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
It's not Microsoft's continual flogging of consistency that bothers me. It's that they consistently flog the dolphin.
Seriously, Microsoft. You'll eventually go blind.
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
Works fine for me, but here's the text anyways:
Pack up the Microsoft sycophants and shoot them off to Mars.
When did Microsoft lose its status among open-source developers as the evil, or better still, incompetent empire? When did open-source developers stop trying to make software better than Microsoft's and start imitating everything Microsoft does? Why do we have to have an open-source Outlook, or an open-source dotNet? Sure, there are examples of how we do things better in Linux than Windows. But I'm getting really tired of the monkey see Microsoft, monkey do Microsoft mentality that has infected open source. And the operative word here is "monkey"--hint, hint.
Aside from being open and free, isn't superiority what got Linux where it is today? Once upon a time, Microsoft was under intense pressure to catch up to Linux stability (in my unhumble opinion, Microsoft still has a long way to go). Now we have several projects that exist for no other reason than to to catch up to and duplicate Microsoft software. Worse, we're duplicating architectural nightmares like the registry, and with no other apparent purpose than to be more like Windows.
I have nothing against cream-skimming the best features of Windows for use in Linux. But creating a registry for Linux is not cream-skimming. It's pond-scum-skimming. What happened to the days when people were appalled at the idea that you'd have to edit a registry in order to make this or that feature work the way you wanted? I don't care if the registry is binary or XML. It's a maintenance nightmare.
Next time you visit Redmond, take a look at big hole with teeth marks in the Microsoft butt. That's a "came back and bit it" bite mark left by the registry. While Microsoft is trying to get around its mistakes, we're busy duplicating them.
Here's another example. Emulating what OLE 2.0 brought to Microsoft Office is not cream-skimming. It's biohazardous-medical-waste-skimming.
I remember the original Microsoft demos of OLE 2.0. You paste spreadsheet cells into a Word document. You click on the cells and the word processor magically transforms into a spreadsheet program. That makes good demo, but did anyone ask what real value it offers? Aside from looking cool, that is? This feature is bad not because of what it does, but because of what it fails to do. It fails to make it easy to create a live link between the original spreadsheet data and what you paste into the document.
Fortunately, not everyone has imbibed from the punch bowl of Microsoft cool-aid. EIOffice, although it looks and feels more like Microsoft Office than OpenOffice.org or KOffice, actually came up with a fresh idea. Imagine that. Innovation. But it took a commercial company, not an Open Source community, to do it. The folks at Evermore Software (the makers of EIOffice) must have at least one non-Microsoft drone on board to enlighten the developers as to what really matters. EIOffice gives you a menu selection to paste a bit of spreadsheet into a document where the cells are live-linked to the original spreadsheet data.
And this next bit of information should send open-source fanatics into a tizzy. EIOffice is based on that evil, despicable language called Java. How dare they? Mono C#, Python, Ruby, maybe even Perl. But Java? Won't that encourage Sun to become dictator of the world if EIOffice gets popular? It's perfectly fine to copy Win32 DLLs in order to make Linux do Windows tasks, but heaven forbid Linux should be infected with a Java runtime. How Sun replaced Microsoft as the evil empire is beyond me. But don't get me started on that.
Back to OLE 2.0 and its successors. Of course, the OpenOffice.org and KOffice folks have faithfully duplicated this monstrosity. Hey, it's how Microsoft Office works. It must be the way to go, right?
That's what they want you to think. Who is they? I don't know, but I can't help but wonder if one or more people within some of these open-source projects are Microsoft moles.
"Here's the plan. Infiltrat
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
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.
Of all the things you could propose as a reason for considering it "single user", that's the oddest. It's hateful and frustrating, and more prevalent in MS WIndows than X11 or Mac OS, but it's more prevalent in X11 than Mac OS, and more prevalent in Mac OS than 8 1/2.
You could have pointed to the single-application-instance shared with Mac OS (which Firefox has imported to X11). Whether it's services, desktop applications, or just logged in users, it takes a huge effort to have two instances of ANYTHING running in Windows.
Their virtual terminal and user switching required years of development work from Citrix, Xerox, Metaframe, and other companies to figure out what parts of the user environment should be shared, what should be duplicated, and what should be switched from instance to instance... and you still can't have two login sessions under the same user id.
For applications that run as services there's been even less work done to get around the problems... so it's actually more cost effective to build "blade" servers or run multiple copies of the OS in virtual machines than to run multiple webservers or other applications in the same instance of Windows.
I mean, I had a 486/50... this is a machine that wasn't powerful enough to run one instance of even NT 3.51... and I was running multiple webservers on different addresses under the same kernel. This kind of thing is routine and easy in UNIX, because it was designed for multiple users (and thus multiple instances of every possible resource) from the very start.
It has, as the logical postivists say, "no cognitive content", or at least very little. By talking about "Linux" and indeed "Windows" so broadly, you can make the figures for consistency come out to whatever you want. In either case the largest source of inconsistency is the choice of optional software you choose to put on the system; as it is much more convenient and you have a much wider variety of software you can install on a distro like Ubuntu, naturally you can easily make your system wildly inconsistent. It's because there's so much software, from different sources, that are available at a touch of a button under Linux. A lot of that software is of course really bad from a UI perspective, but even if you restricted yourself to reasonably good software, it's still easy to end up with a LOT of software installed on a Linux box.
None of which of course applies in the server domains, where you're better off with less UI. Wildly divergent configuration files are bad, but not as bad as wildly divergent GUIs.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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).
-
Linux distro developers might want to explore voluntary standards for certain types of configurations. Maybe something like configuration assumptions for desktops v servers. Like that commercial with the Easy button? Maybe we have an "easy" configuration for desktop distros that tucks more the inner workings out of sight. But if you take away the inconsistency in the Linux environment, you may be undermining one of its most important strengths.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
For example, plenty of Windows users will be quite happy by going to "file" to print or close an application. "Find" is under edit, not view. That's fine for people who think that way and for them it SHOULD be that way. The rest of the userbase shouldn't have to suffer for it, though.
Myself, I like visuals. The idea of dragging an application window to a printer, OR dragging the printer to the application windows, appeals to me. (To me, drag&drop needs to work by object, not by destination.)
"But writing all those interfaces would be massively overwhelming!" I'm not suggesting anyone does. Just provide a rational, consistant, standard skin that the majority can use, then provide a powerful enough engine that can handle application look&feel and drag&drop events not otherwise handled. Then write a simple UI editing engine. If people want their own UI, give them the tools to provide it.
"Most people wouldn't bother." Probably true, but the Open Source dictum is that some will, and that evolution will lead to superior interfaces.
"How does that benefit company X that sells products?" Easy enough. Every time you're about to release a next major version, look and see whether other skins are doing better than your default. If they are, switch. If that's how everyone sees your program anyway, it won't hurt anyone's ability to use it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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
Average users won't know the difference.
Of course, they wouldn't know the difference even if you didn't skin it.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
The goal of Linux as Desktop OS should be to fix Microsoft's design mistakes, not adding their own.
.ini files instead of the dreaded registry)
By rejecting everything in Windows as "evil", they're rejecting many good things like the UI and configuration consistency. Why should we have to rely on MANY DIFFERENT stuff for configuration, when Windows does it elegantly with its Control Panel? (I'm talking about the first tier, not the registry crap - Control Panel would do as well by using
To configure stuff in Linux, you have an app to configure the screen, another to configure the network, etc. etc. And THIS is the problem with Linux fundies. "Why change it? It works". It was attitudes like this that gave birth to answers like the famous quake 3 under linux troll, which originally was a legitimate complaint.
In comparison, Ubuntu (as we saw recently) has an extensive list of things-to-be fixed to make it more user friendly (like hardware recognition, boot loaders, package management), and this was the reason to delay Dapper, so they can finish the ones currently being worked.
My theory is that Linux needs a critical-mass of user friendliness to replace Windows on the Joe Users' desktops, and Ubuntu seems to approach that critical mass quite fast. Maybe in 3 or 4 years, it will happen.
I believe that the main reasons that people have choosen linux over microsoft is the same reason I have, choice. With linux we have the ability to make it appear and work how we want it to, without having to apply third party applications just to provide basic security and functionality. If you like the way windows runs and acts, use it. If you like tweaking your system to become an extension of your personality then I would suggest Linux. Because what it all boils down to is the ability to choose.
A bunch of Tech Stuff
But who cares? :)
Seriously, not all applications are for what you call "average user". I wouldn't advocate that our secretary learns how to use Vim, but I also wouldn't use another editor if I could avoid it. And I certainly didn't write Vim.
AccountKiller
/etc is for configuration files, NOT rants. Rants go in /usr/share.
.program directories (sometimes they were more well-behaved and left .program.d) and .program files. Theoretically, they read configuration information from /etc/program, then .program, the the command line, each location overriding the previous one's directives. Theoretically. Some programs did it that way, some didn't, and you had to read the manual to figure it all out.
GConf is not nearly as much of a mess as this guy makes it out to be. Remember what programs did before GConf? they littered your home directory with
Remember X Resources? X Resources are another kludge that GConf seeks to replace. foo.bar.* String, or Program.foo String, all in one big file. At least what overrides what is clearly specified.
Each program has to provide parsing code for its command line and its configure files, stat() those files manually to determine if they exist, do overriding correctly...
But the GConf puts these configuration directives in an XML format in clearly-defined places and lets the individual application developers not have to write buggy, poorly-documented configuration management, and suddenly people cry 'registry'?
What was wrong with the Windows registry was its corruptible, unrecoverably binary format and the random distribution of keys between the system and user registries. GConf does not have executable keys. GConf does not let one user change system preferences unless that user is root. If a GConf configuration gets corrupt, that corruption is localized to the specific corrupt file, and the user can try to repair that file because it's XML and not some undocumented binary format.
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
Unix: Everything is a file. Microsoft: All kinds of different metaphors, none the same version to version.
Linux: An operating system kernel.
Microsoft: A multinational corporation.
Unless the laws of reality turn in on themselves, I do not think Linux is going to become anything even remotely like Microsoft.
Linux got to where it is today by being both better and different from Windows, not by trying to be a cut-rate knock-off.
To play devil's advocate - Linux did get to where it is today by being a cut-rate knock-off. But it was a cut-rate Free knock-off, and it was a knock-off of UNIX, not Windows.
Linux has since surpassed many competitors in many ways, and has killer features that no longer relegate it to being a "cut-rate knock-off", but that's what it grew into when it became more than a hobby, and that's what enabled it to become as popular as it did in the mid-to-late 90s.
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?
Just like his rants in Infoworld and IWETHEY forums, he is short sighted and cannot see the bigger picture. I tried to comment on his rant, only to see that Linuxmafia had removed the ability to comment in an attempt to censor critics of Mr. Petreley.
.NET development environment for Linux to help Windows developers use existing code for Windows over to Linux, without having to re-learn a new language.
Anyone who took Information Systems or Computer Science knows that you develop software to the needs of the customers, you don't just tell the customers what they need. If your customers want a software that is easier to use, or works a bit like a Windows counter-part, you develop it for them. Find a need, and fill it. Quite simple.
Take Linspire for example, their success has been that they made Linspire work a lot like Windows does, so much that they have helped switch people over to it. While critics claim that Linspire is a commercial Linux, Linspire did give away free copies via BitTorrents at times, and the install CD costs $50. Linspire has also helped bring Linux to the masses with their $300USD Linux PC sold at discount stores. What has Mr. Petreley done to bring Linux to the masses, over that be a Mad Prophet of Linux who spouts out negative things?
Ever wonder that Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird are popular because they work a bit like Internet Explorer and Outlook/Outlook Express? Why there are even Windows versions of those software programs to help ween users off Windows and onto Linux where they can use the Linux versions of those programs. Novel Mono helps bring a
No, Mr. Petreley, we will help people decide to convert to Linux by meeting their needs, rather than ranting and raving and yelling at them. Your way does not meet their needs.
Take Mac OSX for example, see how it tried to catch up to Microsoft Windows when Mac OS 9.0 and Copeland failed to do so. See how Microsoft tries to make Windows Vista work like OSX. Linux is not the only OS on the block, as Mac OSX now runs on X86 hardware (Apple branded Mactel boxes) which could take marketshare away from Linux.
No rather, Linux needs to evolve in order to adapt to change. Customers are changing to wanting software that is easier to use, and works like Microsoft Windows. Refuse to adapt to change, and risk becoming a dinosaur. Would Mr. Petreley like Linux to become the next Plan 9 type operating system? Different from Windows, but hardly anyone uses it? Don't focus on the negative, but on the positive. If you are not meeting customers' needs, someone else will.
Besides a registry if done right, need not bite us on our behinds. Make it an OSS database based registry on MySQL, Postgres, Firebird, etc. When I developed software I had a fax program that used a most recently used name and number list. The way Microsoft does a registry is a flat file, which is sort of like using an INI or Text file. If I stored 50 names on a file, it took a long time to load and sort them. When I migrated to a database, I was able to use more than 50 names, and was able to load and sort them faster.
See the bigger picture, learn to grow and evolve.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Exchange? Tough? Only when you have to retrieve a single email message some dumbass deleted two weeks ago and didn't tell you about until today. Or, whenever you need to update Exchange. Or.. well, have you ever seen what happens when an Exchange DB corrupts? It's not fun. I'm sure those things have not gotten better with the latest releases since all they did was make the freaking monolithic DBs have an even larger capacity.
And AD... now there's something just waiting to get fritzed.
Nope, don't regret leaving the Exchange/Windows sysadmin post at all.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
At the end of the day, you're damned if you do try to imitate Windows and you're damned if you don't. If you try to be like Windows, that can mean copying inherently broken behaviour -- and will lose you friends in the "keep it pure" camp. If you don't try to be like Windows, somebody will complain that Linux is "too hard" {i.e. "not like Windows"}. If you try to make an application finely customisable, you end up driving people away because it's "hard to use"; if you don't include options to change things, you end up accused of "dumbing down".
I can only really attribute the "problem" to Microsoft's dominance in the marketplace combined with the popular mindset, which deems that "ignorance is bliss" and eschews learning to do something very hard, very well in favour of instant gratification with a half-arsed job.
That's why I think it's important for distributions to specialise. At the moment we have Ubuntu and Mandriva for people who want everything easy; Slackware and Debian for server administrators who feel the need to ride the metal; and Red Hat and SUSE for people who would rather pay someone else to do the donkey work. Not to mention hundreds if not thousands of less well-known distributions, catering to niche markets {self-booting mini-CDs, distributions tailored for antique hardware, retro gaming kits, movies on a self-booting CD, Linux on a USB stick and so forth}. One distribution simply can't be all things to all people.
One thing I would like to see would be a GUI front-end to the configure, make, make install process. It's distribution-agnostic, sometimes even architecture-agnostic. Now that processor power is so cheap, the only compelling reason not to compile locally has been mitigated. A graphical front-end would look a little bit like a Windows InstallShield installer. What puts people off source tarballs isn't so much the idea of compilation {though that's where they will inevitably transfer the blame}, as the thought of unresolved dependencies breaking the process. There's no reason why a properly-put-together automake/autoconf package should not be able to detect everything it needs at the configure stage. Linux allows you to mix and match libraries to an extent; so if a particular application imperatively requires newer libraries than are already installed, that need not be a problem. The installer should be able to determine for itself whether it's possible to download and install its own dependencies, and proceed automatically if it is safe to do so.
Of course, probably before the GUI source installer goes mainstream, we will need a reliable developer tool for creating self-installing packages; analysing libraries and creating a dependency database. Although this sounds like a huge effort, it probably will be more likely to succeed than any attempt towards achieving cross-distribution binary compatibility; binaries were never really meant to be compatible, source was always meant to be compatible.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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!
I don't need uniformity of lookout on Linux. I run admin stuff on console 1, KDE apps in KDE on virtual terminal 7, Gnome apps in Gnome on virtual terminal 8 and OpenGL 3D accelerated games in Fluxbox on virtual terminal 9, all on the same box AT THE SAME MOMENT! Do not tell me nonsenses about efficiency versus consistency of user environment while playing Warzone 2100 and reading Slashdot at the same time.
There you are, staring at me again.
Linux is a great OS for people who want to get to know their computers. It is also a great OS for people who just want to get things done. People "just using" their Linux box are in fact contributing something, even if they never contribute code or documentation or anything the rest of us see.
They are contributing numbers and support. And numbers and support are more important than most people have yet realized, IMHO.
I made (well, am making) the switch to Linux because I am tired of others owning my data (e.g., MS 0wnz my email since only their application can access it for me). The more I think about this, the more I believe that open, unencumbered, and standardized data formats and protocols are vital to our future documentary heritage.
Unfortunately vendors of proprietary operating systems and applications will likely always break standards - and certainly will do so behind closed doors - in an effort to gain every single bit of competitive advantage they can. And that threatens our future documentary heritage.
We are moving, slowly slowly slowly, to an electronic world. We must conserve and protect that documentary heritage now before it becomes endangered. Open source is a great enabler - perhaps a necessary enabler - of this conservation.
The more people we get "just living" on open source systems, the more people who will be "just using" open and standardized systems (as we get them built and out there). And the more people there will be thinking about these issues, thinking about the viability of open source and wondering why they ever considered paying a vendor to hold their data hostage.
Users who are "just users" make open source spread into and beyond the mainstream. And that's where we need it to be to protect our own data and our documentary heritage.
One day, we will wonder how we ever let vendors control our information. That day cannot come, IMHO, until we no longer depend upon them. That takes many, many, many "just users" consuming and loving what a few thousand motivated developers and writers and testers and project managers have done, even if they never actually think about them or make contributions in the expected or desired way.
I'm here EdgeKeep Inc.