Interesting insight and I agree closely! I run a Mac and Windows and wish on the starts I had a term or can get process info. But thats just them.
Yes, make it as simple as one wants it OR as complex. Why can't it be? Can the Linux gods (real programmers) not create a "user friendly, net surf'in" Linux distro that has mostly, and I stress mostly, similar interface. Many will disagree, but to me GNOME and KDE are very similar in appearance. Caldera has a fantastic install program and Partition Magic is the best i've seen yet.
Absolutely give choice. I posted to this article that choice==dynamic OS! Choice is what will allow software developers the chance to try something new and be as creative as they can, but similarity will keep the audience.
Mark my words, as a volunteer on irc Linuxhelp, I see about half to three-quarters of the people are new to Linux and see it as a "Windows" alternative. Once they find out that it really isn't, their attention will turn. Linux must keep the audience. If it doen't, it will die as a popular OS.
Users and administrators can benefit greatly from Linux. but Linux _has_ to be more focused on what it wants to become. If that is enterprise serving, so be it. If it is workstations, great. if it is home use desktop OS's, go for it. And it can be all the above.
In all, the main message to me was "look at what you want and how to get it". If linux wants to be "the" OS for users, yes users, it better start learning to play the game. Be something for everyone.
In all, I agree with the author. That is until the comment about one distribution or window manager. I strongly dissagree with is assessment that it is a weakness that we have many distributions and window managers. What makes Linux dynamic "is" its ability to be different. Take for instance, most people own a car. You do I'm sure. Why did you buy your car? What criteria did you have? Color? Interior style? Brand name? Usefulness?
How would you feel if the only car you could get was a sedan? Maybe green. Maybe white. Maybe blue. But basically, a sedan with a 1.5l engine, 30mpg, top speed 70mph. Kinda boring huh?
Oh yes, consistent! You or your mechanic could easily fix it if necessary, but right now, do you do the work of a certified mechanic on your car? I think not.
Consistency "is" important though, but not sameness. Windows is the prime example of consistency. As the author stated, when you look at the menu bar (tool bar), you see "file" and "edit" and a number of other familiar items. And yes, at the price of sameness, you get consistency. Take this a s double edged sword.
However, I had read a few replies to "Designing Linux..." saying that people do not use Operating systems, they use programs and applications. B.S.
They do use operating systems. They use it everytime they use the app or program. Its called the API.
Which bring me back full circle to why Linux _must_ become a more user friendly system. As one post stated "I'm not the masses...", I'm not either, but 95%+ of the computer users in the World are.
I volunteer on irc channel Linuxhelp frequently and the most frequent questions are "how do I install?" and "I can't get to work." "How do I do this...?" "Why won't this device work?" Even something simple as "how do I mount a floppy?" Why should they _have_ to ask? Why can't these tasks be performed automatically? Actually I know they can, but _they_ don't. Both Windows and Macintosh can do it, why can't Linux do it by default? And better, might I add.
No, I don't advocate "one flavor for the masses". We have Windows for that. But we _cannot_ dissmiss the _fact_ that Windows IS highly successful. And that to be as successful, wheather OSI, FSF, GNU, GPL or any of the other "acronyms-of-the-month", Linux has to play the game. The game of _winning over_ the Windows users by showing them the better way. But it _has_ to be simple.
I went to this site (as probably did all of you) and I was very embarrased. If Mindcraft *did* throw the tests, thats *their* shame, not ours. We as a community have the BEST -- hands down and we know it and that should be all there is to know.
However, their are the *Linux Religious* zealots that think that bad language and immaturity is effective -- it isn't.
I'm not a programmer, let alone a *real* contributor like the many who develoled Linux, but I do my part in the area of advocacy. And to have this happen... In a few lines, they distroy the credibility it has taken years to develope. These immature people are fueling the FUD we are hearing of now. They are giving MicroSoft (yes I call it by its proper name) the backing to say "look at this group if loose-knit, juvenile hackers that want to give you this crappy OS." FUD. It *can* kill us if we don't stop the potty-mouth.
Hell, yes I'm mad at Mindcraft. I was mad then and I'm still mad now, but I heard recently that Linus himself called this an opportunity to get a real-time look at how NT and Linux match up. There is *always* room for improvement. And once we improve, don't you think MicroSoft will too?
The pace is up to us, to see how far we can go. How far we can push the envelope. How much good we can do for everyone, and I mean everyone. If we are lacking, I know we will overcome. We will succeed.
I went to this site (as probably did all of you) and I was very embarrased. If Mindcraft *did* throw the tests, thats *their* shame, not ours. We as a community have the BEST -- hands down and we know it and that should be all there is to know.
However, their are the *Linux Religious* zealots that think that bad language and immaturity is effective -- it isn't.
I'm not a programmer, let alone a *real* contributor like the many who develoled Linux, but I do my part in the area of advocacy. And to have this happen... In a few lines, they distroy the credibility it has taken years to develope. These immature people are fueling the FUD we are hearing of now. They are giving MicroSoft (yes I call it by its proper name) the backing to say "look at this group if loose-knit, juvenile hackers that want to give you this crappy OS." FUD. It *can* kill us if we don't stop the potty-mouth.
Hell, yes I'm mad at Mindcraft. I was mad then and I'm still mad now, but I heard recently that Linus himself called this an opportunity to get a real-time look at how NT and Linux match up. There is *always* room for improvement. And once we improve, don't you think MicroSoft will too?
The pace is up to us, to see how far we can go. How far we can push the envelope. How much good we can do for everyone, and I mean everyone. If we are lacking, I know we will overcome. We will succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting insight and I agree closely! I run a Mac and Windows and wish on the starts I had a term or can get process info. But thats just them.
Yes, make it as simple as one wants it OR as complex. Why can't it be? Can the Linux gods (real programmers) not create a "user friendly, net surf'in" Linux distro that has mostly, and I stress mostly, similar interface. Many will disagree, but to me GNOME and KDE are very similar in appearance. Caldera has a fantastic install program and Partition Magic is the best i've seen yet.
Absolutely give choice. I posted to this article that choice==dynamic OS! Choice is what will allow software developers the chance to try something new and be as creative as they can, but similarity will keep the audience.
Mark my words, as a volunteer on irc Linuxhelp, I see about half to three-quarters of the people are new to Linux and see it as a "Windows" alternative. Once they find out that it really isn't, their attention will turn. Linux must keep the audience. If it doen't, it will die as a popular OS.
Users and administrators can benefit greatly from Linux. but Linux _has_ to be more focused on what it wants to become. If that is enterprise serving, so be it. If it is workstations, great. if it is home use desktop OS's, go for it. And it can be all the above.
Just remember _who_ is using it!
thanks
-Wes Yates
In all, the main message to me was "look at what you want and how to get it". If linux wants to be "the" OS for users, yes users, it better start learning to play the game. Be something for everyone.
In all, I agree with the author. That is until the comment about one distribution or window manager. I strongly dissagree with is assessment that it is a weakness that we have many distributions and window managers. What makes Linux dynamic "is" its ability to be different. Take for instance, most people own a car. You do I'm sure. Why did you buy your car? What criteria did you have? Color? Interior style? Brand name? Usefulness?
How would you feel if the only car you could get was a sedan? Maybe green. Maybe white. Maybe blue. But basically, a sedan with a 1.5l engine, 30mpg, top speed 70mph. Kinda boring huh?
Oh yes, consistent! You or your mechanic could easily fix it if necessary, but right now, do you do the work of a certified mechanic on your car? I think not.
Consistency "is" important though, but not sameness. Windows is the prime example of consistency. As the author stated, when you look at the menu bar (tool bar), you see "file" and "edit" and a number of other familiar items. And yes, at the price of sameness, you get consistency. Take this a s double edged sword.
However, I had read a few replies to "Designing Linux..." saying that people do not use Operating systems, they use programs and applications. B.S.
They do use operating systems. They use it everytime they use the app or program. Its called the API.
Which bring me back full circle to why Linux _must_ become a more user friendly system. As one post stated "I'm not the masses...", I'm not either, but 95%+ of the computer users in the World are.
I volunteer on irc channel Linuxhelp frequently and the most frequent questions are "how do I install?" and "I can't get to work." "How do I do this...?" "Why won't this device work?" Even something simple as "how do I mount a floppy?" Why should they _have_ to ask? Why can't these tasks be performed automatically? Actually I know they can, but _they_ don't. Both Windows and Macintosh can do it, why can't Linux do it by default? And better, might I add.
No, I don't advocate "one flavor for the masses". We have Windows for that. But we _cannot_ dissmiss the _fact_ that Windows IS highly successful. And that to be as successful, wheather OSI, FSF, GNU, GPL or any of the other "acronyms-of-the-month", Linux has to play the game. The game of _winning over_ the Windows users by showing them the better way. But it _has_ to be simple.
-Wes Yates
I went to this site (as probably did all of you) and I was very embarrased. If Mindcraft *did* throw the tests, thats *their* shame, not ours. We as a community have the BEST -- hands down and we know it and that should be all there is to know.
However, their are the *Linux Religious* zealots that think that bad language and immaturity is effective -- it isn't.
I'm not a programmer, let alone a *real* contributor like the many who develoled Linux, but I do my part in the area of advocacy. And to have this happen... In a few lines, they distroy the credibility it has taken years to develope. These immature people are fueling the FUD we are hearing of now. They are giving MicroSoft (yes I call it by its proper name) the backing to say "look at this group if loose-knit, juvenile hackers that want to give you this crappy OS." FUD. It *can* kill us if we don't stop the potty-mouth.
Hell, yes I'm mad at Mindcraft. I was mad then and I'm still mad now, but I heard recently that Linus himself called this an opportunity to get a real-time look at how NT and Linux match up. There is *always* room for improvement. And once we improve, don't you think MicroSoft will too?
The pace is up to us, to see how far we can go. How far we can push the envelope. How much good we can do for everyone, and I mean everyone. If we are lacking, I know we will overcome. We will succeed.
Good luck to us all.
-Wes Yates
I went to this site (as probably did all of you) and I was very embarrased. If Mindcraft *did* throw the tests, thats *their* shame, not ours. We as a community have the BEST -- hands down and we know it and that should be all there is to know.
However, their are the *Linux Religious* zealots that think that bad language and immaturity is effective -- it isn't.
I'm not a programmer, let alone a *real* contributor like the many who develoled Linux, but I do my part in the area of advocacy. And to have this happen... In a few lines, they distroy the credibility it has taken years to develope. These immature people are fueling the FUD we are hearing of now. They are giving MicroSoft (yes I call it by its proper name) the backing to say "look at this group if loose-knit, juvenile hackers that want to give you this crappy OS." FUD. It *can* kill us if we don't stop the potty-mouth.
Hell, yes I'm mad at Mindcraft. I was mad then and I'm still mad now, but I heard recently that Linus himself called this an opportunity to get a real-time look at how NT and Linux match up. There is *always* room for improvement. And once we improve, don't you think MicroSoft will too?
The pace is up to us, to see how far we can go. How far we can push the envelope. How much good we can do for everyone, and I mean everyone. If we are lacking, I know we will overcome. We will succeed.
Good luck to us all.
-Wes Yates