Slashdot Mirror
Linux vs. Windows: Choice vs. Usability
ThaReetLad writes "In this article at DevX, Executive Editor A. Russell Jones makes the case for a standardised GUI for Linux. He argues that the promotion of choice of GUI as a positive feature of using Linux is detrimental to its chances of attacking Microsoft's home user monopoly. From the article: '...the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.' In particular he argues that the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on, and that they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any applications they might want to use."
My father-in-law worked as a travel agent at one time. He said travel agents never give more than three choices to a client. If you gave them more, they'd have to go home and think about it.
People don't like making choices, it takes away time, energy, and they risk being wrong. That's one thing Windows (and Apple) does well, all choices are made for you.
The problem I have with the post is that it does NOT have to be a zero-sum game. If someone wants to make a distro of linux that provides limited choices, what's stopping them? Why does every distro have to be limited in choices. That mentality makes no sense.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
We have a standard desktop? Not with linux you sure as hell don't. Is KDE the standard desktop? (flamewar insues) is CDE? (flamewar insues). What are the advantages of emacs and vi? (flamewar insues).
If you can't tell from this why someone who doesn't like geeky things (aka average computer user) is put off by linux...
On a side note I think would be rather nice of distros of *nix and gui's and etc. would specify what they think they should be used for. A given windows distro explicitly states what it is for: Small business, server, home use, hand held, etc. On linux? You've get twenty distros all trying to do everything. Give these people something to grasp!
Despite the editor's lack of insight into Linux GUIs, that comment was uncalled for. It's comments like those that stop Windows users (be they simply home users, or actual tech savvy people) from switching over to Linux, whether you mean them or not. Grow up.
I've installed various distros of Linux (Redhat, Pogo?, and one other (maybe Slackware?)) and maybe it was just my total lack of patience but it seemed like I could get something to work on one distro and not on another. Graphics card would/wouldn't work, ethernet would/wouldn't work, sound would/wouldn't work. I actually started keeping a notebook around to write down the methods I got things to work. Sometimes it'd work again and sometimes it wouldn't.
Then once I got everything working I'd have to figure out which GUI(s) were installed on it. Sometimes they'd work and sometimes they wouldn't. Mostly due to video card issues I'm sure.
Then if I got the GUI to work I couldn't figure out head from tails how to get programs installed. Most everything that I downloaded it felt like I had to build or download from CVS or some weird junk like that.
Eventually I gave up on wasting my time and went back into Windows. Then my Windows machine bombed out (CPU overheated I think) so I scrapped it for parts and now am over joyously running Mac OS X. Yeah it's more expensive, yeah I *used* to have a one button mouse, yeah it looks like a lamp... whatever. I know I have a good and solid OS underneath all those fancy widgets (which is why I wanted to install Linux in the first place) and I have those fancy widgets (which is why I always went back to Windows). Everything works and to get applications installed I just copy them into a directory and voila! Yes on occassion some random freeware/shareware program doesn't work for some reason or another. But overall I think it's a good middle ground between Linux and Windows.
I'm not by any means knocking Linux. I know most a good 25% of the people here probably can get it to run in their sleep and I applaud you for it. But I just don't have the patience I suppose. It's not that I'm afraid of breaking something. It's just that after a weeks worth of trial and error it sorta makes you discouraged.
At the end of the day, most people don't give a toss what the name of the thing running their desktop is, or why KDE is better than GNOME or vice versa. They just want a consistent desktop and a consistent set of apps running on top of it.
Of the distributions so far, Red Hat has clearly gotten the message. The RH9 desktop with bluecurve theme throughout is a wonderfully put together desktop. It's only when you contrast it with the slapdash Mandrake desktop for example that you appreciate the difference that consistency makes.
Do we then really want to take over the desktop?
I think having a majority of desktops running Linux would be a huge boon! No more searching to see if ALSA supports your latest/greatest sound card, no more searching to see if the latest/greatest graphics card is supported and has full hardware acceleration in 2D and 3D. When you "own" the desktop, suddenly device manufacturers find it prudent to write the drivers for you.
No more Wine/what-have-you to run some of those fantastic commercial apps under Linux (and spottily at best for some). The manufacturers will find it in their best interest to do a straight port to Linux to get to the most users.
So, IMO, yes, we do want to own the desktop
If we have to become like Microsoft to defeat Microsoft, then what's the point?
If by "become like Microsoft" you mean suddenly having questionable business practices, then obviously you don't. If you mean writing easily breakable software, you don't have to do that either. Why would we have to become like Microsoft??
KDE has Human Interface Guidelines already, and they're really completely nondescript and aren't very cohesive at all. Gnome 2's are really much better and even match Apple's fairly well, in my opinion.
Well, a Windows user is capable of making a choice. Do not consider a windows user to be a moron by definition as he/she aint.
I have several ex-windows users around me which are by all means linux users now. When I say by all means they are using it. They are not administering it, configuring it, tweaking it or in any other way wasting their time. They actually use the machine for work.
And guess what they use - good ole Windowmaker with the standard brushsteel Debian theme (yes they have tried Gnome, Kde, XFCe, whateverE and they hated every moment of it). After all, people severely understimate the extent to which people like their machine being fast (even when it is a PIV at 2.4) with half a gig of RAM.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
> What did you have trouble adjusting?
The panel was most annoying. Can I make my GNOME panel look like this?
In general, GNOME's UI is just barren compared to KDE's. When you view the properties of KDE components, there are generally lots of configurables. In my experience with GNOME, I found the opposite to be true. Walk through KDE's control center, and then through GNOME's. I hope you'll see what I mean.
Another issue was how badly Konqueror kicks the crap out of Mozilla when it comes to speed and responsiveness. I'm not knocking one or the other, I like them both and I realize Mozilla's design as a cross-platform application framework contributes to this. But Mozilla has tangible performance problems, and GNOME integrates Mozilla. This is a problem for me.
> When was the last time you used it?
I used it about a week ago and went back to KDE after a few hours. I was pretty disappointed because, as I said, I really want to like GNOME.
-Nick