Slashdot Mirror
Linux, to be (Like Microsoft) or Not to be?
David writes "Stephen Shipman delivers a very articulate and concise view of how Linux fits in server and end user environments. He expresses his view in response to Nicolas Petreley's 'rant' in Linux Journal. He points out the subtle implications of efficiency versus consistency." From the article: "[...] efficiency (as measured by keystrokes) isn't the only metric for ease of use. Consistency must also be taken into account. Microsoft has made a lot of hay (and green) by flogging consistency".
Microsoft doesn't get it. There are things in Windows XP which are still as idiotic as ever. This isn't evidence of a superiour product, but the result of understanding. The Registry is once again a completely backwards way of contending with things, and worse, you sometimes have to get into the Registry to change things which should be straight-forward options in personalising your computer.
Then there's the Single User aspect, all over again. No matter how they pass XP off as a multi-user environment, it carriest considerable baggage of being single user - case in point: the pop-up key-stealer, when apps suddenly thrust themselves forward and steal a keystroke for the [ignore] [retry] [cancel] [OK] whatever prompt and vanish if it meets the input expectation.
What I repeatedly hear from Mac enthusiasts is how quickly a new user can sit down and get right to business, without thinking half as hard where things are or how settings work. Microsoft made a big deal out of bringing a tonne of people on board to advise them and examine their user interfaces, but I grow increasingly skeptical that these were actually people flown to a nice resort, given fine amenities and still shown what Microsoft thought they should see, rather than simply gaining some real inside, i.e. "so what's the thing you most dislike about Windows/Office/Etc.?" Rather like a homeless guy will be your best friend if you give him a few bucks.
Consistency must also be taken into account. Microsoft has made a lot of hay (and green) by flogging consistency".
They also have become extremely overconfident because success came too easily. Note many of their recent failures. And may I be among the first of many to recognise Origami as an utter flop. Looks neat, but it's a niche player, same as Tablet Computers. It's too big and too small at the same time. Once again a complete misunderstanding of the market.
Linux should strive to be efficient and easy to use, not mugging one of the most inexplicably frustrating environments ever.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
There's a conference this Thursday, March 16th in Belfast called FOSS Means Business where Stallman and Perens are both doing business-orientated lectures, plus presentations by Google, Open Source Academy, and Oracle.
People trying to encourage IT decision makers to transition to free software have to learn to explain it. Bruce Perens is good at this, but as well as telling people about the value of free software, we have to tell them how to hang on to it - how to not let it slip through their fingers. That's Stallman's angle, as can be read in this transcript of his lecture on GPLv3.
Microsoft isn't top because of their software quality, and free software won't displace them purely based on quality either. We'll win for other reasons.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
According to the rant, there is now something of a linux equivalent to the windows registry? Where is that exactly?
Considering that there's really not been any real consistency throughout MS' product offerings or
anything else about Windows' operating environment:
- Printing that doesn't work the same from Windows 95/98/Me to NT/2000/XP because of different
driver rules at the GDI layer.
- API's that change from one ruleset to the next without warning (the move from 16-bit to 32-bit
generated at least several API calls that produced nasty results because they used zero as the
default but in the 32-bit version they used a string for that parameter and they didn't account
for this in the API...)
- Consumer WinCE devices being allowed out the door with missing functionalities (i.e. The Uniden
UniPro 100 PDA was missing the Finder and a few other things- for no good reasons other than they
were short on firmware memory because of the added recording functionalities- and instead of
increasing the BOM costs slightly for more ROM capacity, they opted to omit some of the functionalities
that make it consistent with the other WinCE devices.)
- Apps don't have any consistent install/uninstall interface. (While Linux IS better in this regard,
it's got many of the same problems...).
- Apps often install their own DLLs to prevent being hosed by other apps and Microsoft when they do
updates.
There's tons more. "Windows" only seems consistent because the end-user community sees something that
"works like Windows" and is therefore familiar- since it's familiar, they whitewash over all the
issues about consistency and it "being easier to use". Issues that plague them day in, day out.
Microsoft may talk the talk, but when the rubber meets the pavement, they're not walking the walk- not even close.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
In order to assert that Microsoft has made a lot of green off of consistancy over efficiency, Microsoft's programs would have to be a lot more consistant. I hate hate hate that ctrl-tab does NOTHING in Word. UI options are hidden all over the damned place and only some of the settings are stored in the user directory (making portability a nightmare).
-
The above should be flagged "sarcastic" for those who happen to lack such a barometer internally
No, it's true actually. A lot of businesses in Northern Ireland were poking at free software but no one wants to be first, so we're organising a big free software conference aimed at businesses. Stallman's name is a big draw. He knows it's a business audience and he'll adapt to that. He'll be including a substantial section about GPLv3, which has gotten a surprising level of interest from public administration bodies.
Interest has been huge and there were many requests for speaking slots that had to be turned down. I guess there will be a FOSS Means Business 2007 too, but one at a time. On Thursday we expect at least 300. The venue can hold up to 1150.
I think events like these, and the networking that happens at them, is more important than increasing efficiency of the software. We'll see.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Linux is not hard for beginners to use.
.. then I am of the feeling Linux is actually easier and less intrusive.
.. some USB broadband modem, then you may find the prospect of installing Linux and trying to get everything as functional - as enjoyable as cutting your own eye-lids.
.. is that they actually miss it once it's gone.
:)
I've installed Linux Desktop on laptops belonging to people that doesn't even know what an operating system is - and they got on well.
Now if you wanted to say Linux is hard to administer.
They yes, you are completely right.
If we get pre-built desktop system with Linux installed with all the compatible peripherals
When you get a machine optimized for Windows, non-compliant BIOS, Linux-unfriendly video-card, broadcom wireless chipset, some Lexmark printer, some Canon Scanner
Not being a propagandist at all -- but one thing I find curious about non-tech users after they been exposed to Linux (for a while)
The Linux system obviously would have to be set in a very friendly way for that to happen - which is what I do to other people's dying PC when I am bored
I think it would be a huge mistake for Linux to imitate Windows or any Microsoft product. Windows is ass-backwards. It is system and application centric, not user or document centric. Sure, XP has some features that seem to have been made in an effort to move towards serving the user - i.e., the dumbed-down default settings for start menu - but that is just a sham. It is a thin veneer on top of a rough, unfinished, mindless interface - at least as mindless as Microsoft's current leadership - that sees the system, Internet Explorer, and Microsoft-only applications as the centre of the "Windows experience". It's an annoying hodge-podge of an "experience" that should never have gone golden master. The way I see it, Windows is still very much in a beta stage of development. So, instead Linux should perhaps look elsewhere for inspiration - Apple, for instance, are the real masters at this sort of thing - but also go it's own way. Screw Microsoft! They did everything wrong. Linux developers should find out what the right way is, and in what direction - towards detailed complexity or logical simplicity? - Linux should go. The real obstacle, in my view, for Linux to be universally adopted on the desktop - that's what everybody wants, right? - is the lack of a consistent, completely standardised interface from the system and application level all the way to the user space. Linux' revolutionary breakthrough will come only when that has been accomplished, and not before.
Ok, I'm neither an expert using MS (take your pick) or Linux (take your pick). In an attempt to diversify my understanding of Linux, I started using RedHat 7.2, many years ago.
/etc/blah/blah, port(ed), API, drivers.
It was a slow, long, widing road, but I've learned, using a certain amount of perseverance.
It is the perseverance that the "average" user is lacking. Tell me how many of the following terms/words the shopper going to Best Buy or Circuit City are willing to learn: Source, Binary, Compile, RPM, apt-get, x86, X11,
There are more, but I can't think of anything right now that would add to user/consumer confusion when all people want to know are things like "Can I use the internet with this", "I need some word processing", or the more experienced user that know that a hard drive size is measured in bytes, and the processor speed in herz.
Microsoft makes many things automated. Want OS updates? Go to windowsupdate.com, or click on the "Windows Update" icon. Want driver updates? Go to manufacturer, get drivers for 2000/xp OR 98/ME. No pointing to mirrors, no compilation, no source, no RPM, no Yum, just "Do It Now!", wait for the icon to appear, double click, make a sandwich, reboot.
That's what Linux is lacking. Does anyone realize this?
Why all these distributions insist on focusing their efforts on rebuilding the same functionality baffles me. I mean I "get" the want to be unique thing. Don't want to copy thing.
About the only thing which distinguishes any given flavour of Linux from any other is the configuration tools. The underlying programs (X, Apache, Samba, postfix etc etc) are the same, plus or minus a couple of minor versions. I think it might be rather hard for say, Mandrake to compete with RedHat if the only selling point they had was "We've tweaked some of the background images you get in KDE slightly".
That's programmable through the window manager, though. With my current setup of Gnome, if I launch a new program, it pops up in the background, rather than in front.
I haven't been able to make this work consistently - what steps do you take to make this work? I use a very recent GNOME on most desktops, in several cases latest development. Thanks.
On a side note, I think it should automatically work like this: If you launch a program and then do nothing - it should get focus. Otherwise it shouldn't. If I actively touch any other app, that should retain focus when the other app loads. That would be completely awesome. (URGENT hints are wanted still, of course, so there's notification). There is nothing more irritating than keystrokes suddenly being eaten by some other application. I specifically choose to start working in this other app, who are you to come distrurb me?
Spine World
Seriously, out of all the things to borrow from MS, the 2 big desktop managers copy the start menu. It has to be the most un-intuitive GUI feature in the history of the GUI.
I dislike Nicolas Petreley's arguements as much as the next guy, but I hate it when I try a new distro and have a start button staring up at me. E and XFCE users will site bloat and memory leaks and lag all day. Me, the reason I use E is that there's no start menu. I click, the menu is there. Now _that's_ intuitive!
There is only one truth in your comment: Windows breaks
Linux (and UNIX) is ONLY hard for people who HAVE used Windows before they try Linux. Just go'n try to ask a Mac user how easy he think Windows is... or a real UNIX user... or an OS/400 user... or (god forbid it) a VMS user...
You will get the same answer: "Windows ?? That pice of shit sucks !!!"
--
Did you read the EULA for Windows ??? I did... and I didn't agree to it.
I mean, both sides are as usual exaggerating the value of their positions.
What matters is functionality and usability. If Linux can match Windows in functionality, and if Linux is easily usable, it doesn't matter whether the technigues used are the same as Windows.
It only matters from the viewpoint of those people who wish to lure Windows users into using Linux. While it is true that most people, as one of my instructors likes to say, "use computers because they have to, not because they want to", this doesn't need to have any significant effect on Linux adoption, provided that the functionality and usability are there. Re-training is not that big a hassle IF properly done.
Most corporations are not going to switch to Linux just for improvements in usability or even functionality. They are going to switch for other reasons: cost, security, flexibility, lack of vendor lock-in. They will only switch for functionality if that functionality is mission-critical. Once the decision is made, people will either be re-trained or required to learn the new systems themselves.
Comparing vi and Microsoft Word on keystrokes is abysmally stupid. Vi is an overly complicated mess of un-usability. The learning curve is so ridiculous that nobody but a geek would even try to use it. The same applies to Emacs. Neither of them is intended to be a word processor, which is by definition designed for end users, not geeks. Even if Word needs more keystrokes than vi to do a particular task, this says nothing about why those keystrokes were chosen. While I wouldn't doubt that Microsoft designers are less capable of designing efficient keystrokes than Linux designers, just comparing the keystrokes doesn't tell you why it was designed that way. There may have been good reasons for using those particular keystrokes. My point is that comparing two totally difference systems - even if the function being compared is identical - based on keystrokes is utterly irrelevant to the usability issue, and by definition irrelevant to the functionality issue.
There was recently an article elsewhere about how GIMP wasn't as good as PhotoShop. As usual, everyone said it didn't need to be as the GIMP developers didn't care about that, and further, that no one had the right to ask that GIMP be equal in usability to PhotoShop as that was abrogating the rights of the GIMP developers to go their own way.
This is incorrect reasoning. The issue is whether GIMP is intended to be the best graphics program in terms of functionality and usability. The second - and different - issue is whether it can be recommended to Windows users as a replacement for PhotoShop in order to lure Windows users to Linux. The two questions are entirely different. If the GIMP has functionality and usability problems - and it does either when COMPARED to PhotoShop or in some cases on its own merits - then it should be changed to solve those problems . Whether the GUI is changed to look like PhotoShop or not is not relevant EXCEPT to those people on Windows who don't want to learn a new GUI. THAT is not the GIMP developers problem, clearly. But if the GIMP developers do not INTEND to develop GIMP to the same level of usability and functionality, they should say so, and people should then stop recommending the GIMP as a replacement for PhotoShop.
It does OSS no good to recommend OSS products that do not adequately replace their Windows counterparts. It's okay to recommend OSS products that are less functional for those people who do not NEED that extra functionality. It is not okay to recommend OSS products for those people who DO need that extra functionality. Saying that GIMP is a replacement for PhotoShop without specifying the limits on functionality and usability is not helping OSS because when the faults are experienced, the new user will feel cheated. Any recommendation of OSS software to users of other software should acknowledge any significant differences in usability or functionality. That is, if the product doesn't do a certain thing, say s
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Petreley is obsessed with Microsoft, which clouds his analytical abilities. It would behoove OSS devs to ignore him.
OSS devs shouldn't define themselves in terms of "Microsoft". They should do whatever they want or whatever they think is best. If some of that happens to be similar to something Microsoft already did, so be it. If it happens to be different than what Microsoft has done, then so be it. But doing things simply for the purpose of imitating Microsoft or simply for the purpose of being different than Microsoft leads to inferior software because it allows a political agenda to intrude into the software development process.
Petreley has made his carreer based on promoting tech that he thinks will destroy Microsoft (OS/2, SOM, Java, Network Computers, and now Linux). He doesn't give a damn about OSS other than its potential to destroy a company he hates. OSS devs, on the other hand, have actual skill and can create things without having to worry about whether it harms Microsoft, strengthens Microsoft (e.g. Firefox actually improves the Windows platform), or does neither.
P.S. Petreley's rant claims that OLE doesn't support links, which is either ignorance or a lie; just one more example of his buffoonery.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000