Dumb stuff on Slashdot...some other fool on the Internet wrote an essay about "what Linux needs, in order to have a share of the desktop OS market, is an intuitive user interface blah blah blah". Intuitive? WTF does that mean?! Intuitive like a car, where you have to have several lessons and a lot of screwing up before you can figure it out and do it well? Intuitive like a drill, where you watch your dad do it and then you can try, but you get the hole crooked and mess things up? Intuitive like a set of watercolor paints, where someone shows you how to wet the brush and apply paint, and then clean the brush off between colors? Intuitive like an oven, where you have to figure out the cooking temperature, set the temp, preheat, put the food in, put on special mitts to avoid getting burned, and then take the cookies out? Intuitive like a chocolate chip cookie recipe, where it says "fold in egg whites" and you have no idea what they're talking about, or even how to separate eggs in the first place? Get a clue, everyone, nothing in life besides sex and eating are intuitive. Win is just as hard to "master" as the MacOS and the command line and the PalmOS and what-have-you. It depends on what you use first. Intuitive compared to what? A telephone? People don't realize that all these "intuitive" things they supposedly have aren't intuitive at all. Consider:
[buzzzz..] A: What does that mean? B: That's a dial tone. It means you can punch in the phone number now.
[rwxr-xr-x] A: What does that mean? B: Those are the permissions on that file. It means that the owner can read, write, and execute the file, but other users can only read and execute it.
The rest is left as an exercise to the reader. Intuitive is a bogus concept.
Exactly. When I read the headline and article, I was like, what do you mean "it's not ready for the desktop?" What the heck am I using then?
Linux is not Windows. This is widely considered to be a feature = ). One of the things I tell users who are interested in Linux who talk to me about it is that if they want to use Linux productively, they will need to change their whole philosophy -- get used to non-WYSIWYG editing, compiling their own programs, downloading everything off the net instead of walking into stores and buying it in boxes, understanding window managers and the X window system, etc.
I use only Linux on my desktop here, and personally, I find it considerably more productive than Windows for school work, projects, net stuff, programming, etc etc.
I'd say Linux is more than ready for the desktop; it's that the masses aren't ready for Linux. --
Hmm. I always thought that, among other things, the OSS development model produced good software with fewer bugs not just because "we had the source," but because the people who worked on it were doing it because they wanted to put out a quality product, a matter at least somewhat of personal pride. Also, the people who produce OSS software generally aren't paid (much) for their efforts...they build their apps/libraries/whatever because they want to, not because a management bean-counter is hovering over them waving an unrealistic deadline calendar.
To tell you the truth, companies like Mozilla and "the Gnome-related company Miguel started up" worry me a little bit. I think proprietary software is often inferior to its OS counterpart because developers don't always know what they're doing, managers definitely don't always know what they're doing, and a product gets pushed out the pipes, filled with bugs, leaking like a sieve, for the marketers to jack up and gyp the consumers with. Not to say that this is what Mozilla et al are doing, just that the corporate approach has its flaws. Having the source available doesn't necessarily mean an app will be developed "the Open Source Way." Corp-controlled software does and always will exhibit that unhealthy fixation on "new features" that is so apparent with entities such as (gulp) Microsoft. If OSS can be subverted into Yet Another Marketing Scheme, this could be it.
Okay, I confess I'm confused. Doesn't often happen, as I'm the most arrogant, self-important, opinionated, judgemental Fool I know, but someone please help me out here. = )
What is The UI(tm)? When people say "The UI needs to be better/easier/cleaner/faster/smarter/slimier/whate ver, what do they mean? Do they mean we should eliminate the shells? Make a new shell, NOBASH (NO BrAin SHell)? Outlaw all WMs except KDE (ok, ok, I know, KDE is more than just a WM)? Promote the Eazel project? Promote GNOME? Make a standard "Install Sorcerer that will guide you through the setup process"? What exactly would make Linux Easy-To-Learn(tm)? (NOTE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "Easy-To-Learn" (Win, MacOS) and "Easy-To-Use" (*[iu]n[iu]x)?) No shell? FVWM95 on steriods (*shudder*)? Built-in KDE? Eradicating the TAR program and GNU Make (in favor of the Install Sorcerer)?
It could only be done to a certain extent, and it's already happened.
Frankly, I think I could set all the clerks at the Court of Appeals up with Linux workstations running KDE (or even WindowMaker -- very clean interface!) and Linux WordPerfect (that's what they use in Windoze) and they'd barely notice the difference, except that it didn't crash anymore and ran faster.
This is getting long, but I find it incredible that the Business World has swallowed the snake oil known as "software training" for MS's operating systems. To hear MS tell it, they should be so easy to use that extensive training (and believe it or not, I taught these classes for a year, so I know all about it!) isn't necessary. So what's the advantage to using Windows? You have to train your employees regardless of the OS you choose, may as well make it one they can be more productive in, right?
The UI's already there, guys. I think Linux suffers from an outdated stigma that it's for hAcKerZ 0nl3.
"You must unlearn what you have learned...", Yoda adds, nodding sagely.
Hopefully some of this made some sense. If it's Just Another Incoherent Rant (JAIR), Jeeves most humbly apologizes. = )
Everyone take it easy.
-- The more things change, the more they stay insane...
One of the reasons I use Perl quite a bit, for all kinds of stuff, is because OO is a "bolt-on" rather than I "built-in". I still can't believe the extent to which a bogus concept like "Object-Oriented Programming" has been accepted by the mainstream commercial development people (i.e. People Who Write Windows Software). The vast majority of the programs I see developed for Linux these days seem to be written in C. Or at least, quite a few of them. = )
Anyone ever read that joke interview with Stroustrup regarding the invention of C++, and how it was actually just a ploy to raise the salaries of programmers? I doubt that's what the inventors intended, but the fact that most of the denouncements of the "features" of the language in that interview are perfectly supportable is very interesting... (not only that, but C++ is single-handedly responsible for the entire Windows community;).
Ok, so I'm joking a little bit, but mostly not. I still think OOP isn't very useful. And as far as the Perl vs. Python article goes, use whatever gets the job done better, but non-enforced OOP is IMO definitely a good thing.
The thing that really bugs me about articles like this one is that they seem to misunderstand where Linux fits into the OS "arena". Linux does NOT need to run "right out of the box" or be "plug-and-play" (I always find the latter to be an amusing term based on my experiences with Windows).
If you want a PC that you can just take out of the box, plug in, and type your report/spreadsheet/letter/whatever and sign onto AOL and check your mail/chat/whatever, get a Macintosh. The new iMacs and (especially) the G3's provide a lot of power and are very easy to use for the technically-unenthusiastic. Apple has "ease of learning" (NOT THE SAME AS "EASE OF USE"!) down pat.
If you want flexibility, (almost) limitless possibilities, cool toys, interesting software to play with, excellent free programs, including compilers, graphics applications, etc, and you're WILLING TO READ LOTS AND LOTS OF DOCUMENTATION, you want Linux. And even then, if you're coming from Windows, you'll probably have to change your whole philosophy: shells, X, window managers, LaTeX, etc. Hey, guess what? That leaves NO PURPOSE for Windows 95/98/2000/whatever. It's mediocre, it barely works (I thought it worked pretty well until I started using Linux back in '95), the software is bloated, mediocre, and expensive, and I simply don't understand where people get off on this stuff. Purchase of Windoze is Not Recommended.
My real purpose here isn't to start a war about the usability of various operating systems, because it doesn't matter. File formats (and games = ) aside, the bases are covered between Linux and the Macs. Think about that. What the article says is that Linux won't ever be anything for the masses unless it adopts certain ease-of-learning techniques used by other OS's. What do we care how many people use Linux? Linux isn't for the non-technically-literate masses; that's what the Mac is for.
Furthermore, what's this business about the "Linux killer"? Last time I checked, there was no company you could buy out to eliminate Linux from the market. And New Technology that would make Linux obsolete would have to be pretty darn spectacular, IMO. = )
Slashdot Mirror
[buzzzz..] A: What does that mean?
B: That's a dial tone. It means you can punch in the phone number now.
[rwxr-xr-x] A: What does that mean?
B: Those are the permissions on that file. It means that the owner can read, write, and execute the file, but other users can only read and execute it.
The rest is left as an exercise to the reader. Intuitive is a bogus concept.
Linux is not Windows. This is widely considered to be a feature = ). One of the things I tell users who are interested in Linux who talk to me about it is that if they want to use Linux productively, they will need to change their whole philosophy -- get used to non-WYSIWYG editing, compiling their own programs, downloading everything off the net instead of walking into stores and buying it in boxes, understanding window managers and the X window system, etc.
I use only Linux on my desktop here, and personally, I find it considerably more productive than Windows for school work, projects, net stuff, programming, etc etc.
I'd say Linux is more than ready for the desktop; it's that the masses aren't ready for Linux.
--
To tell you the truth, companies like Mozilla and "the Gnome-related company Miguel started up" worry me a little bit. I think proprietary software is often inferior to its OS counterpart because developers don't always know what they're doing, managers definitely don't always know what they're doing, and a product gets pushed out the pipes, filled with bugs, leaking like a sieve, for the marketers to jack up and gyp the consumers with. Not to say that this is what Mozilla et al are doing, just that the corporate approach has its flaws. Having the source available doesn't necessarily mean an app will be developed "the Open Source Way." Corp-controlled software does and always will exhibit that unhealthy fixation on "new features" that is so apparent with entities such as (gulp) Microsoft. If OSS can be subverted into Yet Another Marketing Scheme, this could be it.
What is The UI(tm)? When people say "The UI needs to be better/easier/cleaner/faster/smarter/slimier/whate ver, what do they mean? Do they mean we should eliminate the shells? Make a new shell, NOBASH (NO BrAin SHell)? Outlaw all WMs except KDE (ok, ok, I know, KDE is more than just a WM)? Promote the Eazel project? Promote GNOME? Make a standard "Install Sorcerer that will guide you through the setup process"? What exactly would make Linux Easy-To-Learn(tm)? (NOTE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "Easy-To-Learn" (Win, MacOS) and "Easy-To-Use" (*[iu]n[iu]x)?) No shell? FVWM95 on steriods (*shudder*)? Built-in KDE? Eradicating the TAR program and GNU Make (in favor of the Install Sorcerer)?
It could only be done to a certain extent, and it's already happened.
Frankly, I think I could set all the clerks at the Court of Appeals up with Linux workstations running KDE (or even WindowMaker -- very clean interface!) and Linux WordPerfect (that's what they use in Windoze) and they'd barely notice the difference, except that it didn't crash anymore and ran faster.
This is getting long, but I find it incredible that the Business World has swallowed the snake oil known as "software training" for MS's operating systems. To hear MS tell it, they should be so easy to use that extensive training (and believe it or not, I taught these classes for a year, so I know all about it!) isn't necessary. So what's the advantage to using Windows? You have to train your employees regardless of the OS you choose, may as well make it one they can be more productive in, right?
The UI's already there, guys. I think Linux suffers from an outdated stigma that it's for hAcKerZ 0nl3.
"You must unlearn what you have learned...", Yoda adds, nodding sagely.
Hopefully some of this made some sense. If it's Just Another Incoherent Rant (JAIR), Jeeves most humbly apologizes. = )
Everyone take it easy.
--
The more things change, the more they stay insane...
Anyone ever read that joke interview with Stroustrup regarding the invention of C++, and how it was actually just a ploy to raise the salaries of programmers? I doubt that's what the inventors intended, but the fact that most of the denouncements of the "features" of the language in that interview are perfectly supportable is very interesting... (not only that, but C++ is single-handedly responsible for the entire Windows community ;).
Ok, so I'm joking a little bit, but mostly not. I still think OOP isn't very useful. And as far as the Perl vs. Python article goes, use whatever gets the job done better, but non-enforced OOP is IMO definitely a good thing.
TTFN
If you want a PC that you can just take out of the box, plug in, and type your report/spreadsheet/letter/whatever and sign onto AOL and check your mail/chat/whatever, get a Macintosh. The new iMacs and (especially) the G3's provide a lot of power and are very easy to use for the technically-unenthusiastic. Apple has "ease of learning" (NOT THE SAME AS "EASE OF USE"!) down pat.
If you want flexibility, (almost) limitless possibilities, cool toys, interesting software to play with, excellent free programs, including compilers, graphics applications, etc, and you're WILLING TO READ LOTS AND LOTS OF DOCUMENTATION, you want Linux. And even then, if you're coming from Windows, you'll probably have to change your whole philosophy: shells, X, window managers, LaTeX, etc. Hey, guess what? That leaves NO PURPOSE for Windows 95/98/2000/whatever. It's mediocre, it barely works (I thought it worked pretty well until I started using Linux back in '95), the software is bloated, mediocre, and expensive, and I simply don't understand where people get off on this stuff. Purchase of Windoze is Not Recommended.
My real purpose here isn't to start a war about the usability of various operating systems, because it doesn't matter. File formats (and games = ) aside, the bases are covered between Linux and the Macs. Think about that. What the article says is that Linux won't ever be anything for the masses unless it adopts certain ease-of-learning techniques used by other OS's. What do we care how many people use Linux? Linux isn't for the non-technically-literate masses; that's what the Mac is for.
Furthermore, what's this business about the "Linux killer"? Last time I checked, there was no company you could buy out to eliminate Linux from the market. And New Technology that would make Linux obsolete would have to be pretty darn spectacular, IMO. = )
Take care.