I've been a web designer since 1994. As all of my training was in the arts, not scripting or programming, I stumbled along making sites using visual editors until around 2001. At that point I realized that my various transitions from one visual editor to the next (Cyberstudio > Adobe GoLive > Dreamweaver) could be avoided if I did the proper thing and learned how to hand code HTML and CSS.
So I did. I throttled down my workload and taught myself how to hand code everything. Sure that first year was miserable but I've since put together a rapid development framework that allows me to turn a custom design to a working Wordpress theme in about a business day. The end result is less headaches, a more refined workflow and sites that actually validate.
Sure, I still rely upon an IDE for my development and most of the Mac IDEs are highly imperfect and rarely updated (Looking at you Coda, Textmate and Espresso), but at least my general workflow remains unchanged. Therefore should I need to drop Espresso and move to the (perpetually) forthcoming Coda 2, I'll be able to make that migration without much trouble.
Because Google's arch enemy is Apple. And for some reason, logic gets thrown out the window when Apple enters the conversation. Just yesterday I was reading comments from Android users about how great Google's new movie rental system would be. This would be the same system the borrows heavily off of the iTunes model that those same users hate. The rentals are offered at the same price point with a slightly smaller selection, similar DRM and same rental terms but the Google solution is better than, "Apples closed model."
I'd love for those same users to explain to me how $4 DRM-encumbered HD rentals that expire 24 hours after you start to watch them are even remotely open. But again, there's no logic involved here. Heck, I've even had otherwise intelligent people argue with me on whether or not Google actually earns revenue from advertising so I realize sometimes you just have to know when to back down.
I agree, and I think those who don't comprehend Apple's success simply may not have an appreciation for aesthetics. They're either buying products on price or spec and to that point, a pulsating glowing LED, cables that click nicely into place and well-machined, metal cases don't factor into their purchasing decisions. After all, products don't elicit a feel, they simply perform a function.
As a designer, I can't wrap my brain around that. However I appreciate the fact that to some, my own ideals are equally as ridiculous. After all, I'd buy a technically inferior product simply because it was prettier and easier to use. Nevertheless I'm thankful Apple exists because it gives consumers like myself a choice. Although I use a wide variety of tech (and currently don't even carry an Apple phone), I like that at least one tech company is providing the world with some gorgeous industrial design. And as HP looks to be jumping on the Apple bandwagon in order to differentiate themselves from all the other PC vendors, they may start doing the same with their webOS line.
In that respect, choice is great. People are free to use their technically advanced Android phones while I can use my aesthetically pleasing and easy to use webOS phone. Everyone wins.
More seriously though, Fanboyism is a fickle thing. I currently use iOS, Android and webOS. While I consider each platform to have its inherent strengths and weaknesses, I'm very aware that liking Apple in tech circles carries a certain amount of baggage. Apparently the platform can't be good and anyone who owns an Apple product is merely a sheep buying into marketing propaganda in their quest to be cool (which brings up a question, if I place an Apple sticker on my Kia Rio, do they cancel one another out? Or do they double up into a giant ball of lameness?).
The funny thing is it goes beyond liking Apple. Criticizing Android can make you an iFan too. I offered up some fairly constructive criticism of my Archos tablet in a public forum and was essentially told to go home and spoon my iPad. However I don't own an iPad and spooning my Archos just proved to be uncomfortable for the both of us.
Thankfully I've come to realize it's just an Android thing. When webOS users recently found out that we might be getting screwed out of the 2.0 updates for our legacy gear, just about everyone in the community was universally ticked. However when the same thing happens to a Android phone not getting an update to froyo, the hive mind heckles the dissenters. Apparently phones not getting updates is a good thing on Android because you're free to root it, void your warranty and install dodgy firmware made by some kid in his spare time.
Anyway, I don't pretend to understand the hows or whys, and I've already written a book here, but there's just something about Apple and Android that doesn't mix. And it's a sad that there's not more mutual respect between the two camps because the mere existence of each platform ultimately benefits the other.
I think the iPad is a fine device. In fact, depending on what Palm announces this week and what the iPad refresh looks like, I may get one this year. However there's no doubt that it carries a stigma among the geek-crowd. As if ease of use were some mortal sin and real devices have to be hard to use. Sure, I love to tinker but when it comes to my main computing devices I just don't want to be bothered anymore. Maybe I'm getting old, but my days of installing Linux on a TC1100 are long gone. Now I just want something simple that works.
I'll never understand why so many people place little to no value in usability and aesthetics. For better or for worse they can have just as much bearing on the overall worth of a product as specifications and features.
I think you may be missing the point. The iPad has been successful in part *because* it's locked down and limited. It might not make much sense to advanced users like me and you, but people like my family who don't own or use computers love the device. It's simple, easy to use and performs only a handful of functions. They've been wanting a general computing device like the iPad for years.
And the competition just doesn't get it. Froyo was a passible solution (I owned two froyo tablets) and arguably suffered more from bad apps and bad hardware than a bad interface. However honeycomb is incredibly complex, bordering even on the features of a desktop OS. While that might appeal to advanced users, it's certainly not going to appeal to the general end user. Heck, I consider myself an advanced user and I don't even like honeycomb. For that level of complexity, I might as well just use a laptop.
I've been through two Android tablets so far and while I can see the appeal of the tablet form factor as a casual web browsing environment, there really isn't much of a draw for technical users. This is likely why so many people in the know keep claiming that tablets are fads. That said, most of the people I know with iPads are real consumers not technophiles. And they absolutely love their iPads because they rely on them as a primary method of computing.
In that respect, I think Android's got it all wrong. The honeycomb UI may be more advanced than anything found in iOS but it totally misses the point. Real end users don't want advanced and complicated. They can use a laptop for that. They want something simple and easy to use. And for that reason I think Apple will dominate the tablet market for some time.
Android is most open to the manufacturers, not necessarily the end users. The manufacturers are free to do whatever they like with the OS. While this openness might be seen as a bad thing (no consistency between devices, no OS updates, tons of pre-installed unremovable junkware) it's also a huge part of Android's market dominance.
Of course end users are always free to install their own homebrew firmware. So they're not entirely left out in the cold.
Don't just blame the designers, plenty of times it's the clients too. I've been a web designer for the last decade and to this point I've never once built a "Flash website". However I get asked to do this several times a week. In fact I just walked out of a meeting where the client wants one of those live video gimmicks where the spokesperson walks onto the screen and starts speaking, "Hello and welcome to our website." Because everyone loves talking websites, am I right?
As a developer this leaves me with two options. I can roll over, take the extra cash and add in the bells and whistles or I can try to keep the project grounded and focused on things like content, usability and SEO. The problem is you can only argue the point so much and, I'm sorry, but usability, just isn't sexy. Moreover when I refuse to give the customer the giant animated American Flag with their favorite Toby Keith song playing in the background, they'll shop around until they find a developer who will.
So the next time you come across an obnoxious website, curse not only the developer who built it, but also the client who approved it.:-)
I relocated to Florida a few years ago (near Tampa Bay) and my property is infested with Hunstman spiders. As someone from the Northeast of the US, prior to moving to Florida my definition of a big spider was on the order of about 3 inches. However the Huntsmans here are nearly as big as my hand (easily). So far I've killed three large adults, over five inches, and about a half dozen juveniles no bigger than a fifty cent piece. Most of the kills were in my house though I've currently got one in my storage shed that has to be close to six inches but I just can't catch it. These things can see you coming from about ten feet away and they move like lightning.
Sadly pest control can do nothing about them (they call them Australian Tarantula, for what it's worth) so I've got to kill them manually.
I have to admit this is the first smooth Ubuntu install I've ever had. It actually detected my wireless adapter right out of the box. No fiddling, no CLI hackery, no sacrifices to the pagan gods of open source (which is good because my lease forbids livestock and the downstairs neighbors frown upon blood dripping through the ceiling.)
I own a small web development studio and a few years back I was on the hunt for a web programmer. Being fairly new to business myself (the company was about 3 years old back then) I filtered through all of the applications, keeping the college grads and tossing all of those without a degree.
The subsequent interviews were interesting to say the least. None of the college grads had any experience in PHP or Javascript, the two baseline skills required for the job. This was despite the fact that PHP and Javascript were among the many different languages showcased on their resumes. When questioned, just about every candidate said the same thing - they were quick learners and felt that if I'd take the time out to teach them the languages they'd surely be able to pick them up. Of course this wouldn't be free training, most wanted to be paid anywhere from $75 to $100 an hour to take on the continuing education.
Needless to say, these people were appalled when I ultimately turned them down. On one occasion the applicant's mother actually called me to find out why her little snowflake didn't get the job. And it was with that event in mind that I decided to toss all of the college grads and went back to those without degrees. To my surprise, the interviews were much more productive. The applicants showed up on time and with portfolios. They were professional, qualified and had realistic expectations. No doubt these expectations were a result of people like me tossing out their resumes before they even had the chance to interview.
In the end I found a good compromise in the "under educated" group. He was a first year college student who had the misfortune of paying his way through school. He was smart, self-taught and most of all humble. He hadn't been corrupted yet with unrealistic expectations.
My point was, I've been downloading software from corporate websites for years and have never been subject to any sort of attacks (MITM or otherwise). Moreover to suggest that repositories are inherently a superior method of installation based simply on the merits of the underlying process means were fundamentally discussing two different things. I'm expressing this opinion from a user's perspective, not describing the fundamental technologies.
That said, let's say I just purchased a new printer and I'm going to use it on my Mac, my Windows PC and my Ubuntu box (a situation was actually faced with). On the Mac I open up the CD and double-click the installer. It runs through its paces and complete. The Windows experience is identical and at no point during this process did I feel unsafe or confused. Now, for Ubuntu the "easy" install. Here was my general experience:
It's a valid point and I think Linux (Ubuntu, especially) has shown it can be versatile and useful in niche markets. Netbooks are a wonderful example. Most run some Linux variant and perform their jobs admirably. But in these cases they're almost kiosks, really. What happens when they do want new software and no one is around to show them how to add unsupported repositories?
"Tell you what -- actually give it a try. Actually make an effort. Then come back with some real, legitimate complaints -- because those do exist. Your feedback will be welcome, your patches even moreso."
I've got an Kubuntu box under my desk. It's got Hardy on it but it's not on my network because the wireless doesn't work. I'd blame the five adapters but they work fine on my other systems. I'd blame the lack of commercial support for proper drivers but even then when I found a supported card, the hoops I had to jump through were absurd. Even more absurd than the "arcane" process of going to the developers website and downloading an executable as I'd have to on Windows. Though, thankfully, for me ATI has never initiated any MITM attacks.
"As it is, you really don't know what you're talking about."
You're 100% right. I've been poking around with Linux since Yellowdog on PowerPC and I still don't get it. I've used Knoppix, CentOS, Redhat/Fedora, Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Debian and although I'm repeatedly told how impressed I should be, I always walk away confused. And it's not that I hate open source software, its that I think the ideals are often in the wrong place.
The underbelly of an OS shouldn't be exposed to end users. Is this belief wrong or just subjective? Either way it stands in direct opposition to what I've seen of the Linux movement. I wouldn't suggest that the guts of the OS should be inaccessible to advanced users, thus hobbling their workflow, but that know-nothings like myself shouldn't have to see or interact with it.
"Not only that...once you hit circular dependencies or find that "sudo apt-get install xyz" returns "installation of xyz has been kept back...," you cannot appreciate the problem with installing apps on Linux."
Well said. Just because an advanced user finds apt-get to be logical doesn't mean a novice will find it intuitive. I've used it enough to say that there's nothing superior about a four hour scavenger hunt for dependancies that apparently depend upon other things you're already depending upon (and missing). Especially when the successful end result breaks your wireless in the process (thanks Ubunutu!).
The point is, to suggest apt-get is more logical than double clicking a file sitting back and watching it install clearly shows a giant misconception about the end user. As far as I'm concerned, relating technical concepts transparently to the user is a bit absurd. A "friendly" OS should obscure what's going on under the hood at the user level. But of course this goes against everything Linux stands for. Want to write a letter? Excellent, but first we're going to have to construct some paper and pencils. Okay now let's add the graphite repository...
I'm not trying to be an anti-Linux shill here, after all I do have an Ubuntu install and run CentOS on my server, but I'd argue that your example doesn't reflect the norm. For example, lots of people in my family run the Mac OS. Why? Because I'm a Mac user and got them set up. That doesn't mean, however that this is the year of the Mac desktop and no one has actually noticed. It means a handful of people I know were persuaded by my advice (and free lifetime support).
Now I could make that argument that this is the year of the Mac in light of Apple's resurgence and relative growth, certainly more so than Linux in the same market space, but it's a bit shortsighted I think. No more shortsighted, however, than suggesting no one uses Linux in the comments of Slashdot. I'll give you that.:-)
Well but that's my point. The percentage of people I "meet" online that use Linux is astonishingly high. Yet in person I've never seen it in practice. And the few Linux people I have met first online and then in person really didn't use Linux anymore than I did - which amounts to having it installed in a VM or on a spare box.
In regards to dependancies and app installs, sudo apt-get might be more logical for you than say dragging an application into a folder as you do on the Mac or double-clicking an installer executable on Windows but that doesn't mean its relatable to the average user.
I love reading articles about how Linux is really shaking things up on the desktop (or is it laptop now?) yet I've still never met a single person that uses Linux as their primary OS. I know several people who claim to use it daily (eg. they run a VM), I also know many people using it for hosting or specialized purposes (including myself) but Linux's real-world usage on the desktop is a mystifying thing. We brag about how its making inroads and how its impacting the marketplace but we rarely see it in person.
In my opinion, until Linux gets a unified interface, a sane way of installing applications and dealing with dependancies and manages some actual commercial support I just don't see it appealing to the average consumer. That's not to say it won't find a niche in specialized devices (which practically describes the netbook movement) in addition to its strong position in the server and hobbyist markets, but I would suggest that Linux as a replacement for Windows or the Mac OS on the desktop seems very unlikely to me. Almost as unlikely as it having any significant role in Microsoft's presumed decline.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, the New York Times is currently my biggest client. ;-)
I've been a web designer since 1994. As all of my training was in the arts, not scripting or programming, I stumbled along making sites using visual editors until around 2001. At that point I realized that my various transitions from one visual editor to the next (Cyberstudio > Adobe GoLive > Dreamweaver) could be avoided if I did the proper thing and learned how to hand code HTML and CSS.
So I did. I throttled down my workload and taught myself how to hand code everything. Sure that first year was miserable but I've since put together a rapid development framework that allows me to turn a custom design to a working Wordpress theme in about a business day. The end result is less headaches, a more refined workflow and sites that actually validate.
Sure, I still rely upon an IDE for my development and most of the Mac IDEs are highly imperfect and rarely updated (Looking at you Coda, Textmate and Espresso), but at least my general workflow remains unchanged. Therefore should I need to drop Espresso and move to the (perpetually) forthcoming Coda 2, I'll be able to make that migration without much trouble.
Because Google's arch enemy is Apple. And for some reason, logic gets thrown out the window when Apple enters the conversation. Just yesterday I was reading comments from Android users about how great Google's new movie rental system would be. This would be the same system the borrows heavily off of the iTunes model that those same users hate. The rentals are offered at the same price point with a slightly smaller selection, similar DRM and same rental terms but the Google solution is better than, "Apples closed model."
I'd love for those same users to explain to me how $4 DRM-encumbered HD rentals that expire 24 hours after you start to watch them are even remotely open. But again, there's no logic involved here. Heck, I've even had otherwise intelligent people argue with me on whether or not Google actually earns revenue from advertising so I realize sometimes you just have to know when to back down.
I agree, and I think those who don't comprehend Apple's success simply may not have an appreciation for aesthetics. They're either buying products on price or spec and to that point, a pulsating glowing LED, cables that click nicely into place and well-machined, metal cases don't factor into their purchasing decisions. After all, products don't elicit a feel, they simply perform a function.
As a designer, I can't wrap my brain around that. However I appreciate the fact that to some, my own ideals are equally as ridiculous. After all, I'd buy a technically inferior product simply because it was prettier and easier to use. Nevertheless I'm thankful Apple exists because it gives consumers like myself a choice. Although I use a wide variety of tech (and currently don't even carry an Apple phone), I like that at least one tech company is providing the world with some gorgeous industrial design. And as HP looks to be jumping on the Apple bandwagon in order to differentiate themselves from all the other PC vendors, they may start doing the same with their webOS line.
In that respect, choice is great. People are free to use their technically advanced Android phones while I can use my aesthetically pleasing and easy to use webOS phone. Everyone wins.
Let me guess, disgruntled Android user?
More seriously though, Fanboyism is a fickle thing. I currently use iOS, Android and webOS. While I consider each platform to have its inherent strengths and weaknesses, I'm very aware that liking Apple in tech circles carries a certain amount of baggage. Apparently the platform can't be good and anyone who owns an Apple product is merely a sheep buying into marketing propaganda in their quest to be cool (which brings up a question, if I place an Apple sticker on my Kia Rio, do they cancel one another out? Or do they double up into a giant ball of lameness?).
The funny thing is it goes beyond liking Apple. Criticizing Android can make you an iFan too. I offered up some fairly constructive criticism of my Archos tablet in a public forum and was essentially told to go home and spoon my iPad. However I don't own an iPad and spooning my Archos just proved to be uncomfortable for the both of us.
Thankfully I've come to realize it's just an Android thing. When webOS users recently found out that we might be getting screwed out of the 2.0 updates for our legacy gear, just about everyone in the community was universally ticked. However when the same thing happens to a Android phone not getting an update to froyo, the hive mind heckles the dissenters. Apparently phones not getting updates is a good thing on Android because you're free to root it, void your warranty and install dodgy firmware made by some kid in his spare time.
Anyway, I don't pretend to understand the hows or whys, and I've already written a book here, but there's just something about Apple and Android that doesn't mix. And it's a sad that there's not more mutual respect between the two camps because the mere existence of each platform ultimately benefits the other.
I think the iPad is a fine device. In fact, depending on what Palm announces this week and what the iPad refresh looks like, I may get one this year. However there's no doubt that it carries a stigma among the geek-crowd. As if ease of use were some mortal sin and real devices have to be hard to use. Sure, I love to tinker but when it comes to my main computing devices I just don't want to be bothered anymore. Maybe I'm getting old, but my days of installing Linux on a TC1100 are long gone. Now I just want something simple that works.
I'll never understand why so many people place little to no value in usability and aesthetics. For better or for worse they can have just as much bearing on the overall worth of a product as specifications and features.
I think you may be missing the point. The iPad has been successful in part *because* it's locked down and limited. It might not make much sense to advanced users like me and you, but people like my family who don't own or use computers love the device. It's simple, easy to use and performs only a handful of functions. They've been wanting a general computing device like the iPad for years.
And the competition just doesn't get it. Froyo was a passible solution (I owned two froyo tablets) and arguably suffered more from bad apps and bad hardware than a bad interface. However honeycomb is incredibly complex, bordering even on the features of a desktop OS. While that might appeal to advanced users, it's certainly not going to appeal to the general end user. Heck, I consider myself an advanced user and I don't even like honeycomb. For that level of complexity, I might as well just use a laptop.
I've been through two Android tablets so far and while I can see the appeal of the tablet form factor as a casual web browsing environment, there really isn't much of a draw for technical users. This is likely why so many people in the know keep claiming that tablets are fads. That said, most of the people I know with iPads are real consumers not technophiles. And they absolutely love their iPads because they rely on them as a primary method of computing.
In that respect, I think Android's got it all wrong. The honeycomb UI may be more advanced than anything found in iOS but it totally misses the point. Real end users don't want advanced and complicated. They can use a laptop for that. They want something simple and easy to use. And for that reason I think Apple will dominate the tablet market for some time.
Android is most open to the manufacturers, not necessarily the end users. The manufacturers are free to do whatever they like with the OS. While this openness might be seen as a bad thing (no consistency between devices, no OS updates, tons of pre-installed unremovable junkware) it's also a huge part of Android's market dominance.
Of course end users are always free to install their own homebrew firmware. So they're not entirely left out in the cold.
Don't just blame the designers, plenty of times it's the clients too. I've been a web designer for the last decade and to this point I've never once built a "Flash website". However I get asked to do this several times a week. In fact I just walked out of a meeting where the client wants one of those live video gimmicks where the spokesperson walks onto the screen and starts speaking, "Hello and welcome to our website." Because everyone loves talking websites, am I right?
:-)
As a developer this leaves me with two options. I can roll over, take the extra cash and add in the bells and whistles or I can try to keep the project grounded and focused on things like content, usability and SEO. The problem is you can only argue the point so much and, I'm sorry, but usability, just isn't sexy. Moreover when I refuse to give the customer the giant animated American Flag with their favorite Toby Keith song playing in the background, they'll shop around until they find a developer who will.
So the next time you come across an obnoxious website, curse not only the developer who built it, but also the client who approved it.
I relocated to Florida a few years ago (near Tampa Bay) and my property is infested with Hunstman spiders. As someone from the Northeast of the US, prior to moving to Florida my definition of a big spider was on the order of about 3 inches. However the Huntsmans here are nearly as big as my hand (easily). So far I've killed three large adults, over five inches, and about a half dozen juveniles no bigger than a fifty cent piece. Most of the kills were in my house though I've currently got one in my storage shed that has to be close to six inches but I just can't catch it. These things can see you coming from about ten feet away and they move like lightning.
Sadly pest control can do nothing about them (they call them Australian Tarantula, for what it's worth) so I've got to kill them manually.
I have to admit this is the first smooth Ubuntu install I've ever had. It actually detected my wireless adapter right out of the box. No fiddling, no CLI hackery, no sacrifices to the pagan gods of open source (which is good because my lease forbids livestock and the downstairs neighbors frown upon blood dripping through the ceiling.)
Not bad, not bad at all.
I own a small web development studio and a few years back I was on the hunt for a web programmer. Being fairly new to business myself (the company was about 3 years old back then) I filtered through all of the applications, keeping the college grads and tossing all of those without a degree.
The subsequent interviews were interesting to say the least. None of the college grads had any experience in PHP or Javascript, the two baseline skills required for the job. This was despite the fact that PHP and Javascript were among the many different languages showcased on their resumes. When questioned, just about every candidate said the same thing - they were quick learners and felt that if I'd take the time out to teach them the languages they'd surely be able to pick them up. Of course this wouldn't be free training, most wanted to be paid anywhere from $75 to $100 an hour to take on the continuing education.
Needless to say, these people were appalled when I ultimately turned them down. On one occasion the applicant's mother actually called me to find out why her little snowflake didn't get the job. And it was with that event in mind that I decided to toss all of the college grads and went back to those without degrees. To my surprise, the interviews were much more productive. The applicants showed up on time and with portfolios. They were professional, qualified and had realistic expectations. No doubt these expectations were a result of people like me tossing out their resumes before they even had the chance to interview.
In the end I found a good compromise in the "under educated" group. He was a first year college student who had the misfortune of paying his way through school. He was smart, self-taught and most of all humble. He hadn't been corrupted yet with unrealistic expectations.
I guess when you're Microsoft accounting is more important than marketing.
It was a (poorly conceived) joke. :-)
./getweb 1020
/etc/init.d/cupsys restart
;-)
My point was, I've been downloading software from corporate websites for years and have never been subject to any sort of attacks (MITM or otherwise). Moreover to suggest that repositories are inherently a superior method of installation based simply on the merits of the underlying process means were fundamentally discussing two different things. I'm expressing this opinion from a user's perspective, not describing the fundamental technologies.
That said, let's say I just purchased a new printer and I'm going to use it on my Mac, my Windows PC and my Ubuntu box (a situation was actually faced with). On the Mac I open up the CD and double-click the installer. It runs through its paces and complete. The Windows experience is identical and at no point during this process did I feel unsafe or confused. Now, for Ubuntu the "easy" install. Here was my general experience:
sudo apt-get install build-essential
wget -O foo2zjs.tar.gz http://foo2zjs.rkkda.com/foo2zjs.tar.gz
tar -zxvf foo2zjs.tar.gz
cd foo2zjs
sudo make uninstall
make
sudo make install install-hotplug cups
sudo
Clearly much more intuitive.
It's a valid point and I think Linux (Ubuntu, especially) has shown it can be versatile and useful in niche markets. Netbooks are a wonderful example. Most run some Linux variant and perform their jobs admirably. But in these cases they're almost kiosks, really. What happens when they do want new software and no one is around to show them how to add unsupported repositories?
"Tell you what -- actually give it a try. Actually make an effort. Then come back with some real, legitimate complaints -- because those do exist. Your feedback will be welcome, your patches even moreso."
I've got an Kubuntu box under my desk. It's got Hardy on it but it's not on my network because the wireless doesn't work. I'd blame the five adapters but they work fine on my other systems. I'd blame the lack of commercial support for proper drivers but even then when I found a supported card, the hoops I had to jump through were absurd. Even more absurd than the "arcane" process of going to the developers website and downloading an executable as I'd have to on Windows. Though, thankfully, for me ATI has never initiated any MITM attacks.
"As it is, you really don't know what you're talking about."
You're 100% right. I've been poking around with Linux since Yellowdog on PowerPC and I still don't get it. I've used Knoppix, CentOS, Redhat/Fedora, Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Debian and although I'm repeatedly told how impressed I should be, I always walk away confused. And it's not that I hate open source software, its that I think the ideals are often in the wrong place.
The underbelly of an OS shouldn't be exposed to end users. Is this belief wrong or just subjective? Either way it stands in direct opposition to what I've seen of the Linux movement. I wouldn't suggest that the guts of the OS should be inaccessible to advanced users, thus hobbling their workflow, but that know-nothings like myself shouldn't have to see or interact with it.
"Not only that...once you hit circular dependencies or find that "sudo apt-get install xyz" returns "installation of xyz has been kept back...," you cannot appreciate the problem with installing apps on Linux."
Well said. Just because an advanced user finds apt-get to be logical doesn't mean a novice will find it intuitive. I've used it enough to say that there's nothing superior about a four hour scavenger hunt for dependancies that apparently depend upon other things you're already depending upon (and missing). Especially when the successful end result breaks your wireless in the process (thanks Ubunutu!).
The point is, to suggest apt-get is more logical than double clicking a file sitting back and watching it install clearly shows a giant misconception about the end user. As far as I'm concerned, relating technical concepts transparently to the user is a bit absurd. A "friendly" OS should obscure what's going on under the hood at the user level. But of course this goes against everything Linux stands for. Want to write a letter? Excellent, but first we're going to have to construct some paper and pencils. Okay now let's add the graphite repository...
I'm not trying to be an anti-Linux shill here, after all I do have an Ubuntu install and run CentOS on my server, but I'd argue that your example doesn't reflect the norm. For example, lots of people in my family run the Mac OS. Why? Because I'm a Mac user and got them set up. That doesn't mean, however that this is the year of the Mac desktop and no one has actually noticed. It means a handful of people I know were persuaded by my advice (and free lifetime support).
:-)
Now I could make that argument that this is the year of the Mac in light of Apple's resurgence and relative growth, certainly more so than Linux in the same market space, but it's a bit shortsighted I think. No more shortsighted, however, than suggesting no one uses Linux in the comments of Slashdot. I'll give you that.
Well but that's my point. The percentage of people I "meet" online that use Linux is astonishingly high. Yet in person I've never seen it in practice. And the few Linux people I have met first online and then in person really didn't use Linux anymore than I did - which amounts to having it installed in a VM or on a spare box.
In regards to dependancies and app installs, sudo apt-get might be more logical for you than say dragging an application into a folder as you do on the Mac or double-clicking an installer executable on Windows but that doesn't mean its relatable to the average user.
I love reading articles about how Linux is really shaking things up on the desktop (or is it laptop now?) yet I've still never met a single person that uses Linux as their primary OS. I know several people who claim to use it daily (eg. they run a VM), I also know many people using it for hosting or specialized purposes (including myself) but Linux's real-world usage on the desktop is a mystifying thing. We brag about how its making inroads and how its impacting the marketplace but we rarely see it in person.
In my opinion, until Linux gets a unified interface, a sane way of installing applications and dealing with dependancies and manages some actual commercial support I just don't see it appealing to the average consumer. That's not to say it won't find a niche in specialized devices (which practically describes the netbook movement) in addition to its strong position in the server and hobbyist markets, but I would suggest that Linux as a replacement for Windows or the Mac OS on the desktop seems very unlikely to me. Almost as unlikely as it having any significant role in Microsoft's presumed decline.