1. I will define 'dummifying' as the process of increasing the abstraction of the users experience from the details of the process, with the intent to make the users experience analogous to his natural life experience. Obfuscating the details from the user would be a fitting substitution.
I'll not try to define 'geek-friendly' as it seems entirely subjective. Instead I will work with examples of minimal vs. extensive 'dummification.' I'll use BASH as my minimal example and KDE as my extensive. Given these examples I assert that minimal and extensive are not mutually exclusive. In an X session running KWM and KDE, BASH can coexist in a Xterm. Therefore minimal and extensive 'dummification' cannot be mutually exclusive since they can exist simultaneously.
I know I have not given an explanation of my reasons for choosing BASH and KDE, but I wanted to keep this brief and to the point.
This line of thought establishes a false dichotomy: that linux cannot be for geeks and end-users. The truth of the matter is that it can. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way. Linux has the flexibility to be 'by geeks for users' while remaining 'by geeks for geeks.' It seems to me a waste of that potential to not pursue the potential for linux as a desktop alternative. And a bit snobbish.
>>I don't think our objective should be "Total World Domination." After all, aren't we all rather upset at Microsoft for having the same goal?>>
I'm not upset with them for having that goal; I'm upset with the way they choose to pursue it. I think many others feel the similarly.
>>I'm one of the ones who wonders if we really want one click installs and easy setup.>>
From your complaints(below) it seems that you choose to avoid easy installers in favor of greater control and precision. I commend you for that. I sit firmly in that camp myself, but I can't expect everyone to feel the same way.
>>Seems every dist that has gone that route causes me to spend hours afterwords cleaning up and optimizing the "simple install." I'd rather spend more time to begin with than have to deal with "expert" installs such as Mandrake 7.0 or Corel that sure don't seem to offer "expert" level choices.>>
I'm with you all the way when it comes to my own choices. However, since we have other distros that meet our needs, why criticize 'friendly' distros for trying to meet the needs of others? I want linux to become accessible to a broad range of computer users. I want to see linux succeed in the broad market. Because I believe that it can. The easy-to-use variants are necessary to achieve this goal. Are they there yet? No, just as Mr. Connell points out, there's still a great deal of work to be done. The question I must ask is: why should they stop?
>> last thing we need is a dumbing down of Linux to this level!!!>>
>>...which is exactly what will happen if linux is marketed as a desktop OS for first-time Internet users.>>
This is not at all the case. I've seen this permutation of the 'Camel's nose' argument many times in response to suggestions that linux should make in-roads to the desires of end-users. It does not hold water. Linux is unusually capable in being 'all things to all people' because it is only the kernel; the core of the OS. The OS that you build atop that core is limited only by your imagination and dedication. Apple has demonstrated this principle perhaps most succinctly with MacOS X. They have built a MacOS look/work-alike atop a BSD core; and despite my ideological misgivings, I have to begrudge them some admiration for it. Linux can be made marketable to end-users by creating a distribution that is designed to be easy for them. The GNOME and KDE projects continue to make progress on this front, along with many window managers. The work by Bastille and other security projects are invaluable to an end-user linux flavour. Many of the resources necessary for a "dumbed-down" distro already exist or are in development. All that's needed is a group with the motivation to make it happen. Unfortunately, that's not me. (yet):(
>>linux succeeds because it is a stable, efficient, free unix-based OS that usually comes packaged with lots of stable, efficient, free unix-based software... great for developers and sysadmins who are comfortable with unix commands, config files, compiling software, etc. adding bloatware to make linux friendly to users will undermine the reasons linux became a success. unix was never meant to be warm and fuzzy. it was designed by and for software developers.>>
...and it can be all of those things and end-user friendly. We will still have Debian to satisfy our eccentric desires. These things will not disappear simply because someone makes a desktop market distro. ~_^
"Everything is as it is, and what is, is everything."
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bite.
1. I will define 'dummifying' as the process of increasing the abstraction of the users experience from the details of the process, with the intent to make the users experience analogous to his natural life experience. Obfuscating the details from the user would be a fitting substitution.
I'll not try to define 'geek-friendly' as it seems entirely subjective. Instead I will work with examples of minimal vs. extensive 'dummification.' I'll use BASH as my minimal example and KDE as my extensive.
Given these examples I assert that minimal and extensive are not mutually exclusive.
In an X session running KWM and KDE, BASH can coexist in a Xterm. Therefore minimal and extensive 'dummification' cannot be mutually exclusive since they can exist simultaneously.
I know I have not given an explanation of my reasons for choosing BASH and KDE, but I wanted to keep this brief and to the point.
>>Linux was designed by geeks for geeks...>>
This line of thought establishes a false dichotomy: that linux cannot be for geeks and end-users. The truth of the matter is that it can. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way.
Linux has the flexibility to be 'by geeks for users' while remaining 'by geeks for geeks.' It seems to me a waste of that potential to not pursue the potential for linux as a desktop alternative. And a bit snobbish.
>>I don't think our objective should be "Total World Domination." After all, aren't we all rather upset at Microsoft for having the same goal?>>
I'm not upset with them for having that goal; I'm upset with the way they choose to pursue it. I think many others feel the similarly.
>>I'm one of the ones who wonders if we really want one click installs and easy setup.>>
From your complaints(below) it seems that you choose to avoid easy installers in favor of greater control and precision. I commend you for that. I sit firmly in that camp myself, but I can't expect everyone to feel the same way.
>>Seems every dist that has gone that route causes me to spend hours afterwords cleaning up and optimizing the "simple install." I'd rather spend more time to begin with than have to deal with "expert" installs such as Mandrake 7.0 or Corel that sure don't seem to offer "expert" level choices.>>
I'm with you all the way when it comes to my own choices. However, since we have other distros that meet our needs, why criticize 'friendly' distros for trying to meet the needs of others?
I want linux to become accessible to a broad range of computer users. I want to see linux succeed in the broad market. Because I believe that it can. The easy-to-use variants are necessary to achieve this goal. Are they there yet? No, just as Mr. Connell points out, there's still a great deal of work to be done. The question I must ask is: why should they stop?
>> last thing we need is a dumbing down of Linux to this level!!!>>
:(
...and it can be all of those things and end-user friendly. We will still have Debian to satisfy our eccentric desires. These things will not disappear simply because someone makes a desktop market distro. ~_^
>>...which is exactly what will happen if linux is marketed as a desktop OS for first-time Internet users.>>
This is not at all the case. I've seen this permutation of the 'Camel's nose' argument many times in response to suggestions that linux should make in-roads to the desires of end-users. It does not hold water. Linux is unusually capable in being 'all things to all people' because it is only the kernel; the core of the OS. The OS that you build atop that core is limited only by your imagination and dedication.
Apple has demonstrated this principle perhaps most succinctly with MacOS X. They have built a MacOS look/work-alike atop a BSD core; and despite my ideological misgivings, I have to begrudge them some admiration for it.
Linux can be made marketable to end-users by creating a distribution that is designed to be easy for them. The GNOME and KDE projects continue to make progress on this front, along with many window managers. The work by Bastille and other security projects are invaluable to an end-user linux flavour. Many of the resources necessary for a "dumbed-down" distro already exist or are in development. All that's needed is a group with the motivation to make it happen.
Unfortunately, that's not me. (yet)
>>linux succeeds because it is a stable, efficient, free unix-based OS that usually comes packaged with lots of stable, efficient, free unix-based software... great for developers and sysadmins who are comfortable with unix commands, config files, compiling software, etc. adding bloatware to make linux friendly to users will undermine the reasons linux became a success. unix was never meant to be warm and fuzzy. it was designed by and for software developers.>>
"Everything is as it is, and what is, is everything."