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."
Windows has the same problem. The Win98 desktop is NOTHING like the XP desktop. Each edition they release is a little different in terms of menu placement, control panels, what's where... The only advantage is that they release one at a time, so there is only one current OS. But to go between Windows machines, you still have to adjust and know what you're doing.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Surely this is the job of the distributers not the developers.
How many times have Linus or others said that the goal for Linux is NOT to attack Microsoft's monopoly, but simply to provide a freely usable and stable UNIX-like operating system for anyone who wants it. These analysts can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that "Linux" is not just another company out to rule the desktop.
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.
Whether or not I agree with the conclusions, for the time being let's accept them for the sake of argument.
Suppose that the current goals of the open source community (freedom, choice, etc.) are inconsistent with GNU/Linux taking over the desktop.
Do we then really want to take over the desktop?
If we have to become like Microsoft to defeat Microsoft, then what's the point? *If* we were just another proprietary software company, then, yeah, sure, that's the right thing to do. Since, after all, the ultimate goal of any company is just profit. The open source community is very different. The community isn't going to get rich and retire. They're mostly in it because they like the software and they like the freedoms. Changing the things you like to something you don't like so as to win a competition that may come down to little more than a pissing contets seems counter-productive.
In any event, it's moot. The mere fact that open source has the freedoms it has means that choice will simply not go away. Yeah, KDE and/or Gnome may become the "advertising standard" that we use to draw people away from Windows desktops, but unless legislation makes free software illegal, things like X and FVWM and all the other "oh it's so confusing save me from having to choose" things that we hear whining about simply aren't going to go away, because the people who write them want to write them and won't stop in the name of some corporate strategy.
-Rob
I don't care if we attack Microsoft's monopoly, or takeover the desktop. Since when do I care one bit about 'the average user'? I'm using Linux because it works for me, if Windows works for someone else then let them use it. If you take away the choice, then to me, you're saying that one size fits all, which is completely untrue.
Besides, there's already distros that have 'standardized' certain desktops for their userbase. Most converts I know are happy with that...
Don't take my desktop away.
Would it be fair to say then, that Red Hat has the right idea trying to make a standardised GUI using the bets bits of (predominantly) GNOME and KDE?
Having used Bluecurve'd GNOME over other versions of GNOME, it really is a superb piece of work.. definately the way forward imho, and a huge improvement over the standard.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
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.
So the argument goes something like this:
"In order to beat Windows, which all Linux users think sucks, they should try to make it more like Windows."
Yeah. That plan's not doomed to failure.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
This WorkStation thing is a big problem that can (and currently is) hold back more adoption of Linux in the desktop.
;)
We have reached a state where almost every WorkStation job can be performed efficiently on Linux, with a great selection of apps and tools that compare and in a lot of cases surpases their Win/Mac counterparts, but (unfortunately) the users have been taught to rely a lot more in the OS/Desktop than it should be, instead on the applications that implement the functionality.
If you ask Joe User "what is windows?" he will start talking about the task bar, the Start Menu and a lot of images that user has fixed in his mind. If you try to push linux on them, you must have a familiar look that they can be used to, even when they sit in a different computer. I'm not talking about us geeks but the everyday users that ultimately stack up to give Windows the 95% (or so) in the Desktop market.
I have said it before and will continue to say it, Linux has been ready for a long time for the Desktop, the applications are ready and even a lot of users are ready to use it, but the main goal of Linux is also holding it back: choice.
It's a complicated issue, the freedom of choice is what got us to use Linux, and I love to use gFTP and Evolution on KDE, but that freedom of choice is also scaring potential users away.
My vote goes to KDE too
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
The whole "Standard GUI" is far from the problem. It may be a small part of the problem, but the lack of a standard GUI isn't what keeps the average user away! I have never heard someone say "I would like to try Linux, but there are just to many choices of GUI's."
I think the one major thing that keeps users away from Linux is the fact that you can't just go to the store and buy some software or hardware and just put it in and it magically works. Sure there has been a lot of progress made in this area but it is no where near what it is for those other operating systems. If more hardware vendors would start releasing drivers for Linux and these software companies would start porting there applications to Linux this would be a whole new ball game. Without some help from the rest of the PC industry Linux never has a chance at cutting in to the MS monopoly.
The problem is the term Linux. And RMS's GNU/Linux DOESN'T improve things at all. It is an issue of branding.
Linux is a kernel. Yeah, the systems use GNU tools for System (UNIX, user space stuff) level things, but that isn't the issue.
The ideal would be to DROP Linux from the branding effort (like MS dropped NT from their branding when they wanted to make it the mainstream system, otherwise consumers don't want to pay for "pro" level software).
If RedHat develeped three platforms:
RedHat Advanced Server (powered by Linux)
RedHat Workstation (powered by Linux)
RedHat OS (powered by Linux) [hey, shell out $20k for branding consultants, I'm not a naming guy)
note: Mandrake, SUSE, and anyone else that wants to play should do the same.
then RedHat would be promoting RedHat as the OS. They could then standardize, and utilize Linux's brandawareness in the "powered by" portion, without this problem.
The "open source" effort is about freedom, and a consequence of that freedom is choice, which I see as a benefit. However, that isn't "useful" for end users.
For Example, you should be able to go into a store, and pick up a CD not for "Linux" (requires glibc X.Y+, Linux kernel 2.X.Y+, etc.), but for RedHat, or for Mandrake, etc., then you would accomplish what this guy wants.
RedHat should have a standard look and feel across their consumer and workstation OSes. You should be able to buy "Redhat compatible" software (requires RedHat 9.0 or higher). Now, tech companies could STILL release "software for Linux," but the box could state RedHat 9.0 or Mandrake 9.0 or higher.
In that case, there is NO need to drop KDE or GNOME or whatever. Hackers can do whatever they want. However, the "commercial" install should include RPMs or whatever for whatever distribution they want.
RedHat should have a logo certification, as should Mandrake and any other players.
To have the RedHat logo, you should have to sport a "blue curve" look and feel.
In addition, the "installation" programs should rethink the options a bit.
Sure, the Server piece should let you super customize it, and maybe a free downloadable ISO "hacker edition" as well. However, installation options should affect applications, NOT libraries.
I should be able to target a certain edition of RedHat (or Mandrake, or SUSE), and KNOW what libraries are installed. It is absolutely REDICUlOUS how many libraries are options.
Real simple, if KDELIB isn't installed in the "base," then KDE apps aren't "supported."
The problem isn't an issue of technology existing (afterall, Windows has had Progman/Explorer replacements forever), it's an issue of the branding.
Getting software for "Linux" requires knowing what libraries are installed.
Getting software for Windows or Mac OS X requires knowing what version is installed.
I may need to have Jaguar or 10.2.3 or higher, or whatever for my Powerbook software. I never need to have a particular optional library installed.
And THAT is why Linux is having trouble on the desktop.
Leave the technologists alone, but "Linux" companies, reorganize your installation/brand awareness if you want the desktop, corporate or otherwise.
Alex
Also, a few websites don't work (they were tested on IE only). If MS gets much more market share we can expect them to subvert HTML/Javascript with IE only features, which will mean that you have to have IE to access the web. With the demise (finally) of NS Navigator 4, that seems possible to me.
But if we get just 5-10% market share, we cannot be ignored. Only a website run by morons would shut that much of its potential audience out, and people would stop using .doc as a standard, more games would be made for Linux, etc. That's why it's important that a certain number of Joe Blows switch from Windows.
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
I am the author of icewm, one of the choices
For one choice only, I would choose mozilla ie. the XUL toolkit.
Why? Because XUL is XML and not directly dependant on C or C++ bindings.
Because I simply don't see the problem of C vs C++ toolkit choice resolving itself any time soon. And there are other choices too, like Java Swing, and whatever mess they will do with C#/WinForms/Wine.
What we really need is a more abstracted core desktop, more document oriented (and more like www.nakedobjects.org but based on XML interfaces) and less app centric. This will allow more decoupling between GUI and actual applications.
Well, there's no reason that distribution vendors can't do as Red Hat has done and essentially do their best to merge the two major desktops in terms of look/feel and default appliations. Personally I don't give a rat's hindquarters what will get Linux a bigger "share" of the desktop. This is the flawed thinking of the open source movement, that somehow things like "market share" are measures of success.
Not true. Absolute freedom in the software is what's important. As long as we have that, any GNU/Linux vendor in the world is free to cooperate with other vendors and standardize or not standardize as they see fit. A properly functioning economy (both in terms of money and ideas) requires lots of small companies (suppliers) all competing for the dollars/yen/euros/attention of the consumer.
At this time, however, the majority of GNU/Linux users (fortunately) value freedom and choice. Any move to "dumb down" the GUI or make it more rigid without providing a big red button that says "click here if you want to take back complete control of your system" will simply alienate the current user base (that would be those of us who contribute dollars, time, or money to groups like the FSF, Debian, KDE, or even SUSE or RedHat in the form of buying the box sets).
Personally I feel like users expect too little from their systems, and too little from themselves as well. Computers are complicated machines that require a certain level of know-how. If the user wants simple, I don't see how they can go wrong with existing distributions like Red Hat.
The idea that we should "start with a standard GUI" (to quote the article) is nonsense. What we need is to demonstrate value to users, both in terms of the value of freedom (which is pooh-poohed in this article, I think) and in terms of the excess funds spent on proprietary software that users are only using minimally (you know they hit the main 10% of the features, but the other 90% they paid for go to waste). Plus, the real need here is to get preinstalled systems out there at affordable prices and offer some decent support and training options. If people can't walk into Circuit City, Fry's, or Best Buy and pick up a GNU/Linux system, forget it. Look how well Apple does against that, and they have extremely polished, monolithic systems with some of the best ad campaigns known to man on their side.
I do not have a signature
There's this thing called freedesktop that defines common standarts on Drag and Drop etc. Gnome & Kde are starting to follow it. and even xfce 4 is compatible,so it's even easier to cross use things