I disagree with this. Certainly user education would help but I don't think we can rely upon it, continuous re-education of hundreds of millions of users is not a realistic proposition.
Most of the people using computers are using them as a tool to facilitate whatever task it is they want to perform; hold a conversation, look at naked people, find out some information etc. Their focus is not the computer, the application or how either works.
We have to build applications that reflect the *actual*, real world behaviour of users and the tasks they want to perform. Anything else is poor design.
What is more important to them - encouraging Windows users to "upgrade" to RedHat or taking existing customers away from other distributors
I would guess that what is most important to them is still being around in five years time.
RedHat has repeatedly stated that most of their business comes from replacing other forms of *NIX, NOT Windows. This is entirely in keeping with that idea. In the short term the biggest threat to RedHat is not MS but other distributions because they are the people competing in *exactly* the same arena. This looks to me like an open source business behaving like a business, good news for the commercial future of Linux.
One thing most people commenting seem to miss(being an American myself, I have only an intellectual understanding), is that the UK *is* a class society. Reserving certain public benefits for privileged classes is just *normal* there.
Really? I think your understanding of the British class system is a bit dated and probably a little simplistic.
There is a recent precedent for the British reaction to something perceived as a 'tax on the poor'.
In the eighties the government of Margaret Thatcher (daughter of a shopkeeper BTW so not exactly traditional ruling class on at least two counts) introduced a flat rate tax for local authorities. It was widely perceived as a tax on the poor. It caused wide spread protests and riots in London and was swiftly replaced by a different, fairer system.
The author highlights how easy it is to install modern Linux distributions. Now it's a good thing that distributions are getting easier to install but it's not relevant here. Most people don't install operating systems.
He goes on to talk about the freedom of Linux, paraphrasing RMS:
...freedom includes the right to use the software as you want, the right to study how it works, the right to improve it and the right to disseminate the product and improvements to others. In this regard, Linux promises to provide the freedom we need.
Again the freedom of Linux is a good thing but how is it relevant to a desktop user? I don't know any desktop users who could make any use of this freedom even if they were so inclinded, which they are not. My experience is that most people don't even use the freedom to pursue better ways of doing things they have on their non-free software. It's just not something they're looking for.
The only way to cause a major shift in the desktop market is to present a huge advantage in doing so. In my humble opinion the way forward for Linux on the desktop is to pursue usability and interoperability with Windows. Success on these two fronts means business can be reasured that Linux will play nicely with the existing infrastructure (people and things). If that happens then it can be sold to businesses on the basis of much lower TCO - because that's Linux's killer app.
Why use plastecine? For the same reason that people use watercolours when they could use oils or acrylics (or take a photograph... or sketch). Because they prefer it.
This crowd won't ease off Microsoft GPLs its software.
Alas I suspect that even then 'this crowd' would simply move on to complaining about how terrible the MS coding is, how the NSA backdoors have clearly been removed and how it should have been released under the BSD license.
The/. community have been crying out for Microsoft to take security seriously for a long time. Now that they have decided to do just that you think the community might be pleased, or just a little relieved. Apparently not. It seems MS will get a bashing even when they do what we want.
There seems to be a feeling that MS aren't doing this sincerely. Maybe not they're not but we can't possibly know that yet.
I think there is every reason to believe they will go through with this. Does anyone remember what happenned when Bill Gates realised his company had taken its eye of the ball by ignoring the internet?
Addressing your concerns would mean compromising on meeting the concerns of the iMac's intended audience. There's a whole bunch of people who are much more likely to buy their first iMac than you. Apple will be trying to sell to them first. You are simply not part of the demographic Apple is pushing this machine at.
My mom doesn't like the Nike adds with Tiger Woods in them. If Nike made adverts she did like *instead* they would sell less golf stuff.
If the message is not getting through to your users then it's time to change the message.
My guess is that, in the main, the people where you work are bright, professional people who have proven themselves well capable of learning. So why do they have a blind spot around this lesson? Same reason anyone has a learning blind spot - poor teaching.
Slashdot Mirror
...nothing we didn't already know.
L
Until recently I worked for a very large (global) company and win95 was very much alive and kicking on the corporate desktop.
L
I disagree with this. Certainly user education would help but I don't think we can rely upon it, continuous re-education of hundreds of millions of users is not a realistic proposition.
Most of the people using computers are using them as a tool to facilitate whatever task it is they want to perform; hold a conversation, look at naked people, find out some information etc. Their focus is not the computer, the application or how either works.
We have to build applications that reflect the *actual*, real world behaviour of users and the tasks they want to perform. Anything else is poor design.
I would guess that what is most important to them is still being around in five years time.
RedHat has repeatedly stated that most of their business comes from replacing other forms of *NIX, NOT Windows. This is entirely in keeping with that idea. In the short term the biggest threat to RedHat is not MS but other distributions because they are the people competing in *exactly* the same arena. This looks to me like an open source business behaving like a business, good news for the commercial future of Linux.
L
Really? I think your understanding of the British class system is a bit dated and probably a little simplistic.
There is a recent precedent for the British reaction to something perceived as a 'tax on the poor'. In the eighties the government of Margaret Thatcher (daughter of a shopkeeper BTW so not exactly traditional ruling class on at least two counts) introduced a flat rate tax for local authorities. It was widely perceived as a tax on the poor. It caused wide spread protests and riots in London and was swiftly replaced by a different, fairer system.
...so we ought to do something that's very different from what we have done in the past, which is exactly what this is.
He goes on to talk about the freedom of Linux, paraphrasing RMS:
Again the freedom of Linux is a good thing but how is it relevant to a desktop user? I don't know any desktop users who could make any use of this freedom even if they were so inclinded, which they are not. My experience is that most people don't even use the freedom to pursue better ways of doing things they have on their non-free software. It's just not something they're looking for.
The only way to cause a major shift in the desktop market is to present a huge advantage in doing so. In my humble opinion the way forward for Linux on the desktop is to pursue usability and interoperability with Windows. Success on these two fronts means business can be reasured that Linux will play nicely with the existing infrastructure (people and things). If that happens then it can be sold to businesses on the basis of much lower TCO - because that's Linux's killer app.
Read The Fucking Manual
Why use plastecine? For the same reason that people use watercolours when they could use oils or acrylics (or take a photograph... or sketch). Because they prefer it.
Alas I suspect that even then 'this crowd' would simply move on to complaining about how terrible the MS coding is, how the NSA backdoors have clearly been removed and how it should have been released under the BSD license.
There seems to be a feeling that MS aren't doing this sincerely. Maybe not they're not but we can't possibly know that yet. I think there is every reason to believe they will go through with this. Does anyone remember what happenned when Bill Gates realised his company had taken its eye of the ball by ignoring the internet?
Addressing your concerns would mean compromising on meeting the concerns of the iMac's intended audience. There's a whole bunch of people who are much more likely to buy their first iMac than you. Apple will be trying to sell to them first. You are simply not part of the demographic Apple is pushing this machine at.
My mom doesn't like the Nike adds with Tiger Woods in them. If Nike made adverts she did like *instead* they would sell less golf stuff.
If the message is not getting through to your users then it's time to change the message.
My guess is that, in the main, the people where you work are bright, professional people who have proven themselves well capable of learning. So why do they have a blind spot around this lesson? Same reason anyone has a learning blind spot - poor teaching.