It's just plain silly to have a carefully set up box, have a user do some carefully controlled things (whether with or without you) and conclude "Yep, we're there".
What's needed for UserLinux...
As far as the desktop and general experience goes...
I think you're about halfway there, or three quarters. - Now find a way to "hide" some stuff like directories, - have a nice user/not root routine like the OS X way of asking your password to install stuff, - a good point and click install mechanism that does away with dependency hell and - a stupid simple updater/security patcher.
This to ensure that the desktop is a moderately secure place where people on the one hand can't do too many things wrong and on the other hand experiment and expand - why shouldn't a user install programs? Why shouldn't he/she install the latest virus definitions or security patches? After all, who else is going to do it...
All of that could be borrowed from OS X. Most of it is as far as I know already in discussion or development. Thing is, it should start to appear in the most popular distributions and be adopted as standard.
I'm not saying "go the mac way", not at all. These are basic things. There are an incredible amount of opportunities to go above and beyond. But Linux and OS X share the same set of challenges, since they share common ancestry and philosophy if you will. And OS X does solve these problems very elegantly. You would overcomplicate by going the windows way on these issues.
That takes care of the desktop (or the general user experience if you will). All other issues (consistency, naming of apps,...) are minor compared to the ones I mentioned (my post, my opinion;-)
Another thing: killer apps. You need just a few. You may already have them, but they still need a fair amount of polish - not only nice looks, but good, consistent results.
OTOH, there's a shitheap of proprietary apps looking into Linux. Be nice, invite them over. These are the apps 95% of the people use today.
"But the sad part is that you have to deliver both, the existant killerapps and some new ones to make a switch. Thats the problem apple is facing."
No, that's the problem Linux is facing. Apple has a tremendous amount of killer apps for almost every profession or hobby.
Only in-house applications are not covered if they're solely written for Windows. Same goes for Linux. If the apps are written with portability to *NiX in mind, even that's not a problem.
I could write up a list of applications that are equal to or vastly better than those available on other platforms, but I'm sure you can google. Let's not go into Apple's troubles though...
Two Linux problems: - killer apps (although Linux already has a few Very Impressive Applications); - installer standards (point and click, no dependencies. I hope everybody adopts the NeXT/OS X package system).
I do agree though, people don't care too much about their Desktop, if not Windows would have died years ago. Not to say Windows is "bad", it's just not the "best" option around. Desktop Linux should already be "good enough" (although not to my taste).
If Linux can gain some market share in the office, a lot of people will try the switch just for the heck of it, and if they can find and install easily what they need, they'll never look back. If not, they'll run back to their Windows box.
1) Most people don't have the stomach to a) look among those weirdly named apps to see if one of them is actually what they need and b) try to install them to see if they are good enough for them (dependency hell, cli, build from source,...) 2) Most people don't have the time to wait around for an app. It either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't, they won't switch.
You don't have to explain everything to the retard (your definition, not mine).
OS X is a very good example. When not Root, quite a few directories are hidden from view. That's good. You don't want people to mess with them if they don't know what they are. But the useful directories are there (like Library).
Overall, the "average user" has very powerful options indeed without the means of seriously destroying its own environment.
For the "retard": you can also set up a Tilly box by doing Simple Login - just a few apps and that's it, biiiig icons, spatial finder,...
And finally, for king Geek: power users can get anywhere they damned well please, either by logging in as root or by any other means they choose.
That may be the way to go for linux, no?
A three-step approach, where people can graduate from idiot box configs (yeahyeah, joe sixpack, aunt tilly,..., why not just say what you mean) to normal working environment to absolute geekdom paradise, the land where "there be dragons" and where if you get in trouble it's your own damned fault.
If the normal working environment is powerful enough, most geeks won't leave it either for everyday stuff...
You all still got grandma's. Mine died just a few weeks ago. Never in her life touched a computer, same as my granddad (rip). I wouldn't ever have put linux in front of them, or any other system. There was not a thing they'd want to do they couldn't do with a telephone, pen, paper, bicycle and post-office. And for gossip, the local card club was plenty enough, no need for the www either...
I don't use Linux, I don't have the stomach and have everything I like and need right here in my OS X box.
I am however very much charmed by some applications and continue to marvel at the movement if I may call it that. And I sincerely hope the goodies keep coming towards my platform of choice. That would be very nice indeed.
The main question though is: if all the assesments in the article are right - and I think most of them are - is it a problem?
Most posts suggest it is not, because it results in an OS for geeks by geeks, and they like it just like that thank you very much.
I think that's the attitude I might just have as a Linux developer.
However, if that's the attitude, then the amount of articles on how Linux is going to take over the desktop and on how the difficult part is done and now only some pretty buttons for Joe Blow (Six-pack, User, whatever)... are utter and total self-deceiving nonsense.
I mean, how on earth can someone state that the average user is not qualified to install software? Just one of the "out of touch with the rest of the universe" examples I picked up here.
It may be true in your high tech console-driven fine tuned built from scratch world, but it won't win you the desktop.
You also think Pixar should stick to the Disney deal because without the previous agreement, there wouldn't have been such a successful Pixar to begin with, right? (Whatever you might think of Disney, they are distribution experts)
It IS about fair use, it requires a key and then removes the DRM without audio loss.
Want to know what's not fair: trying to control your music experience. How old are you? If you're close to my age (35), I must conclude that you've never copied your LP's to cassette, you wouldn't dare buy a cassette recorder for your car. Because it *could* be used illegally...
How else can you condone the limitation of 3 computers?
I like iTunes, iPod, iTMS and yes, I like my Apple Macintosh Cube blablablabla.
What's more, I'm sort of in the music business myself, if you can call being part of a non-money-making-but-one-day... LABEL that. See? I'm part of the bad guys. And when I can finally buy in Apple's store, I WILL do it, because it's bloody convenient. And I WILL rip the DRM guts out of those poor songs, oh yeah.
I WON'T sacrifice quality or buy again when I or my wife buy a new computer. That's very normal behaviour and I won't be thinking twice about it either.
Say, Sony brings out a one button CD burner for easy digitising of your Vinyl without audio loss. -> yeeeeey, waaaaw, coool, nice,...
Say, some punk makes a "little hack" for easy liberating of your DRM'd track without audio loss. -> awooo, faul, bastards, end of the world,...
Both however are extensions of one's guaranteed fair use of bought copyrighted material and help you leverage the use of your bought material to your other sound carriers.
Both can be abused, but that's not the point. I'm fairly certain I can kill someone with a tube of mayonnaise if needs must. Ban mayonnaise?
I am an Apple enthusiast and really like iTunes, but I'm a bit embarrassed by the arguments I've seen from some mac-users.
When all fails, remember that the Great Jobs doesn't really like DRM either, yesyes?
And he won't punish you for circumventing the DRM so that you can use your music on your FOURTH macintosh, for crying out loud! He'll love you and bless you for it.
I've read some pretty strange DRM arguments, and come to the conclusion that although I really really like iTunes and root for its success, I'll be breaking the DRM as soon as I can.
If I were to buy iTunes music, I'd want to escape the "fair" restriction of 3 computers, certainly.
I have vinyl that's 20 years old, I have a shit-heap of CD's and I've digitised some of this. Who's going to restrict MY use of MY music?
I don't care about the true colours of other people, I don't condone copyright crime (or theft or whatever) and I LOVE iTunes and iTMS (can't buy yet).
And yes, I'll circumvent the DRM as soon as I can. Of course I will. And I don't care about any or all politics about this, I'll just do it as an extension of MY normal use of MY music.
Or do you think I've re-stocked my vinyl or CD collection after changing my stereo equipment?
And to make matters worse: I'll probably be sharing some of my music around, just as I have been doing for more than 20 years with cassettes.
You now officially have the right to despise me as much as you like.
I don't know, maybe the only option here is to make it really really really really easy?
Home user wants wireless network, buys airport and airport card (or third party wireless card), plugs and fits them in, looks at control panel and un-checks the option to allow anonymous guest access to the network.
Take into account user is already behind a firewall, is using a UNIX system and is not Root.
Now translate to Linux, do you really want to make it more complicated?
Why?
As in OS X, in Linux the experienced user can go as complicated as he likes, but there's no need to make it required, unless you're really not in the business of selling network cards;-)
OK, once more we are talking about Joe User aka Joe Six-pack and Aunt Tilly. Freely translated: "morons that use computers and only talk human languages like French and English".
Also, I assume we're not talking about people who have the luxury of once every few days having a sys-admin looking at them through their nostrils.
So, in other words, we're talking about people who are responsible for their own security.
What do you think? Would making/keeping security mechanisms really complicated make Linux more secure?
To me it seems a far-fetched extension of the security through obscurity myth. And it doesn't surprise me one bit this is a MS Admin belief.
Thing is, I'm addicted to iPhoto, iMovie and quite a few (commercial) programs that aren't available for Linux and don't have any open source counterpart.
I've read about Knoppix. It is one of the serious candidates when I'm back in the civilised world. Since installation and set up are not really difficult, it seems.
My point was that as far as surpassing my out of the box OS X experience, Linux doesn't yet provide. And this based on the two reviews quoted.
The reviewer put so many exclamation marks after "features" that I've literally taken for granted the last 2 to 10 years that it indeed put a smile on my face.
But I also implied that this kind of enthusiasm for usability is GOOD!
However I feel you can't at the same time copy from a platform and then claim to surpass it when you only "sort of" offer the same level of ease of use.
You can tell the reviewer has put an awful lot of effort in creating his perfect desktop situation. I haven't.
I was however impressed with the stargazing software than with anything else. That looked plenty cool.
That and KOffice might seriously tempt OS X users to adopt parts of KDE if/when the native port gets done.
As far as Desktop replacements go, I don't feel the urge. OS X while not perfect is just too good an experience, but some OSS programs I'd really like to have.
OK, at first glance, this can't be true, why would prices go up, when costs go down?
But look at it from a historical perspective!
When CD's replaced vinyl, prices went up, since the cost of production in the early transition were higher. But afterwards, production cost would be a lot less, and then prices would fall below vinyl.
But surprise surprise: prices only went up up up.
Now consider that with digital distribution, production costs once more will go down. Not only that, but even in the early transition period, costs are down. And not even factoring in distribution, reprinting costs, art-work, etc...
Well, considering the lessons learned from the CD experience, there's only one logical conclusion. The price MUST go up. And a lot.
I'm really grinning. Not out of spite, it's nice to see so much enthusiasm, it's cool that Linux users are really trying to go one better than closed source OS.
And the amount of apps that are provided - for free no less - is growing both in numbers and in usability.
But seriously, before you beat the standard set-up of a new Macintosh, you'll really have to pull together and pull through.
I'm talking about standard installed: OS X, which is really very nice, iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, iChat, iDVD, Garageband, Safari, Mail, AppleWorks, iSync, AddressBook, Preview, Texteditor and a host of other small apps.
I'm also talking about unpack, unwrap, plug in computer, set up internet and be surfing in less than ten minutes.
That's about the experience you have with virtually everything you hook up to your macintosh. It's pretty cool, and hardly ever goes wrong. That's why I'm sticking to it, not for the lick-able buttons, a common misconception, but the last twenty years I've never put my tongue close to the monitor nor met anyone who has. Really.
A tip for reviewers: when you want to compare to XP or OS X, make sure you've spent some time with their latest and greatest and have tried doing what average users do with those machines. Then and only then you can pull out the superlatives. It's not helpful to compare sys-admin desktops and say "well, there's everything the average Joe will need".
I've just finished helping with a very instructive beta testing of a program with a truly awesome interface.
When I was talking about features, the programmer would wonder about how to integrate it in the interface. If he couldn't do it well, bye bye feature. Keep in a separate "kool things that are hard to implement list" and think it over until it can be done right.
That of course runs counter to software designed primarily for the developer himself, but is really the only way to do software for others.
It's interesting to read how so many Linux advocates think a good GUI is for simple users (Joe Six-pack). It is a sign of otherworldliness that seriously threatens the advance of good GUI standards.
I enjoy being "different", meaning, I don't think of myself as the average guy, although I am married with child and guess do and enjoy a lot of very straightforward and predictable things.
But when you make a thing for "the average human being" it should be understood that this means your neighbour, your significant other and quite a few intelligent people you might know. As well as that mythical figure Joe Six-pack, I guess, but he might be capable of many things, this fairy tale person.
He might however not have the patience to build, do command-line or figure out how to print in this environment as opposed to that other environment.
GUI isn't just about the buttons, it's the whole shebang and I really don't think any Linux distribution is up to the task just yet.
But this weekend has proven very interesting. Keep talking, I like, I like.
Just a random tip: free for downloading, perusing and musing: the Apple Human Interface Guidelines (apple.com-developer tab, free subscription to the ADC and there you go). Even if you don't want to do it the "Jobs way" it really pays to read a bit on what they've learned by focussing on that one issue - and you get all those results of testing, testing, testing, thinking, building and typing free of charge, so what's keeping you? At the very least it'll teach you something about style, close family of placement and spacing. It's easy, they provide the numbers.
OK, I was indeed referring to the parent's firewire driver problems.
And no, not all usb gadgets come with mac drivers, but most will work without consciously having to look for a driver.
Virtually all drives/cameracards/stickthingies, printers, camera's, dv-cams, mice, scanners,... will work out of the box.
But I can imagine there'll be things you can't just plug in, but I haven't encountered any problem since OS X. I haven't had *any* driver troubles in 3 years. In fact, I don't even bother asking whether mac is supported anymore, since most salesmen don't know and will prudently say "no".
This is related to your other note: since Apple started propagating USB and firewire, at last all those cheap windows hardware gadgets are now mac-compatible, whether the manufacturer intended them to be or not.
Which is a blessing, since mac hardware used to be horribly expensive. So, thank you windows? Maybe.
I don't really care what people use, whether it's windows, mac, linux, but if you want to do video, do yourself a favour and check out your nearest mac outlet, see how it works, see if you like it.
The good news: you'll still get to have command line interface if you want, you can still run thousands of free open source packages - you can run Gnome, KDE,... - and you'll never have any driver problems.
Serious, if you need video power, all you'll ever need is a mac and iMovie, Final Cut Express or Final Cut Pro - depending on your budget and level of expertise.
Seems you've already settled with Windows, but thought it was worth mentioning...
OS X uses packages AND shared libraries. This system will too. It just means that the core application and all non-shared stuff is inside a directory that behaves like an app and can be installed and uninstalled by drag and drop or automated process.
In OS X this means programs still access shared libraries and can install support files outside the package if they want, which can be removed with an optional uninstaller, or by cleaning up those files manually. Right-clicking (hard to do with that one-button mouse;-) on a package gives access to its content, allowing for installing of plugins and such.
It's a 90% perfect situation, I'd say, since it makes installing/uninstalling a trivial thing.
I agree, the obsession with Joe Six-pack is unwarranted and insulting - both for Joe Six-pack and the 98% of computer users that are normally targeted with this pseudonym when Linux people try to think about usability.
But an installer that makes it possible for non-technical users to actually install and un-install all those different linux choices does make it at least *possible* that people adopt linux.
If Linux doesn't adopt simpler install processes it will *never* be adopted. Before one can like or dislike an OS or application, one should at least be able to play with it without being slapped in the face.
That's why for once I don't mind the Joe Average/Six-pack slur.
That's the first time I heard a Linux user imply it's better to hide things from users.
BTW, I don't doubt APT is good (have no idea) but the OS X install process is as simple as it gets, anybody could do it, since you don't have to learn new concepts, all concepts are borrowed from the real world.
I don't know many Windows users (or non technical Linux users) who can manage an OS or even application install - without running in weird problems, I know no mac user who can't and doesn't do those things on his own.
So if I'm right, part of this article is about something akin to OS X packages? You install an application by dragging-dropping it somewhere (preferably the Applications directory) and un-install by unceremoniously dropping it in the waste basket.
And if I get it, just like in OS X, this doesn't mean your application can't use or install other resources in the Library.
Pretty cool, that's 90% of my Linux gripes gone in one big swipe. I hope this can become mainstream. It also means I can stop posting on the importance of simple installers;-)
I don't think Guber forgot any of this. It's not whether it's free or not, Apple and NeXT have developed the hell out of almost everything they use, whether it is Free/OSS or not. And OpenStep is NeXT at its best, which is why.
Meaning they didn't just take a free thing and then dressed it up. If that's all there is to it, how come Linux/*BSD are still pretty much usability nightmares for 99% of computer users?
Apple's Developer tools are great for doing mock-ups. The Interface builder can be used by complete programmer-illiterates and can even be made to "work" quite simply (as in, when you push that button, this other screen comes along).
This here is a perfect set-up for OSS software designers, it costs next to nothing, is easy, only takes time and can be heaps of fun if done right.
Make your own fun, test with friends and family, don't go looking for Aunt Tilly if you don't like her.
And you'd be surprised how much this method is used for making really really expensive software.
The programming language: scissors, glue, paper, crayons. Have fun.
Every screen should have its own "window" (page) and you don't start drawing cute buttons, you just describe the functions.
When you've done that, you start drawing widgets, trying not to invent anything new, just the ones that are readily available and try to use them just as God/random particles intended them to be used.
When you get that logic, when you can't imagine a feature or occurrence fall outside your paper trail, you're about ready to start coding.
See, it's not about the user being stupid or "choice is bad" philosophy - that is NOT the OS X mantra. It's simply about things not being thought through. Most programmers don't even have a clue what happens when people other than themselves use their products. This paper trail forces you to walk the path.
If there was one point in the article well made, it was the hopeless obsession with Aunt Tilly or Joe Six-pack you all seem to have.
I'm neither and find Linux usability for the most part lacking in the most important areas, those areas you don't want to be bothered with whether you're a programmer, a nuclear physicist or even if you are the one and only mythical Joe Six-pack.
go to an Apple retailer and sit down in front of a Panther machine. Try all your shortcuts, and see how customisable the keyboard/system really are.
System Preferences: Universal Access: Keyboard System Preferences: Keyboard and Mouse: Keyboard Shortcuts
Granted, you'll have to at least use the mouse a bit to open these GUI's, but after that you're in keyboard heaven.
You'll find that with Panther, Apple has - finally - surpassed at least Windows on this, with the added advantage that you can customise it to your taste so you don't have to learn the Apple Ways.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just plain silly to have a carefully set up box, have a user do some carefully controlled things (whether with or without you) and conclude "Yep, we're there".
...) are minor compared to the ones I mentioned (my post, my opinion ;-)
What's needed for UserLinux...
As far as the desktop and general experience goes...
I think you're about halfway there, or three quarters.
- Now find a way to "hide" some stuff like directories,
- have a nice user/not root routine like the OS X way of asking your password to install stuff,
- a good point and click install mechanism that does away with dependency hell and
- a stupid simple updater/security patcher.
This to ensure that the desktop is a moderately secure place where people on the one hand can't do too many things wrong and on the other hand experiment and expand - why shouldn't a user install programs? Why shouldn't he/she install the latest virus definitions or security patches? After all, who else is going to do it...
All of that could be borrowed from OS X. Most of it is as far as I know already in discussion or development. Thing is, it should start to appear in the most popular distributions and be adopted as standard.
I'm not saying "go the mac way", not at all. These are basic things. There are an incredible amount of opportunities to go above and beyond. But Linux and OS X share the same set of challenges, since they share common ancestry and philosophy if you will. And OS X does solve these problems very elegantly. You would overcomplicate by going the windows way on these issues.
That takes care of the desktop (or the general user experience if you will). All other issues (consistency, naming of apps,
Another thing: killer apps. You need just a few. You may already have them, but they still need a fair amount of polish - not only nice looks, but good, consistent results.
OTOH, there's a shitheap of proprietary apps looking into Linux. Be nice, invite them over. These are the apps 95% of the people use today.
"But the sad part is that you have to deliver both, the existant killerapps and some new ones to make a switch. Thats the problem apple is facing."
No, that's the problem Linux is facing. Apple has a tremendous amount of killer apps for almost every profession or hobby.
Only in-house applications are not covered if they're solely written for Windows. Same goes for Linux. If the apps are written with portability to *NiX in mind, even that's not a problem.
I could write up a list of applications that are equal to or vastly better than those available on other platforms, but I'm sure you can google. Let's not go into Apple's troubles though...
Two Linux problems:
- killer apps (although Linux already has a few Very Impressive Applications);
- installer standards (point and click, no dependencies. I hope everybody adopts the NeXT/OS X package system).
I do agree though, people don't care too much about their Desktop, if not Windows would have died years ago. Not to say Windows is "bad", it's just not the "best" option around. Desktop Linux should already be "good enough" (although not to my taste).
If Linux can gain some market share in the office, a lot of people will try the switch just for the heck of it, and if they can find and install easily what they need, they'll never look back. If not, they'll run back to their Windows box.
1) Most people don't have the stomach to a) look among those weirdly named apps to see if one of them is actually what they need and b) try to install them to see if they are good enough for them (dependency hell, cli, build from source, ...)
2) Most people don't have the time to wait around for an app. It either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't, they won't switch.
That part of FOSS most people grok pretty well.
Respectfully (am not a coder)
You don't have to explain everything to the retard (your definition, not mine).
...
..., why not just say what you mean) to normal working environment to absolute geekdom paradise, the land where "there be dragons" and where if you get in trouble it's your own damned fault.
OS X is a very good example. When not Root, quite a few directories are hidden from view. That's good. You don't want people to mess with them if they don't know what they are.
But the useful directories are there (like Library).
Overall, the "average user" has very powerful options indeed without the means of seriously destroying its own environment.
For the "retard": you can also set up a Tilly box by doing Simple Login - just a few apps and that's it, biiiig icons, spatial finder,
And finally, for king Geek: power users can get anywhere they damned well please, either by logging in as root or by any other means they choose.
That may be the way to go for linux, no?
A three-step approach, where people can graduate from idiot box configs (yeahyeah, joe sixpack, aunt tilly,
If the normal working environment is powerful enough, most geeks won't leave it either for everyday stuff...
You all still got grandma's.
Mine died just a few weeks ago. Never in her life touched a computer, same as my granddad (rip).
I wouldn't ever have put linux in front of them, or any other system. There was not a thing they'd want to do they couldn't do with a telephone, pen, paper, bicycle and post-office. And for gossip, the local card club was plenty enough, no need for the www either...
I don't use Linux, I don't have the stomach and have everything I like and need right here in my OS X box.
... are utter and total self-deceiving nonsense.
I am however very much charmed by some applications and continue to marvel at the movement if I may call it that. And I sincerely hope the goodies keep coming towards my platform of choice. That would be very nice indeed.
The main question though is: if all the assesments in the article are right - and I think most of them are - is it a problem?
Most posts suggest it is not, because it results in an OS for geeks by geeks, and they like it just like that thank you very much.
I think that's the attitude I might just have as a Linux developer.
However, if that's the attitude, then the amount of articles on how Linux is going to take over the desktop and on how the difficult part is done and now only some pretty buttons for Joe Blow (Six-pack, User, whatever)
I mean, how on earth can someone state that the average user is not qualified to install software? Just one of the "out of touch with the rest of the universe" examples I picked up here.
It may be true in your high tech console-driven fine tuned built from scratch world, but it won't win you the desktop.
Oh blahblahblah.
You also think Pixar should stick to the Disney deal because without the previous agreement, there wouldn't have been such a successful Pixar to begin with, right? (Whatever you might think of Disney, they are distribution experts)
It IS about fair use, it requires a key and then removes the DRM without audio loss.
Want to know what's not fair: trying to control your music experience. How old are you? If you're close to my age (35), I must conclude that you've never copied your LP's to cassette, you wouldn't dare buy a cassette recorder for your car. Because it *could* be used illegally...
How else can you condone the limitation of 3 computers?
I like iTunes, iPod, iTMS and yes, I like my Apple Macintosh Cube blablablabla.
What's more, I'm sort of in the music business myself, if you can call being part of a non-money-making-but-one-day... LABEL that. See? I'm part of the bad guys. And when I can finally buy in Apple's store, I WILL do it, because it's bloody convenient. And I WILL rip the DRM guts out of those poor songs, oh yeah.
I WON'T sacrifice quality or buy again when I or my wife buy a new computer. That's very normal behaviour and I won't be thinking twice about it either.
Oh, what an evil man I am.
Say, Sony brings out a one button CD burner for easy digitising of your Vinyl without audio loss. ...
...
-> yeeeeey, waaaaw, coool, nice,
Say, some punk makes a "little hack" for easy liberating of your DRM'd track without audio loss.
-> awooo, faul, bastards, end of the world,
Both however are extensions of one's guaranteed fair use of bought copyrighted material and help you leverage the use of your bought material to your other sound carriers.
Both can be abused, but that's not the point. I'm fairly certain I can kill someone with a tube of mayonnaise if needs must. Ban mayonnaise?
I am an Apple enthusiast and really like iTunes, but I'm a bit embarrassed by the arguments I've seen from some mac-users.
When all fails, remember that the Great Jobs doesn't really like DRM either, yesyes?
And he won't punish you for circumventing the DRM so that you can use your music on your FOURTH macintosh, for crying out loud! He'll love you and bless you for it.
I've read some pretty strange DRM arguments, and come to the conclusion that although I really really like iTunes and root for its success, I'll be breaking the DRM as soon as I can.
If I were to buy iTunes music, I'd want to escape the "fair" restriction of 3 computers, certainly.
I have vinyl that's 20 years old, I have a shit-heap of CD's and I've digitised some of this. Who's going to restrict MY use of MY music?
I don't care about the true colours of other people, I don't condone copyright crime (or theft or whatever) and I LOVE iTunes and iTMS (can't buy yet).
And yes, I'll circumvent the DRM as soon as I can. Of course I will. And I don't care about any or all politics about this, I'll just do it as an extension of MY normal use of MY music.
Or do you think I've re-stocked my vinyl or CD collection after changing my stereo equipment?
And to make matters worse: I'll probably be sharing some of my music around, just as I have been doing for more than 20 years with cassettes.
You now officially have the right to despise me as much as you like.
I don't know, maybe the only option here is to make it really really really really easy?
;-)
Home user wants wireless network, buys airport and airport card (or third party wireless card), plugs and fits them in, looks at control panel and un-checks the option to allow anonymous guest access to the network.
Take into account user is already behind a firewall, is using a UNIX system and is not Root.
Now translate to Linux, do you really want to make it more complicated?
Why?
As in OS X, in Linux the experienced user can go as complicated as he likes, but there's no need to make it required, unless you're really not in the business of selling network cards
OK, once more we are talking about Joe User aka Joe Six-pack and Aunt Tilly. Freely translated: "morons that use computers and only talk human languages like French and English".
;-)
Also, I assume we're not talking about people who have the luxury of once every few days having a sys-admin looking at them through their nostrils.
So, in other words, we're talking about people who are responsible for their own security.
What do you think? Would making/keeping security mechanisms really complicated make Linux more secure?
To me it seems a far-fetched extension of the security through obscurity myth. And it doesn't surprise me one bit this is a MS Admin belief.
Come on guys, blame it on the GUI
Thing is, I'm addicted to iPhoto, iMovie and quite a few (commercial) programs that aren't available for Linux and don't have any open source counterpart.
I've read about Knoppix. It is one of the serious candidates when I'm back in the civilised world. Since installation and set up are not really difficult, it seems.
My point was that as far as surpassing my out of the box OS X experience, Linux doesn't yet provide. And this based on the two reviews quoted.
The reviewer put so many exclamation marks after "features" that I've literally taken for granted the last 2 to 10 years that it indeed put a smile on my face.
But I also implied that this kind of enthusiasm for usability is GOOD!
However I feel you can't at the same time copy from a platform and then claim to surpass it when you only "sort of" offer the same level of ease of use.
You can tell the reviewer has put an awful lot of effort in creating his perfect desktop situation. I haven't.
I was however impressed with the stargazing software than with anything else. That looked plenty cool.
That and KOffice might seriously tempt OS X users to adopt parts of KDE if/when the native port gets done.
As far as Desktop replacements go, I don't feel the urge. OS X while not perfect is just too good an experience, but some OSS programs I'd really like to have.
OK, at first glance, this can't be true, why would prices go up, when costs go down?
But look at it from a historical perspective!
When CD's replaced vinyl, prices went up, since the cost of production in the early transition were higher.
But afterwards, production cost would be a lot less, and then prices would fall below vinyl.
But surprise surprise: prices only went up up up.
Now consider that with digital distribution, production costs once more will go down. Not only that, but even in the early transition period, costs are down. And not even factoring in distribution, reprinting costs, art-work, etc...
Well, considering the lessons learned from the CD experience, there's only one logical conclusion. The price MUST go up. And a lot.
Can't you see?
I'm really grinning. Not out of spite, it's nice to see so much enthusiasm, it's cool that Linux users are really trying to go one better than closed source OS.
And the amount of apps that are provided - for free no less - is growing both in numbers and in usability.
But seriously, before you beat the standard set-up of a new Macintosh, you'll really have to pull together and pull through.
I'm talking about standard installed: OS X, which is really very nice, iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, iChat, iDVD, Garageband, Safari, Mail, AppleWorks, iSync, AddressBook, Preview, Texteditor and a host of other small apps.
I'm also talking about unpack, unwrap, plug in computer, set up internet and be surfing in less than ten minutes.
That's about the experience you have with virtually everything you hook up to your macintosh. It's pretty cool, and hardly ever goes wrong. That's why I'm sticking to it, not for the lick-able buttons, a common misconception, but the last twenty years I've never put my tongue close to the monitor nor met anyone who has. Really.
A tip for reviewers: when you want to compare to XP or OS X, make sure you've spent some time with their latest and greatest and have tried doing what average users do with those machines. Then and only then you can pull out the superlatives. It's not helpful to compare sys-admin desktops and say "well, there's everything the average Joe will need".
I've just finished helping with a very instructive beta testing of a program with a truly awesome interface.
When I was talking about features, the programmer would wonder about how to integrate it in the interface. If he couldn't do it well, bye bye feature. Keep in a separate "kool things that are hard to implement list" and think it over until it can be done right.
That of course runs counter to software designed primarily for the developer himself, but is really the only way to do software for others.
It's interesting to read how so many Linux advocates think a good GUI is for simple users (Joe Six-pack). It is a sign of otherworldliness that seriously threatens the advance of good GUI standards.
I enjoy being "different", meaning, I don't think of myself as the average guy, although I am married with child and guess do and enjoy a lot of very straightforward and predictable things.
But when you make a thing for "the average human being" it should be understood that this means your neighbour, your significant other and quite a few intelligent people you might know. As well as that mythical figure Joe Six-pack, I guess, but he might be capable of many things, this fairy tale person.
He might however not have the patience to build, do command-line or figure out how to print in this environment as opposed to that other environment.
GUI isn't just about the buttons, it's the whole shebang and I really don't think any Linux distribution is up to the task just yet.
But this weekend has proven very interesting. Keep talking, I like, I like.
Just a random tip: free for downloading, perusing and musing: the Apple Human Interface Guidelines (apple.com-developer tab, free subscription to the ADC and there you go). Even if you don't want to do it the "Jobs way" it really pays to read a bit on what they've learned by focussing on that one issue - and you get all those results of testing, testing, testing, thinking, building and typing free of charge, so what's keeping you? At the very least it'll teach you something about style, close family of placement and spacing. It's easy, they provide the numbers.
OK, I was indeed referring to the parent's firewire driver problems.
... will work out of the box.
And no, not all usb gadgets come with mac drivers, but most will work without consciously having to look for a driver.
Virtually all drives/cameracards/stickthingies, printers, camera's, dv-cams, mice, scanners,
But I can imagine there'll be things you can't just plug in, but I haven't encountered any problem since OS X. I haven't had *any* driver troubles in 3 years. In fact, I don't even bother asking whether mac is supported anymore, since most salesmen don't know and will prudently say "no".
This is related to your other note: since Apple started propagating USB and firewire, at last all those cheap windows hardware gadgets are now mac-compatible, whether the manufacturer intended them to be or not.
Which is a blessing, since mac hardware used to be horribly expensive. So, thank you windows? Maybe.
I don't really care what people use, whether it's windows, mac, linux, but if you want to do video, do yourself a favour and check out your nearest mac outlet, see how it works, see if you like it.
... - and you'll never have any driver problems.
The good news: you'll still get to have command line interface if you want, you can still run thousands of free open source packages - you can run Gnome, KDE,
Serious, if you need video power, all you'll ever need is a mac and iMovie, Final Cut Express or Final Cut Pro - depending on your budget and level of expertise.
Seems you've already settled with Windows, but thought it was worth mentioning...
What about shared libraries?
;-) on a package gives access to its content, allowing for installing of plugins and such.
OS X uses packages AND shared libraries. This system will too. It just means that the core application and all non-shared stuff is inside a directory that behaves like an app and can be installed and uninstalled by drag and drop or automated process.
In OS X this means programs still access shared libraries and can install support files outside the package if they want, which can be removed with an optional uninstaller, or by cleaning up those files manually. Right-clicking (hard to do with that one-button mouse
It's a 90% perfect situation, I'd say, since it makes installing/uninstalling a trivial thing.
hmmm....
I agree, the obsession with Joe Six-pack is unwarranted and insulting - both for Joe Six-pack and the 98% of computer users that are normally targeted with this pseudonym when Linux people try to think about usability.
But an installer that makes it possible for non-technical users to actually install and un-install all those different linux choices does make it at least *possible* that people adopt linux.
If Linux doesn't adopt simpler install processes it will *never* be adopted. Before one can like or dislike an OS or application, one should at least be able to play with it without being slapped in the face.
That's why for once I don't mind the Joe Average/Six-pack slur.
That's the first time I heard a Linux user imply it's better to hide things from users.
BTW, I don't doubt APT is good (have no idea) but the OS X install process is as simple as it gets, anybody could do it, since you don't have to learn new concepts, all concepts are borrowed from the real world.
I don't know many Windows users (or non technical Linux users) who can manage an OS or even application install - without running in weird problems, I know no mac user who can't and doesn't do those things on his own.
So if I'm right, part of this article is about something akin to OS X packages? You install an application by dragging-dropping it somewhere (preferably the Applications directory) and un-install by unceremoniously dropping it in the waste basket.
;-)
And if I get it, just like in OS X, this doesn't mean your application can't use or install other resources in the Library.
Pretty cool, that's 90% of my Linux gripes gone in one big swipe. I hope this can become mainstream. It also means I can stop posting on the importance of simple installers
I don't think Guber forgot any of this. It's not whether it's free or not, Apple and NeXT have developed the hell out of almost everything they use, whether it is Free/OSS or not. And OpenStep is NeXT at its best, which is why.
Meaning they didn't just take a free thing and then dressed it up. If that's all there is to it, how come Linux/*BSD are still pretty much usability nightmares for 99% of computer users?
Apple's Developer tools are great for doing mock-ups. The Interface builder can be used by complete programmer-illiterates and can even be made to "work" quite simply (as in, when you push that button, this other screen comes along).
A great GUI exercise is making the GUI first.
This here is a perfect set-up for OSS software designers, it costs next to nothing, is easy, only takes time and can be heaps of fun if done right.
Make your own fun, test with friends and family, don't go looking for Aunt Tilly if you don't like her.
And you'd be surprised how much this method is used for making really really expensive software.
The programming language: scissors, glue, paper, crayons. Have fun.
Every screen should have its own "window" (page) and you don't start drawing cute buttons, you just describe the functions.
When you've done that, you start drawing widgets, trying not to invent anything new, just the ones that are readily available and try to use them just as God/random particles intended them to be used.
When you get that logic, when you can't imagine a feature or occurrence fall outside your paper trail, you're about ready to start coding.
See, it's not about the user being stupid or "choice is bad" philosophy - that is NOT the OS X mantra. It's simply about things not being thought through. Most programmers don't even have a clue what happens when people other than themselves use their products. This paper trail forces you to walk the path.
If there was one point in the article well made, it was the hopeless obsession with Aunt Tilly or Joe Six-pack you all seem to have.
I'm neither and find Linux usability for the most part lacking in the most important areas, those areas you don't want to be bothered with whether you're a programmer, a nuclear physicist or even if you are the one and only mythical Joe Six-pack.
If you like surprises...
go to an Apple retailer and sit down in front of a Panther machine. Try all your shortcuts, and see how customisable the keyboard/system really are.
System Preferences: Universal Access: Keyboard
System Preferences: Keyboard and Mouse: Keyboard Shortcuts
Granted, you'll have to at least use the mouse a bit to open these GUI's, but after that you're in keyboard heaven.
You'll find that with Panther, Apple has - finally - surpassed at least Windows on this, with the added advantage that you can customise it to your taste so you don't have to learn the Apple Ways.