Slashdot Mirror
Linux's Difficulty with Names
JohnTyler writes "This article at XYZ Computing takes a look at Linux's strange naming practices. When compared to their Window's equivalents, the names of many Linux programs are difficult to recognize and even tougher to remember. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is actually an important usability issue. Just think, if you had to do a bit of graphic design which would be easier to pick out of the menu, GIMP or Photoshop? Or if you wanted to play a song, Media Player or xine?" The article is a bit thin, but it raises an excellent point.
ls, rm, df, du, etc . . . did any of the engineers at Bell Labs type 10-fingered?
But then again, you click the "Start Button" to shut down in Windows :)
This message printed on 100% post-consumer recycled electrons.
This is really more of a software designer's issue than a strictly Linux one. As we speak, I am looking for my copy of Daemon Tools on my computer, but I can't find it because it's named in the start menu by the software's manufacturer, not the name of the program. This is the case for many windows apps and I view it as a similar problem.
I suppose Outlook Express is the ideal name for an email client...as is Outlook. Acrobat is the perfect .pdf viewer or creator. Excel instantly draws to mind spreadsheets [now, but 20 years ago?]. I could go on, but why bother.
The article is just more crap slinging between two apes vying for dominance.
That's why you need a Linux command quick reference sheet:
http://www.suso.org/infosheets/
Most of the command-line stuff is just shortened abbreviations of things. You can also always just make a "shortcut" that's named whatever you want if you need arbitrary names for things. It doesn't really raise a good point at all, things have names made by the people who made them.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
I realize there is tons of software out there for Windows, but *nix systems seem to have so much more that they have to resort to unique naming schemes to differentiate their products. You can only make so many iterations of the words "Media", "Writer", "Player", "Office", etc. Can it make things difficult for consumers? Sure, but I think it's a necessary evil.
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Photoshop" sounds like an application for buying photographs. The writer only knows it's a graphics editor because he has read or heard it somewhere. Contrary to a myth promoted by Microsoft and others, you simply can't use a computer without having to learn anything.
Also, FWIW, and unlike any version of Windows I've ever seen, the GNOME "start" menu breaks things down by category, so you can look in the "Graphics" or "Sound and Video" submenus if you have a general idea about what you're looking for. The last Windows I sat down in front of offered me an almost flat menu of two complete columns on a high-resolution screen, and since I rarely use Windows I didn't know what more than a handful of the applications were.
Worse, in those rare instances where things were put into sub-menus, you had to look under the vendor's name to find the product. So you not only had to know that "Photoshop" means "graphics editor", you also had to know that it's published by someone named "Adobe".
Idiot-level apologetics.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
touch...
mv...
finger..
touch..
mount...
mv...
finger...
unmount...
sleep...
Seriously, I agree. I think that is why I like giving SUSE to my friends/family. Telling my elder family to click on "Image Editor" is much easier than telling them to click on "GIMP."
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
see where it kets you... for example Killustrator was forced to rename itself because adobe managed to convince a court that it's trademark on Adobe Illustrator was being infringed...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Most of these applications are listed as in the K-menu in the box I'm using are listed by function first. For example: Web Browser (Firefox) and Advanced Text Editor (Kate). That eliminates pretty much all the confusion there, doesn't it?
To someone who knows nothing, PhtoShop sounds like a place to buy/print photos. And Windows Medial Player sounds like a game of newpaper/TV congomerates :)
To the Unix cogniscenti, cp, du are nothing more than CoPy, Disk Usage, etc. It is a question of something learned.
This problem reminds me of the prescription medicine naming issue. There are only so many ways to say that a certain drug is for the heart. This is a huge problem and a cause of pharmacy medical mixups all over the world.
The same problem exists with software. Sure it would be nice if a photo editing app has the name Photo in it, but sooner or later you're going to run out of names. And this problem isn't limited to Linux--how exactly does "Excel" imply spreadsheet?
I will agree that Linux names are a bit on the wilder side and less professional sounding. But the problem isn't really as bad as it made it sound. What type of program the GIMP is can be indicated by its icon or where the user found it in the menu hierarchy.
Seriously, we need to devote more time to build software that does what it's meant to do well. I'm sure people will use a killer app if it was called "U Nasty" if it did what the users wanted.
"A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman's birthday but never remembers her age." -Robert Frost
acroread.exe and winword.exe are meaningless names, too; and yet thats what the Windows executable are called. The name of the file is an irrelevance. If the GIMP appears as 'gimp' instead of 'Image Editor' in the Desktop menus and icons, that's really is stupid, but it's fine to call the executable that.
up2date is a silly name, but as long as it appears in the menu as 'Add/Remove Programs', that's hardly relevant, is it?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
If you wanted to play a video, would it be easier to pick out RealPlayer or the Videolan Client? If you wanted to browse your personal directory, would it be easier to pick out C:\Documents and settings\username or /home/username? If you wanted to send/receive some email - Outlook Express or KMail? Hell, if you wanted to shut down your computer - Start->Shutdown or /sbin/poweroff?
See? It kinda swings both ways...
Furthermore, I realise that this is aimed at people who have absolutely no experience in either computers in general and at least linux specifically, but a name like "xine" should not be an impediment to progress. For instance, any distro worth anything ought to be set up with some useful file associations. Most people play a movie or mp3 by clicking on /it/ rather than opening a player and then opening the file within it.
"This article at XYZ Computing takes a look at Slashdot's strange naming practices. When compared to their Web 2.0's equivalents, the names of many Slashdot URLs are difficult to recognize and even tougher to say. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is actually an important usability issue. Just think, if you had to do a bit of news which would be easier to tell your friend on the phone, digg.com slash technology or linux dot slash dot dot org slash, no not linux dot slash dot dot org, i said linux fullstop ess ell aye ess haych dee oh tee fullstop oh arr gee?
The article is a bit thin, but it raises an excellent point.
liqbase
Names don't matter, it is all about training and then familiarity.
What's more intuitive, "Matt", or "Coffee Boy"?
Oh, and what does Exel and Outlook do? Does Outlook Express do it any faster?
As a technical discussion, names as handles to objects or ideas don't matter (excluding downright misleading names, like a boy named Sue): it gets down to user training. To write that "Whatever the reason, desktop Linux's usability is hindered by its naming practices" is just silly: in a work enviornment, users will use what they are trained on. At home, Grandma is going to use whatever will let her get her polaroids out of her new camera.
And Windows isn't particularly easy to use; rather, everybody has had some exposure to it.
As for your examples... once you know what they stand for ("list","remove","disk free", etc.), those commands are a hell of a lot quicker to type (and less prone to error) than spelling the words out.
When introducing new users to the linux systems at work I always end up explaining that the programs are named by clueless geeks who *think* they are funny (gnu, less, etc.). Please just ignore the stupid names and enjoy the power of the tools.
You click the Start button to START the Shutdown process.
I suppose if you know nothing about computers, it seems odd.
But it makes sense if you think about it.
go ahead, take naming advice from "XYZ Computing", ffs.
Desktop Linux's usability is only hindered by it's naming practices for those who can't wait the extra second to hold their mouse over a program and read it's description. Besides that, most Linux programs when installed get filed under the relevant group in the Launcher, so there's really no excuse for further idiocy by going "K...Multimedia...xine? What the hell is that?"
If downloading programs, then the situation changes. They can read the program description almost immediately following the game and know what it does. If it's a clever acronym like GIMP, they'll figure it out before then. If it's a word-of-mouth thing, a Google search for the program name will reveal all the information they need.
I don't think the Linux community discourages new users. I think they discourage idiots who lack basic reading comprehension and/or surrender their credit card and SSN to their long-lost uncle in Nigeria, but not a geniune new user who can read the program description. I think that kind of discouragement is a good thing.
Although it could be debated as to which platform has confusing names, i.e. what is Excel, what is Visio, what is Access, what is Outlook, ad nauseam, I actualy have a contrarian view for you.
Why give applications boring vanilla names like photoshop, media player, etc.?
With the names that are given to many linux applications it could be argued that someone new to the platform would be lost, but I say they will be lost anyway and when they do learn about the applications that meet their needs the interesting names will leave an impression which will differentiate them from the applications on competing platforms that have common names.
I would also argue that vanilla naming creates its own confusion. How many people think Internet Explorer IS the internet?
I say we stick with the fun names.
burnin
It's the result of patent/trademark problems.
K-illustrator got renamed.
X11Amp got renamed.
There are others....
BTW, WinAmp is not exactly an obvious thing, either.
www.wavefront-av.com
Safari? A Web browser?
ILife? A...ummm...well, a way of living?
Please. Winamp: do you think someone starting typing "CD Player, Audio Player, Mp3 Player..." in a DOS shell on windows until they found Winamp? People aren't going to stop or start using a desktop based on this, especially when "k3b" is directly under the "CD/DVD Burning" submenu on SUSE/KDE.
This is a non-issue.
DT
Back in the 80's, we were on teletypes (tty) with greenbar and the fast modems where using 75-150 baud modems. While I coded in the 70,s it was on punchcards, but I do know that other system were using less than 75 baud modems. Basically, each letter came at a high cost both in paper and in bandwidth. So, the commands were kept small and simple.
Look, if it really bugs you, then create your own commands, perhaps with alias or symlinks. But to think that commands were done due to lack of typing is silly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The examples given are from different companies and design teams, so it's hard to generalize them. Overall, however, popular Windows software tends to be made by companies who put a lot of thought into the naming of their product, since it will help determine how popular that product is. Many linux programming teams either go too general or try getting clever with the name ("Which greek god relates to what this program is doing?").
The problem with getting too clever is that without a strong advertising push or word-of-mouth push (Firefox), people really don't know what your program does. The problem with going too generic is that the program isn't memorable.
There's a few programs that get it right by choosing a name that's both descriptive and clever (Photoshop, Winamp, OpenOffice, etc). Point is, either get a big ad budget or take some extra time choosing a name. Of course, if your target audience isn't the general public (read: ethereal), then it doesn't really matter since computer experts will recognize software based on how good it is.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-other.html#4
The trademark for "OpenOffice" belongs to someone else. Therefore we must use "OpenOffice.org" when referring to this open source project and its software.
It wasn't em-dollar-sign that forced the name change; it was "someone else." hope this helps.
For more information, click here.
You're right that many people will probably regard this as splitting hairs, and this in itself is a pretty big issue. Names (from "top-level" names like application titles down to the names of lowly index variables) are critically important in usability, as is documentation.
Yet try as I might, with the notable exception of Python, I've never been able to pick up an open-source product of any complexity that I'm not familiar with, without buying an O'Reilly book or something of the like. Flame me if you will for "not trying hard enough," but it seems to me like having to try hard goes against the definition of usability in some ways. This makes for a pretty big hidden cost.
Open-source projects are the products of engineers working on something they feel is personally important, and it's perhaps unsurprising that communication with the end user (at least on the level of completeness and polish that larger companies need to demonstrate) is not given much priority. But the end users are what will drive the victory or loss of Linux on the desktop, and I think they are already voting with their mice.
And say what you want about Microsoft - but the level of effort they put into this front (from the easy-to-understand language in setup to the MSDN) is way ahead of what I've seen from the Linux world. I think they are the ones to be applauded in this case.
Yah good point, only since windows was originally running on DOS many of the good file name extensions were taken. For example '.MOV' was the RLE encoded movie format used by autocad, 3ds and others for the autoflix. '.SND' was the Tandy deskmate sound file. .pict was to long (8.3 format) and a number of the pxx formats were used by paint programs. '.PIC' has the following hits http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=DOS+.pic+ +format. PCX was particularly popular.
Back then though all the mac people used to point to the file name extension in DOS/Windows as a bad practice and a reason why the mac was better (the filetype was hidden in the resource fork and tied to an application).
Now lets see all the Windows users look at processes running, and let them all go
"Ah! alg.exe csrss.exe ctfmon.exe dllhost.exe explorer.exe internat.exe kernel32.dll lsass.exe mdm.exe msmsgs.exe mstask.exe regsvc.exe rundll32.exe services.exe smss.exe spoolsv.exe svchost.exe system winlogon.exe winmgmt.exe wisptis.exe wmiexe.exe wmiprvse.exe wscntfy.exe wuauclt.exe are running - I know EXACTLY what all that is doing."
Linux processes/apps are named from convention and are all documented. The less said about the alternative (and comparing with) the better.
What is this I see? Open-source community thinking about why they aren't taken more seriously? Me thinks that if tomorrow I should spot a post admitting that Linux developers also don't know a thing about designing a usable GUI, the end of the world is definitely near.
I realize that this will likely be modded down to hell, but I could really care less if it makes even one developer stop and think. The real problem with the entire Linux movement is a total lack of even the basic understanding of human psychology. Just like they still think that a file is the solution to everything.
We're not machines with RAM and hard drives. Our memory is highly associative, meaning that most of the things we remember are associated to other things. The only "hard-wired" things are those which are used on continuous basis, which I suppose explains why the developers don't notice these problems. For everything else, the less links there are, the harder it is to recall something, which is why naming software using names that say absolutely nothing about what the software is for creates such a mess.
Only a few people do icon design well. Susan Kare, who did both the original Mac icons and the original Windows icons, is the best known. Take a good look at her work. For some modern icon designs, see Kare's icon family for Autodesk.
Did I need <humor> tags?
BTW, aliasing is just a great way to get yourself (or somebody else) in trouble -- it's a useful tool for the experienced, but it can cause no end of grief in the hands of a neophyte. I remember from firsthand experience (no urban myth) the time a fellow employee with root access decided to see if the 'del' command had any help. Just our luck, a 'helpful' sysadmin had alias'ed "del=rm". Do you know what happened when my associate typed "del /? "
And don't tell me "nothing" (which is essentially what should've happened). Hint: the server was down in less than 300ms.
No it doesn't. Is it saying 'Linux' (?) should start giving things super-generic names? Well that's a great idea. Let's call things 'Media Player'. But who gets to decide which media player gets named the definitive 'Media Player'? And they may not realise that most obvious super generic names are already trademarked by someone.
I don't see anything wrong with Gnu (General?) Image Manipulation Program. Rather effective description if you ask me.
It's not like the windows world isn't full of stupid Win* names is it? Winamp? WTF? It's a pretty tenuous link that you're supposed to guess that 'Amp' means an MP3 player.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
Outlook, Access, Excel...real intuitive names there. If you want to throw in third party vendors like the original did with Photoshop, you have a whole host of products that do different things with similar names - i.e., Quicken or Quick Time.
Linux names are acronyms. Acronyms are easier to type and remember. Just as a wouldn't want Linux to be renamed Runs Computer, I do not want software to be renamed from a four letter command such as gimp to Image Manipulator because someone cannot be bothered to learn its name. If they cannot be bothered to learn the name, then they are welcome to go use the programs that are named something they can remember.
The whole world does not revolve around the lowest common denominator. Let's stop pretending that it does, shall we?
The KDE guys need to Kut the Krap with the names already.
sulli
RTFJ.
Coming up with a good name is really damn hard, just ask the Firefox people. Common, easy to understand words such as "Word" or "Illustrator" are already taken, and you're asking for a lawsuit if you try to use them.
You can try being clever, like the Lindows and KIllustrator people did, and you can still get sued. You can try to come up with nonsense names or geeky in-jokes, but then normal people are going to be like "WTF?" and your software will never penetrate the market.
You can concatenate corporate-sounding prefixes, roots, and suffixes, and sound like a buzzword hype drone, er I mean Buzzhypdro(TM) Generator, which will get converted into an acronym, which will be trademarked by some obscure company in a completely different industry who will try to sue you even though they're in a completely different industry.
And then when your acronym becomes accepted it'll get co-opted by commercial software projects that will treat yours like it's an extensible, embraceable standard, and then they'll sue you to relinquish your own name so they can use it in their marketing literature.
Someone should start a "Voldemort" project for coming up with pseudo-random placeholder names for "projects that must not be named".
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
You've completely missed the point.
If you're a 4th century roman citizen, you are going to have a tough time with a tank. A modern American might have a tough time too, but they are more likely to have been exposed to cars and computers and whatnot and have a greater chance to pick it up quicker than the roman citizen. Both of them will still have to be trained.
That's your point, but that's NOT the point of the article!
Take that same roman citizen, and train them in the use of a BMW. Now ask them which one they will remember more easily after they are forced to walk around without either for 2 months. Chances are they'll remember more about driving a BMW.
The point is not so much useability as it is reusability. I consider myself a pretty intelligent computer user, but I have to constantly go back to manuals and look things up to remember commands and programs. GIMP doesn't immediately invoke any devices in my memory to recall that application on demand at a later date. Photoshop instantly makes me think of images. 5 seconds later I find out it's for photo editing. I can stick that in my long term memory and remember it for later much more easily. This is how the average user thinks.
Linux geeks are going to be spending 99% of their time memorizing programs and commands that they use every day and they have to realize not everyone is going to see the world the same way they do. Shortening the word copy to cp helps the advanced linux user save typing but for less advanced users it's easier to remember the word COPY because it makes sense to a wider range of people.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Call it flamebait if you will, but for the average user Linux doesn't even exist. It doesn't matter if it is called Linux "Alterna-OS" or some other crap, they know what shipped on the computer and don't have the time or inclination to learn anything else. Sure, the geeks love it, but why would the average person like it? Does it do more than already-installed (windows/media player/office/etc) or does it just do the same thing? See, if all it does is the same thing then Linux has NO VALUE preposition whatsover to the average joe they will only switch when alternative software has more usefulness and is not merely a clone.
I ask you, why should you care about vi when you have notepad (which does the same job with less confusing commands)? Making Xine or Helix useable requires setup and configuration of codecs, whereas it just works under windows!
For Linux to gain ground it needs to add utility without adding futility. No one is going to accept that it more trouble to get the thing to work the same way, and they would barely consider it if the improvements are only marginal. As far as features, Windows is better to average joe. It reasonably works out of the box, and there is nothing to screw up in the configuration. When Linux works like that then it will compete with Windows, but if the software included with Linux surpassed it that would be the end for Redmond. There is no way a "normal" user is going to put up with the bullshit involved with setting a Linux box up, so these Linux people should shut up about their desktop until it works or even happens and stay on the servers.
All that being said, I love Linux as far as the performance... It turns "dated" machines into useable machines, and for those that are running on a budget it may still have a place. For servers, I don't think there is a better choice you can make. But again, the Linux people need to stop thinking they have a desktop offering -- they have a toolbox of many tools but they do not have a leatherman. Desktops need to be useable by the computer challenged to qualify as an offering, and anything too complex is just missing the mark. Do you think the normal person would know much about partitions, screen mode depth and resolution, or even the goofy device names for mice or screens? These things make the whole proposition unrealistic.
-Mind
This means literally "Names are just sound and smoke" and the deeper meaning is "Names arent important". Well, I don't think that names are a problem because of the following reasons:
- Usually a menu tree isn't flat but categorized. If I open my Debian menu I find a section for graphics and so I assume that the programs in this section have something to do with graphics.
- If I install a package I'm doing it because I want to use it. And at that point I can learn easily that GIMP stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program and so I can hardly forget that this is the program to use if I want to edit my digital camera photos.
- Many times I observed that people are not reading the menus, they just have learned that the app they want to use is on the 4th last entry in that submenu and they click there without even reading. Difficult if the menu structure changes, but people can adapt to this as well
Ok, if you're using a shell then you need to remember the names, but who prevents you from defining anBut your attitude is EXACTLY what is holding Linux apps back from popular adoption.
.pdf viewer or creator. Excel instantly draws to mind spreadsheets [now, but 20 years ago?]. I could go on, but why bother.
I suppose Outlook Express is the ideal name for an email client...as is Outlook. Acrobat is the perfect
The name of an app is not meant to be Literal!! It's meant to make you want to own it! If you had a choice between two toilets, the Open GNUFeces gtkSepticPort, or a CrapThrasher 3000, is there any question which you would select? Calling a graphics program The GIMP (yeah, I know it's meant to be a snarky acronym; newsflash: after the age of 16, nobody cares.) is like naming your son Susan. In fact, I've introduced the GIMP to new users (all of whom look like they'd rather be anyplace in the world than in that room at the time) with a, "Hey, look, with a name like The GIMP, it's got to be good, right? Right??"
For serious 'flagship' Linux applications, allowing the "coding community" to name them is right in line with allowing the "marketing community" to write them. It screams "Hobbyist," which is fine, if that's all you want it to be. In the early '90's, when nobody knew any better, it was not unusual for an organization's HTML jockey to also be responsible for creating the site's look and writing its content. Then, the medium matured, rapidly. When I see the names for a lot of these (very, very fine and well-coded) linux apps, I get the urge to crank Nine Inch Nails, order a double-mocha-latte, and re-read SnowCrash...
I was one of three people to survive that learning experience. The bodies of the dead were cast back to the pit of despair, wherein live the unemployed.
Squid or Python or FCKeditor or Sylpheed. What's in a name? Hopefully some semblance of professionalism. Sorry, but trying to convince my boss that Sylpheed is a valid alternative to product ABC isn't helped by the project's product name.
I understand that some people just don't care, or that the project fouder/maintainers pick a name that makes sense to them, or just sounds cool, but in some organizations "political correctness" and fear of offending other users (not that I believe these *should* factor into any decisions, but I've seen it from personal experience) can have an effect on decisions!
-chargen
I have been harping on this for years. For some reason software devs love to encode the names of their apps in some archaic symbology. I still do not understand this. While Excel and Premier do not give you an automatic clue as to what they are, at least they "sound" user friendly. I there is an honest interest into getting linux into more homes, this has got to stop. Same with the terrible documentation that surrounds many of these same packages. We have got to stop writing this stuff with the geek brain in mind, but others as well. Asking a non-tech user what libconf is, is just like asking them what a dll is. It just happens that Windows shields the user as much as possible from this. And before you all go flame me, remember that geeks like us buy much less of this compared to average Joe home user.
My
Corrected list
Linux entries are read off directly from my GNOME menu
==============
Web Browser
Windows: IE
Linux: Firefox Web Browser
Graphics Editing
Windows: Photoshop, Illustrator
Linux: GNU Image Manipulation Program, Inkscape Vector Illustrator
Movie Playback
Windows: Windows Media Player
Linux: Totem Movie Player
DVD Playback:
Windows: WinDVD, Windows Media Player
Linux: DVD Player, Totem Movie Player
Simple Text Editing
Windows: Notepad, Wordpad, TextPad
Linux: Text Editor
Instant Messaging
Windows: AOL Instant Messenger
Linux: Instant Messenger
Music Playback:
Windows: Windows Media Player, Itunes, WinAmp
Linux: Music Player
CD Ripping:
Windows: Itunes, Windows Media Player
Linux: Soundjuicer CD Ripper
CD Burning
Windows: Roxio Easy CD Creator, Nero
Linux: CD/DVD Creator
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
It has a lot to do with the fact that open source geeks can't afford trademark lawyers. A name like "gwksprt" may be horrible, but at least you're unlikely to be sued over it.
IMO I believe that your basic inexperienced user will focus more on how the menu is organized and icon placement rather than the name.
GNOME organizes programs by subject, and can be customized to a more organized set. Windows simply lists the programs (sometimes in order of when it was installed, not by alphabet). At times you just can't find it because it's rarely used - you have to do a little more work to find it. Other than the increased memory usage and wasted "graphic effects" on the xp start menu I do have to applaud about the browser and mail location, along with the list of most commonly used programs.
I'm not going to go into the names issue. If an computer illiterate user had a choice between "Outlook" and "Thunderbird" or "Excel" and "Calc" which would they choose? I'm sure it would be different for different people, but you get what i'm saying.
(and wtf is with the name eXPerience? i'd find "Windows Excel" an OS that goes beyond bounaries - by definition - more appealing.)
Since i've given enough examples - i shall shut up.
This article is based (near as I can tell) on one person's comment about stupid names. Great, so there's one idiot in the world who doesn't realize that Firefox on Linux is the same as Firefox on Windows.
Personally (yes, I am a geek) I've never had any problems with the names. apropos normally gets the job done nice and quick. Ok, that'll ellicit "But you're a geek, think of the normal people !!!1!!" Let me rephrase.
Having sucessfully installed Linux on a few (non-geek's) systems, I can say they've never had any problems. They're not the stupidest, I'll give you that, teaching someone in college might be harder then teaching Grandma Jane, but they were just regular users of their Windows machine, not really utilizing them to their full potential. They took to it rather quick. Yes, these weren't full command line only machines (as I prefer), so the similarities between Windows and Gnome/KDE did all the work.
No one uses any computer with non learning, much as Bill would like to have you think otherwise. So I showed them the basics. "Ok, you know the Start button? That's now here, the picture of the hat." Then I'd explain the most used programs (come on, who didn't have to say "Grandma, click here for the internet"?). "We use Firefox for the web, and thunderbird for email. Gaim is there for IM, and OpenOffice (click here) is just like Microsoft Office." Next came the Linux-specific crap. "To figure out a command, use 'man '. And to find what you're looking for, try apropos and grep."
Some of you may say "oh, they're a geek if they understood that", but I assure you, if you stay, and talk with them about the change they just made in their lifestyle, everyone can pick it up. Just sit, and answer any questions they have, its that simple. Oh, gee, exactly like what I do when I install Windows for someone for the first time. Hmm... perhaps because each are different operating systems, with their own learning curve and commands? Just... might... be...
Now, to say that Linux commands/programs are confusing, where Windows commands/programs aren't... boggles me. Linux breaks things down into nice categories by default. So my friend wanted a cd player, went to sound and video, and found, miracle of miracles, a cd player. Didn't have to ask me. People new to Windows have to figure out to use Windows Media Player.
Windows, assuming you didn't use it in the last ten programs, makes you search through a list of everything installed on the start menu. Which, since the programmer decides what to put it under (ok, no flaming, I know you can change it, but would a 80-year old woman who just clicks "next"?) it could be the name of the software suite, the company name, the program name, even the programmer's dog's name!
Who's to say "Illustrator" and "Photoshop" are such good names? The former literally would be something to illustrate books, and the latter would be software to buy pictures. Hold on, notepad AND wordpad for text editing? I guess one must be for notes, and the other for individual words. AOL Instant Messanger... interesting, that won't work with my Yahoo account, how do I get that to work? WinAmp to play music (ok, some of my favorite windows software, granted) that should be an amplifier of the Win? No... software to amplify sounds for windows? Sorta... but no... Wait a SEC! Windows Media Player to rip CDs?! I thought it played music, not copied it. Roxio blah blah blah for CD burning. The odds of someone having that specific program on their computer depend on who they bought the computer from. I have problems saying that's something on a typical installation. Nero, that program should squander my money in lavish parties, have sex with young boys and ruin the empire, erm, my system.
Hey, the guy turns around on page two (if you got that far) to say that "Linux names may seem confusing but actually are not." Good he points out what GIMP stands for. Not a program to beat up handicapped children by Rockstar, but a sensibly named image editing program. Ho
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
Let's do the comparison one more time using the names in my Ubuntu Breezy menus vs. the EXE names on Windows. Fair is fair, right?
Web Browser
Windows: iexpore, Opera, Mozilla, Firefox
Linux: Opera Web Browser, Mozilla Web Browser, Firefox Web Browser
Graphics Editing
Windows: photoshop (a place to buy photos?), illustrator
Linux: GIMP Image Editor
Movie Playback
Windows: wmp
Linux: Totem Movie Player, MPlayer, Xine, VLC Media Player
DVD Playback:
Windows: WinDVD (what titles can I win?), wmp
Linux: Totem Movie Player, Xine, VLC Media Player
Simple Text Editing
Windows: Notepad, Wordpad, TextPad
Linux: Text Editor
Instant Messaging
Windows: AIM
Linux: Gaim Internet Messenger
Music Playback:
Windows: wmp, Itunes (you tunes we all tunes to Itunes), WinAmp (I don't want Windows louder)
Linux: Beep Media Player, Rhythmbox Music Player
CD Ripping:
Windows: Itunes, wmp
Linux: Sound Juicer CD Ripper
CD Burning
Windows: Roxio, Nero
Linux: Gnome Toaster, Serpentine Audio CD Creator, Nero
It's pretty clear that Windows needs some consistency work before it will reach the level of polish and ease of use found in today's modern Linux distros. Anybody can write a story that manipulates the details in their favor.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Wood shop: a place where one works with wood.
Metal shop: a place where one works with metal.
Auto shop: a place where one works on cars.
Following that logic, where does one work with photos....
PhotoShop.
Secondly, I am sure you are right when you say we don't need the "brainless among the users". After all, no one wants to see Linux on the Desktop make it. We certainly don't want to see Microsoft taken down a notch or two. God forbid that someone who is a CEO/CFO/etc and knows just enough to use Windows uses Linux and decides it would be good for the 50000 workers in their company use it as well.
Thirdly, you are right, I am sure the people trying to improve the usablity of OSS are doing nothing for the open source community. Improved usablity is worthless. And, people actually using OSS do nothing for it either. Check it yourself. It is almost a law of nature.
Now, for what you convienently glossed over. Of those 20 programs in your KDE/Graphics menu, how many do you actually use? How many are actually easy to use? How many are big steaming piles of code crap? Of the programs installed on your box, how many are in permant beta? How many have not had a new release in months or years? How many have no programmers because all the sexy code has been written and no one wants to do the polish, upkeep, and maintenance?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Don't equate "being an idiot" with "not being tech-savvy". There are plenty of Windows users who aren't idiots, but aren't necessarily tech-savvy. That shouldn't prevent them from migrating away from Windows.
Some people just don't put a priority on memorizing non-intuitive names for software applications...
Don't underestimate the power of The Source
Actually, there was also sibling post complaining about kde using 'k' to prefix everything; yours was the more reasonably worded comment, so I replied to it.
...)
I'm not really a fanboy of GNOME or KDE; I use both interchangably (and I like the occasional change of pace). I find it interesting how... rabid each side's fanboys can be towards the other.
It's interesting how often GNOME fanboys complain about the 'k' prefix for KDE programs, yet seem entirely oblivious to the fact that GNOME does the same thing. The famous telescope effect -- the other guys problems seem much larger than your own.
KDE users complain about similar nonsense about GNOME, all the while blissfully ignorant that KDE usually does the same things.
All in all, it's remarkable how similar the two environments are, and how many good ideas are passed between each other. (As well as how many bad ideas get dropped because the other project did the same thing in a better way).
To be honest, I don't see using the 'k' or 'g' as a prefix much different from Apple's use of 'i' (iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD,
It's interesting how the article also selects Linux programs that don't have a descriptive name, yet completely ignores unhelpful Windwos names.
Cases in point:
Simple Text Editing
Listed:
Windows: NotePad, WordPad, TextPad
Linux: gedit, kate
Unlisted:
Linux: kwrite, kedit (only listed because they're quite obvious)
On the Windows side, how about:
PowerPoint: (a powerful pointer? a SUPER laser pointer? WTF!?!)
Excel: (Excel... excel at what?)
Nero: (what is a dead Roman emperor doing on my hard disk?)
WinAMP: (Apparently this amplifies windows; so it must make it better or more powerful somehow)
PhotoShop: (Must be a photo printing service...)
Basically, the article takes what brand recognition Windows has for granted, while completely discounting the same effect for Linux. More astounding, is when you have a brand that exists on both platforms (GIMP, FireFox, Opera).
You see the same problem for people who move between a Mac and a Windows box; Mac users have such obscure program names as QuickTime, Pages, Keynote, Preview, Safari, BBEdit, Text Wrangler. iMovie... does this mean it plays or makes movies?
Basically, he's complaining because different platforms have their tools named differently. It happens everywhere; if I walk into a bar and ask for a screwdriver, I'm going to get something entirely different than I would if I were to ask for a screwdriver at the hardware store. Differences in the dialects of English spoken in Australia, the US, and England are good examples. The bottom line is you have to take the time to use the proper dialect, at leeast some of your meaning will get lost in translation.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Actually, the thunderbird one isn't that bad, a bird carrying a letter. You can (kind of) find it by the name, and it's pretty easilly recognizable as an e-mail client. The concept of firefox's icon is pretty good: a flaming fox encircling the world (Something going around the world is a pretty decent icon for a web browser (Formerly known as World Wide Web.) The problem with that one is that once it's shrunk down to the size you see on most desktops with decently high resolution, you really can't make either out, so it looks kinda like a red and blue marble or eye or something.
Both of those are far more recognizable for what they are than the rat looking thing that is the Icon for the GIMP. Or a construction cone for VLC player. Open Office's icons on the other hand are very informative, but bland and forgettable.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
The PDP's implementation of CCL (concise command language) let you abbreviate to the shortest non-ambigous string. Later DEC renamed CCL to DCL (DEC command language) and VAX/VMS shipped with DCL (although without all the fancy F$lexicals at first). Somewhere around VMS 4, I think, the TPARSE routines were rewritten and abbreviation was limited to a minimum of four characters, which caused my highly trained fingers to betray me repeatedly.
Having trained end-users in both, I can say that VMS was much easier to learn and understand than *nix for native english-speakers. If you have no english, or english as a second language, *nix is less typing and you have to memorize everything anyway.
The sad part is I still remember RSX Indirect and MCR, the predecessors to CCL. That backwards PIP syntax was a bitch.
The names listed in your Gnome menu are not the names of the applications. A while back the Gnome devs recognized that Linux applications have stupid unintuitive names so they decided to give the core programs used in Gnome easy to identify aliases. It's not called "Firefox Web Browser", it's called Firefox. "Totem Movie Player" is an alias for Totem. "Text Editor" is an alias for gedit. There is no Linux app called "Instant Messenger", it's Gaim or Gabber. Go down your list of Linux names and what you find almost every time is an instance where the Gnome devs thought that the real name of the application was too stupid and non-intuitive to be listed by name, so they created an alias for it. This is the entire point of the original article: most Linux applications have stupid names.
It's the marketing people -- something MS has always done well and OSS has hardly done at all. It's the same problem with Domino, or should we call it "Lotus Notes." In the mule-choking Domino book I bought they even admit that nomenclature is a problem.
/. then nothing much will change.
/. in the sky....
Our corporation was doing pre-project testing to upgrade/migrate our email system. We were looking at Domino, Exchange and OSS. I setup all three and presented. I wanted Squirrel Mail. I made the huge mistake of leaving the default webpage intact which plainly displayed both the name and the picture of the cute little squirrel. Upper management nearly fell out of their chairs. Forget the PHP stuff I showed off, the LDAPing into our existing Active Directory, the money-saving, the history, the name it. That name and picture killed it.
Say what you will, but Bullet Tooth Tony always rings true ("Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity"), and the people in power are more likely than not to be stupid about technology. We ended up purchasing and migrating to Exchange. Why? Because MS had marketed it well in all those colorful "CIO" magazines, the name stuck, it had nice bright colors just like my kid's crayons and it all flowed well and had for years -- I'm talking about marketing.
To the contrary, the more research I did into OSS solutions for email the more frustrated I personally became. "Sendmail is ok, but Jim's Mail is much better and here's why," and then "Jim's Mail was good, but Ted's mail improves on things this way." On and on and on -- it seems OSS is too polluted with each and every dude trying to rebuild the wheel forgetting the fact that the people with the really nice cars and corner offices only know of "Cartman" from that whacky cartoon and I would only use "Bitchx" in a big meeting if I plan on turning in my resignation (do I have to explain women COs and PCness?).
Much of the OSS community simply has too much of -- as Lucas put it trying to produce 1977 Star Wars -- "a hippy mentality." They come at the man with an attitude and dare anyone to get all up their face over silly and whacky names and over the fact that they've re-invented the wheel over and over and over.
At the end of the day, COs don't mind tossing change (and it is change by comparison) at a "name brand" product like Exchange. Forget the fact that MS itself thumbed its nose at age-old SMTP commands barfing out Cisco PIX. Forget the fact that they stole and copied things Sendmail does without giving credit. Forget all of that. They know how to talk to the big man with the hot secretary and they know how to market. Until OSS gets this point and stops imagining that these guys -- who spend as much money on a suit as you do your annual PC budget -- read
The irony is, is that I actually had to use OSS and Sendmail to do the complicated routing to migrate 1000s of users over to Exchange. Once all was done, I euthanized the Linux box and sent it to that great
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
I think that something that this article seriously misses is that FOSS groups usually do not have the money/ resources to check for existing name trademarks (especially in multiple countries) and they also lack the money/ resources to purchase used names. There are plenty of marketing/ product companies that hold on to names until a buyer comes along. Companies like Microsoft, Adobe, etc have the people and resources to check for existing trademarks, copyrights, etc or buy exixting ones off of other companies. Just look at the troubles FireFox had and that was with the backing of a major FOSS player like Mozilla. Add on top of that the cost of purchasing the domain name for a popular/ more intuitive product name and it becomes obvious why so many FOSS groups choose unusual names. These people are programmers and technophiles, not lawyers and marketroids and most projects have no budget at all.
JM2C
Huh?
Then Kreation would win! We can't have that!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Statements such as these:
Names don't matter, it is all about training and then familiarity
it gets down to user training
are not just "not insightful", they are so 180 degrees, 100% wrong the fact that they would even be modded as anything close to "insightful" brings more disrepute than usual to slashdot.
Ok, now that I've raised the alarm, let me justify it.
First of all, USABILITY MATTERS. This is no longer 1986, or 1994 for that matter. We know now that the usability of a system is a key to its successful deployment.
Second, the opposite of usability is "that which needs training or re-learning when it shouldn't."
A pilot needs training to fly a 747. However, Boeing works damned hard and invests millions of dollars to make the systems as intuitive and usable as possible nevertheless, as this will lead to:
- fewer accidents
- fewer training and re-training costs for the airlines, their customers
- better day to day operation
Nobody at boeing says "the pilots are professionals. let's name the #3 engine Hi pressure bleed air valve malfunction switch "Xooomer". for that matter, let's give their FMS a CLI, since a well trained pilot can be faster with this than with a modal, menu-based FMS."These basic, BASIC principles of design are well known in virtually all fields of engineering. And, I (following in the footsteps of tongue-in-cheek works like the unix haters handbook) have been banging this drum in the linux world since at least 1995. And yet, just as it seems that a little light is shining through, in the form of a slashdot headline that actually says (gasp) intelligent things about usability, we open up the comments to find the same old nonsense from users that "it's not a usability problem, it's a training issue" being modded +5 insightful, which basically tells me that a lot of people still aren't getting it.
Pity.
Mark parent down. Severely down. Please.
First of all, USABILITY MATTERS. This is no longer 1986, or 1994 for that matter. We know now that the usability of a system is a key to its successful deployment.
AMEN. I would go a step further and say that most technological revolutions are effectuated more so by usability breakthroughs than pure technology. The rise of the Internet was precipitated by the web browser. The widespread availibility of a graphical interface drove the adoption of personal computers. MP3's weren't even on the RIAA's radar before Napster made finding and downloading them easy.
Usability and accessibility are FAR more important that most geeks realize, probably because most of them want to use their knowledge of technology as a social lever, rather than as a boon to others.
The mere fact that you have to have "tool tips" to even figure out what the programs do in the first point for your most commonly used apps is pretty silly, if you ask me. For most all of my apps in KDE, it says right before the programs name what it does, such as "CD/DVD Burning (K3b)". I didn't have to hover over it to jog my memory as to what it was. Also, my "Start" menu doesn't organize my programs in the most impossible to find ways like Windows does (by company name), it organizes them by what they do in the first place, so I can spend less time searching through crap and more time getting done what I want to do. I get all of that simplicity, AND I don't have to clean buttloads of spyware and viruses off my system like most of you Windoze users do. Oh, yeah...thats 2 more programs that I don't have to remember the names or functions to. See how easy it is :)
PS: My girlfriend recently install SuSE 10 Linux on her laptop without any help, and she's the most computer illiterate person I know.