the defaults (reasonable and simple behaviors).

After that, most (at least everything even an advanced user would care about) of the behavioral / visual modifications can be done using one common interface: the gnome control center (please ignore KDE for the point of this discussion for a moment).

If you've ever used this interface to change the behavior of sawfish, you know what I'm talking about. Sawfish has several different screens (for different areas of its behavior & appearance) in the control center. In its "Meta" screen, one can even set the level of complexity regarding the other sawfish configuration screens. If I'm a novice (the default), I am only presented with a few options. More complex options are presented when I choose intermediate or expert.

To me, this is an outstanding way to provide simplicity as the default behavior with the configurability that power users demand. I hate window managers that don't allow me to remap modifier + mouse buttons to different behaviors. I've found a combination which I believe is much more efficient (and intuitive) for three-button mouse users as far as moving, resizing, etc. goes. If I'm not allowed to set this up, then that particular window manager (to me) is bunk.

This is one of the reasons I hate the RedHat 8.0 UI so much. The user interface is one of imposed simplicity. It's really difficult to find out how you can change metacity (if that's even possible). RedHat's new preferences interface is just as lobotomized. What's worse is that if you switch back to sawfish, all kinds of functionality (like logging out of an xession?!) breaks (thanks guys, real slick).

The problem is that power users are in the minority of desktop computer users. This is an unfortunate reality with which I still have not yet come to terms. The problem? Baby-boomers. There are so many people like my parents who are not technically proficient, who "just want the damn thing to work", but "don't want to have to understand or think about it". These are the people with the money, and these are the people to whom companies must market their products.

This is the reason why usability (real usability from the sense of the power user) takes second seat: FFM (Focus Follows Money). I hope sawfish continues to be integrated into the major distros (properly). I hope the technically proficient of the world will continue to donate their time and write free software that is usable by more than the common idiot. I hope that Windows will not define what is included and what is not in the desktop just because most of the desktop users are used to it.

But I'm not holding my breath, and I hate it.

Re:For people switching...

[Metzli]

That's true, but the average user probably considers Windows to be "free" anyway. When he/she bought a new PC, the odds are extremely high that it was shipped with some version of Windows. The average user buys a PC with Windows, never reinstalls his OS, and uses it to get things done. They rarely have to contact their hardware vendor, let alone Microsoft, so support and support costs are immaterial to them. They just want a machine that works and does so in a way that they understand.