Linux-Advocacy Digest #558, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Powerful Linux GUI Interfaces - Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty ("1$worth")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "1$worth" <"1$worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: The Powerful Linux GUI Interfaces - Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:09:16 +0100
s"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Actually, Linux has a number of GUIs, which, when the user is given
> the choice of the "Redmond95" (windows-like) and others such as
> KDE, Enlightenment, or even FVWM2 with AfterStep, indicates that
> those interested in Linux are least interested in Redmond95 (the
> look and feel of Microsoft).
..and this is a great strength.
> > not some ease of use BS [but to address the M$ rebooting idiom]"
>
> > For Linux to be propelled onto the desktop I'd urge
> > posters to drop this assumption for the good of the community.
>
> I would agree. I'd also suggest that any Windows adovocate who
> claimes that Linux lacks "ease of use" is speaking from a position
> of total ignorance.
I would disagree. Getting some hardware to work is a _real_ pain. This
is not the fault of GUI of course, but to most people the GUI _is Linux
and the configuration tools are not what they should be at this point
(even if improving all the time). Ease of use therefore must include
making things easy for people - the whole point of the parc research.
>The fact is that many of the interfaces available
> for Linux have been adapted from, and often enhanced by, some of the
> best GUI designers in the industry, including members of PARC, members
> of NeXT, members of OpenLook, members of GNOME, and members of the
> KDE projects. In addition, there will be new interfaces coming out
> from the designers of the Apple Mac and iMac interfaces. Furthermore,
> Linux offers ways to get most of the best features of all of these
> different environments.
Hmmmm. You know and I know that integration is a real issue. Simple
tasks such as drag-and-drop with copy/paste is not consistent and very
off-putting for the user.
>To say that the GUI designers in Redmond
> are the only ones qualified to produce an easy-to-use interface
> is just silly.
Well I am glad that I have never said that as it indeed would be dumb.
> The best part of all these interfaces is that they are completely
> interchangable. I can launch KDE applications from Enlightenment,
> I can launche GNOME applications from KDE, and I can launch Athena
> applications from Afterstep, and you can easily use any of the above
> combinations interchangably. This is because the ICCCM formalized
> the standards of communicating between windows clients. This makes
> the alteration or substitution of desktops and window managers
> transparent to both the user and the application.
Yes they are interchangeable, but are they consistent from the point of
view of how the user interacts? No, and this may not be a problem, but
when you use different widget sets, there are fundamental problems with
how applications can interact.
> If you look closely, most of the WinTroll attacks have been based
> on the difficulty of installation. This is where the single
> installation with two sets of dialogues (one at the very beginning
> and one after all of the software is installed) with no reboots,
> gives Linux an advantage over equivalent installations of Microsoft
> Windows and Multiple Applications that involve numerous reboots and
> manual configuration using an exclusively interactive GUI panel.
Yes. I don't really care that much about installation. I care about
users who would like to use Linux with little experience. Most of these
people could buy a computer with Linux already installed (just as
windows). I do care about post configuration such as adding a network
card or configuring IP addresses or setting up printers and Internet
connections.
> A GUI is a great thing when you are doing something only once, and you
> need feedback at every step, but when you want to do the same thing
> many times, or you want to schedule the interactive dialogues such
> that you only need to have one set of dialogues and complete that
> phase at a later time, Linux used the approach of creating GUIs
> that create scripts. This gives the advantages of a GUI, with the
> stability and reproducability of scripts. This makes it easy
> to configure one machine - using GUIs, then copy the control files
> and essentially say "just like that, but change my IP address and
> hostname".
I fail to see what this has to do with anything (while very true of
course).
> > IMHO:
> >
> > "Ease of use" to me means that you can get things done faster and
> > better.
>
> On this I would give you unqualified agreement.
Good :-)
> > It means "power" to the user that otherwise would not possess
> > the knowledge to extract that power.
>
> Were moving into murky waters here. Often, users shouldn't have
> too much power if they lack knowledge.
I like murky waters, it's where though decisions must be made.
>If they start routing a
> 10.*.*.* address out through your T1, that's a problem. If they
> decide to make up an IP address because they don't realize that
> each address must be assigned, or worse, they get the IP address of
> the mainframe, thinking that should be the IP address they are supposed
> to use, you can end up with very unhappy system administrators.
Surely the simple unix permissions should help there when combined with
configuration tools? You can't stop people doing silly things. I would
argue though that you should give them the power to _easily_ configure
things that they should. Of course in a networked environment these
things are important but lets concentrate on the home user/business
user.
> > "Ease of use" means that Linux can be accessible to people whom
> > otherwise would be locked into closed source for-profits-only
> > solutions.
>
> Agreed. I'm still not sure that every one will want Linux. There
> are those who want "Freeze-dried-instant-microvable success, with
> a lawsuit guarantee", and think they will get it with Microsoft.
> Even though the track record over a 5 year period indicates just
> the opposite.
Yes, but my point is that for Linux to become most successful M$
"newbies" should be able to jump on-board without drowning in hand
editing text files with vi. As you point out the attitude of M$ users to
support and legal redress is questionable (and laughable).
> > It also means that the MARKET will take Linux as seriously
> > as it does with a Microsoft or an Apple.
>
> The industry is starting to take Linux VERY seriously. When you
> have IBM, DELL, HP, Compaq, Sun, Gateway, and Sony, Toshiba, Sega,
> and Nintendo all considering Linux to be a strategic product,
> it's foolish not to pay attention.
I am not sure. Show me the drivers..... Until the above companies start
putting code where their mouths are then I'll be impressed (call me
cynical). It seems it's always up to the Linux community to write the
code - so how far do these companies "commitment" go? Releasing products
specs is a vital first step, but it seems that only IBM have made any
"real" commitment.
> When you see an industry that triples every 9-12 months, and has
> already sold nearly 6 million units in the previous year, you pay
> attention. There's a good chance that the number will be 18 million
> this year and 54 million next year. That gets noticed quickly.
This will not continue if ease of use is not a mantra for the Linux
community and that requires a lot of people to re-think their attitudes.
> When you have an industry in which freely distributable software
> has created and fueled growth which indicates that roughly 3
> installations are made for every copy sold and shipped commercially,
> and apply that to the numbers above, you suddenly realize that
> you could have 150 million people using Linux within 24-36 MONTHS.
Maybe, but then we don't know (or should care?) for sure.
> Thank GOODNESS you don't have to completely retool everything.
Quite.
> > It means that even more device makers will
> > positively want their hardware to work to
> > its fully optimised potential under Linux.
>
> I think this is already happening. Furthermore, Linux is
> creating demand for after-market products such as realmodems,
> Linux compatible video and sound cards, and even Linux compatible
> USB peripherals.
What? What? Linux compatible USB devices demand????? More real modems?
Give me a break. Come on 2.4 is all I will say to this. Many companies
have seen the benefits but some still hold out (come on ATI!). It is a
sad fact that more and more companies are choosing to close their
product specs and move to closed software emulation. IMHO while there
has been great advances in the broad range of supported devices it needs
some real market demand to really start the Linux snow-ball effect.
> > It means that software producers MUST consider their
> > software portability as the market share justifies investment.
>
> Fortunately, the Linux/UNIX community has been trying to make
> this easier instead of harder. Most of the tools used in Linux,
> such as PERL, Python, Java, and even GCC/EGC are now available
> for Windows as well.
Agreed, but the user base must be their for the manufacturers to make
use of this. This requires full desktop user friendly distributions that
are not made by Corel.
> Meanwhile, Microsoft, attempting to continue to hold a captive market
> at bay, has been trying to convince ISVs to use even more proprietary
> APIs and to become even more dependent on Microsoft.
Yes well we all know that M$ is pure evil. They just make things harder.
M$: Look at corba that's a neat idea!
Bill: Yes, lets define our own
M$: bring it on master.... It shall be done. We are one.
> > It means the GNU-Linux gets better. Better is good for us all.
>
> GNU-Linux is getting better. One of Microsoft's biggest problems
> is that Linux is such a moving target. By the time Windows 2000
> came out, Linux had already eliminated most of the performance
> bottlenecks in the Linux 2.2.11 kernel. The 2.4 kernel is due
> out in a few weeks and has been delivering performance numbers
> that are staggering. And 64 bit Linux is already a reality for
> SPArC, Alpha, and PPC, and just awaiting Silicon from AMD and INTEL.
> In fact, the 64 bit market could heat up very quickly if Linux
> starts creating markets for Non-Intel platforms such as Transmeta,
> ARM, and MIPs chips. Low-cost 64 bit chips could have a huge impact
> on the "WinTel" monopoly.
Yes Linux is a moving target and "behind" others, but that's my problem.
In some cases Lin-advocates claim that M$ does not matter and in the
next breath claim that it must compete. What I'd like to see is Linux
(Linux+GUI+config tools) getting to the stage where they are reliable
and easy to use while not taking the raw power away from us who like to
bugger about with textfiles and to understand. I don't care what Windows
does, just that Linux is "newbie friendly" and that is a term that will
have a lot of people here upset because it means taking some pragmatic
decisions about how things work.
> But Linux keeps evolving in the GUI and Ease of Use arena too.
> KDE is now offering features that aren't even available on Windows,
> and GNOME has created software that implements technology that is
> still on Microsoft's "drawing board".
>1Microsoft talks about things
> like Application servers while Linux provides the ability to run
> nearly any application from either workstation or server.
> Furthermore, KDE and GNOME have shown that the CORBA model can be
> very powerful in it's own right. Not only has this enabled the
> development of remotely accessible applications, but it has also
> enabled single applications to benefit from the power of large
> clusters of servers.
yes all true. How about consistency? Gnome is trying to address this
sure, and I'd love for people to remember the non technical user (why
was Eazel formed?).
> > Surely the intelligence of any system, whether it is a fly-by-wire
> > aircraft control system, a video camcorder or a computer system is in
> > HIDING the complexity of the tasks that they perform? And surely the
> > beauty of Linux is to EXPOSE complexities to those of us who enjoy
> > them?
>
> This is true. Even in a device as complex as an automobile, there
> are thousands of complex parts engaging in millions of complex
> interactions per second. To the user, he still experiences the
> same driving controls he had on his dad's 53 Chevy. But to the
> mechanic, everything has changed radically under the hood. The
> "tune-up" is done every 2 rotations of the engine, by a computer
> that needs to be reprogrammed based on the engine wear. The
> carburetor has been replaced by a fuel injector which supplies
> microscopic amounts of fuel to each cylinder in a place and at a
> time that will assure the maximum vaporization and the most effecient
> burn. The two valves per head have been replaced by 4, and the
> camshafts have also increased from 1 to as many as 4.
>
> On some cars, you can't even change the spark plugs without completely
> removing the engine. On others, you can replace even the timing
> belts with almost no special tools.
>
> The result, to that user, who still thinks he's driving the same
> kind of car that is grandfather drove, is an automobile that gets
> 5 times more distance per gallon of gas, emits 3 times less air
> pollution, and runs over 120,000 miles without a significant repair
> bill. Unlike Grampa's Chevy, today's driver is very unlikely to
> need more than oil changes, tire changes, brake linings, and some
> occaisional check-ups and inspections.
OK, this is a good analogy. I would like to see learner drivers quickly
learning how to use an easy interface and simple configuration (such as
topping up the oil and adding anti-freeze easily). Of course in the
Linux world everything that is under the bonnet is available for
inspection and repair and fine tuning. However here you have a
consistent user interface, but one which does not take the power away
from the mechanics to alter the innards. The main point is that all cars
have the same consistent interface and even the most inept people can
use. This is not the case in the GUI+config tools world and that is
where my issue is. If this is not corrected then Linux will just not
make it to the desktop of most people.
> > I propose that they are not mutually exclusive.
>
> I would agree. Just as the driver's view of an automobile is very
> different from the Mechanic's view, the Linux user's point of view
> can and should be very different from the administrators view, which
> should be very different from the Installer/OEM's view.
Good.
> In the Air Force, they hire PhDs to design planes flown by College
> Graduates, that can be fixed by High School drop-outs (if neccessary)
> and still leave the country with a functional fleet of planes.
I know quite a few phd's and i would not trust them to build my plane!
:-)
> > If you look at the wonderful projects that
> > are around such as Gnome and
> > Eazel, and then you look at the first
> > stages of graphical configuration
> > utilities and the installer programs
> > of the latest Linux distributions
> > then this indicates that ease of use
> > is actually what people want.
>
> Much as that 2000 Lexus was very different from Grandpa's chevy,
> the 2000 Linux is very different from even the earliest Macs and
> Windows.
>
> The Linux community understood that much of what existed in the
> UNIX engine was the result of some of the most intense engineering
> effort in the world. UNIX has been supported, enhanced, and
> evolved in all 7 continents, over 400 countries, and by over
> 170,000 engineers, before Linus ever released his first 10,000
> line version of Linux (on display on the Red Hat annual report).
> Since then, Linux has become the point of convergence for this
> engineering effort.
> Linux isn't just an OS kernel. If it were, it would probably
> have been userped by freeBSD back in 1994. Linux has become
> synonymous with one of the most full-featured, robust, and
> extensive collections of intellectual property ever produced.
> Beneficiaries reaped the benefits of prior development efforts,
> and contributed in their own way as their way of returning the
> generousity. For some, this meant coding, writing new software
> such as KDE, GNOME, or AfterStep. For others, this meant
> documentation such as participation on the Man, Howto, and other
> LDP projects. For others, this meant participating as advocates.
> For others, it meant 1 to 1 promotion such as Linux "install parties".
>
> Many of the "WinTrolls" have never quite experienced the better side
> of the Linux community. In some cases, they tried to install a copy
> of Linux that they downloaded from an FTP site (often using different
> dates of releases), and then attempted to install the software with
> access to minimal documentation. Furthermore, they used randomly
> chosen equipment, often without regard to Linux compatibility.
Absolutely spot on here. It is a shame that people have been put off by
this because I have found the Linux world to be very rich and friendly.
It is amazing how many helpful people are available to answer your
questions provided that you have had a good stab at it first. There are
reams of free documentation available and many very well written and
helpful. This is truly a wonderful thing and this is the reason that I'd
like the more "die-hard" members of the community to understand that for
Linux to be acceptable for people who are not like us, there must be
some changes in attitudes. There are already many fine efforts to make
things better, faster and more effective and I hope that the momentum of
Linux-hype will spur for-profit companies to produce software and
drivers for the platform. This in turn will produce the snow-ball effect
that windows has benefited from.
The subject that most Lin-advocates should ask strong questions about is
why M$ is so successful? There are many reasons, some good, some bad,
but at the end of the day their products have penetrated where Linux
could only dream to go. So I suggest we start dreaming, and start taking
some practical steps. My suggestions follow:
1. USB drivers (when 2.4 comes out) for the many new exciting
peripherals
2. LinModems: the curse of software modems will not go away and efforts
by linmodems.org are commendable.
3. An agreement by the most popular distributions to follow *default*
standards:
a) of file system layouts
b) configuration locations
c) package formats (deb v rpm)
d) Default GUI (Gnome v kde)
e) Configuration tools
f) Printer subsystem - lets make printer programming easier
g) Consistent look and feel. This is mostly governed by the qt v gtk
debate, but drag and drop and copy/paste and ole (bornobo) need to be
addressed.
I think that the linux users can do what they like and may not choose
the defaults, but this will make things more consistent and give a level
base with which to work from and provide support for. If these
prerequisites are met then I believe that software and then users will
follow.
> The result was quite predictable. It would be like inviting a
> 16 year old kid to a junk yard and telling him to "build yourself
> a car". To help him out you give him a couple of box end wrenches
> and a couple of screwdrivers.
>
> > Indeed is is what some people *need* in order to use Linux.
>
> Absolutely. And much of what is needed to provide this for that
> type of user is a community large enough and committed enough to
> achieve the kind of "critical mass" that reduces the number of
> incidents of first-time would-be Linux newbies simply attempting
> to "download off the web and do-it-yourself".
Yes and I think that resoncibility lays at the door of either easy to
install distributions or more importantly pre-installed computers.
> It can be done. But I recall some of the frustrating experiences
> of my own that could easily have deterred a neophyte Linux user.
Myself as well. I chose slackware quite a few years ago because it came
on the back on a library book. Not the best choice I could have made and
I ended up very frustrated. I just chose not to give up. I had caught
the "Linux bug".
> Much of this is getting easier. The OEMs are now offering Linux
> integrated into the PC/Console. Many Linux server makers are
> making it possible to configure using a simple web browser interface
> (Linux or Windows, take your pick). The "fine tuning" can be done
> with LinuxConf, DrakeConf, YAST, or similar GUI based configuration
> tool. In many cases, the tool is even easier to use than the Windows
> Control panel (since the tabs are sequenced in the order of the
> dependencies).
Yes. But as discussed in the thread, many of these tools bugger up your
existing hand-edited configurations and this is just too poor for words
- especially if you've spent some time getting things "just so".
> > Microsoft clearly stole their ideas
> > from Apple and Apple clearly stole
> > their ideas from Xerox Parc and Xerox PARC
> > created their ideas from some
> > of the finest scientists of the time.
>
> And most of the Xerox PARC scientists including a number
> of affiliates in Rochester/Webster NY were actively involved
> in the X11 project as well. The "virtual Window" desktops
> were a Xerox invention which was given to Athena/X11 but
> excluded from Microsoft and Mac. (Microsoft has something similar,
> but not quite the same).
Did they all go back to MIT?
> Many of the developers on NeXT contributed to AfterStep. Many of
> the concepts and even people on CDE were integrated into KDE.
>
> > It is not a dirty word, but a goal
> > to achieve. It is not Microsoft or Apple,
> > it is just good computing.
>
> Agreed. What I find somewhat tedious is your insistance that
> Linux is so completely lacking in this domain that it couldn't
> possibly be as good as ANY version of Windows or Mac.
No I did not say that. You are only hearing what you think you want me
to say. Linux should be *better*, but attitudes MUST change from within
the community. The point of my thread was not to convert the
unconvertible, but to suggest if Linux is to be on the desktop then you
must examine how this is going to be achieved. Linux should find its own
path.
> Linux lets you go both ways. You can use the GUI to create/edit
> the text files, or you can initialize the text files using programmatic
> tools and modify them with the GUI later.
Like before - this is a nice idea but linuxconf begs to differ with
regular core dumps and file overwrites.
> > Linux has served me very well as a
> > reliable server and a programming
> > platform, but as a desktop platform
> > it just does not measure up to its
> > peers in terms of ease of use.
>
> I have to ask. Which platform were you using?!?
You know kind Sir. Windows for my desktop. I enjoy playing quake and
using netscape, both of which can be done under Linux but not as well.
For real work aka programming: Linux (RH6.1) and for the server. I am
pragmatic, and will use the best tools for the best job. M$ may be evil
but sometimes their platform support software that solves my problems.
If Beos had software I'd probably use that more than Linux!
> I find that the biggest challenge in making the transition
> from Windows to Linux is remembering not to double-click
> (so that I don't kick off two instead of one), and that
> I can do something else while I'm waiting for the X-Window
> to expose itself. I don't have time to compose a memo, but
> I often have time to scroll through the rest of a web page,
> add another paragraph to a text editor, or even read another
> page of documentation while I'm waiting for the launched window
> to expose itself - ready to run. While it isn't as "entertaining"
> as watching all those half loaded, half-blank semifunctional,
> always disruptive pop-ups and "baby windows" try and grow into
> something marginally functional (while frantically trying to
> sneak a peak at documentation between "pop-ups").
>
> Linux is a new paradigm. Once you get used to it, you learn to
> love it.
I do love it, but you must love it so much that you can see where it's
faults lie and act to correct them. Incidentally, I feel that I'd like
to contribute some code or code maintenance (I can do the evil C
language), but there are *so* many projects to choose from. Where do
people suggest someone starts? As you can see I am concerned about ease
of use, but projects like linuxconf have already found their design and
will doubtfully adapt to any changes.
> The other frustration I've had is when Linux programs try to act
> like Windows programs. The most frustrating is Netscape Navigator
> 4.5, which seems to gobble memory like a Microsoft Office application.
Well to be fair netscape is rubbish. I mean this in no small way. The
programmers should be shot. I only use netscape on windows because I
can't bring myself to use outlook/ie because of ideological reasons.
Netscape is rubbish under windows, rubbish under linux and rubbish under
solaris. It has more memory leaks than than an amnesiac old person.
Crashes more than Russian airlines. Even worse, they release the code so
that people can see just what a mess it is !!!!! What were they on?
> I've learned some work-arounds (like popping up the simple text editor
> when composing a deja-news reply). This seems to be a memory leak,
> and it seems that Netscape has no particular commitment to fixing it
> in the 4.x releases. I'm planning on trying 6.0 ASAP.
6 may be useful if it becomes usable. I'd love to see a stable release.
> > That's not bad! It just means that Linux is young.
>
> Young and Old. Linux uses the older paradigm of smaller, modular
> components which can be used, combined, and interchanged using simple
> tools and scripts rather than the newer paradigm of componants bound
> together at compile/link time and then set in concrete as "the
> application".
The unix way is good for us. It does not fit in well with consistency
though where a more integrated approach is generally needed, not small
separate (well defined) programs.
> > In summary it would just be refreshing
> > when people would not attack
> > others who are not comfortable
> > with the way things work in Linux.
>
> But one needs to be more specific than "Linux has an awkward
> intereface". I drive a 5-speed transmission. Each time I get
> behind the wheel it takes me about three jerky stops to realize
> that there is no clutch, that my right foot is trying to slam
> the brakes, and that I need to put my left leg as far away from the
> pedals as possible. Then I can relax - until I get back to my
> 5 speed and the engine dies because I forgot to hit the clutch
> when coming to a stop.
Agreed kind Sir.
> Linux has a GUI interface. It's a very DIFFERENT GUI interface,
> and much like it's predecessors, Small-talk, Lisa, Mac, Windows 3.1,
> and Windows 95, has some quirks that take some getting used to
> (I remember the difficulty of teaching Mac users to double-click).
Different is not bad. I get the impression that people are wanting me to
say "do things like windows because it is the best". This is NOT the
case. I just want to be able to cut some text from kedit and paste it
into netscape or drag a file from one file explorer into another. I'd
like to install my sound blaster card and just have it work as it does
under Windows. I don't always enjoy tweaking modules and /proc watching.
> I'd love to see an intelligent discussion on what works and what
> doesn't about the Linux/UNIX/X11/KDE-GNOME interface as it exists
> on a "Desktop Release" such as Mandrake (6.5, 7.0, or 7.1) or SuSE
> (6.2-6,4). If you want to tell me how bad the Red Hat interface
> for 4.0 is/was I'd have to disqualify it as a discussion.
Yes, yes and yes again: great! That's what I'd like but many people are
of the attitude (not yourself btw): This is how things work, if you
don't like it use windows. Look at the thread I started and see how the
discussions were very circular and in many respects pointless. It is
almost as much about attitudes as making code. If people will not use
Gnome then Gnome will die - and that's where attitudes count and the
attitudes of Lin-advocates are crucial to the future well-being of this
platform.
> Keep in mind that up until July of 1998, the goal of Linux GUIs was
> only to make the system easy to administer as a server. It wasn't
> until July of 1998 that "taking the desktop" was officially recognized
> as a goal. Even at the Raleigh NC Linux expo in late 1998, I was
> amused when a workshop on GUI interfaces turned into a discussion
> of "Star Wars" and "The Matrix".
Yes of course. Now is the time of Linux to make inroads into the desktop
if the Linux community wishes it to be so. I get very cross with press
coverage that makes out that Linux is a complete solution for every-one
at this time, then people try it, get disappointed and turn into
win-trolls with the attitudes that you highlighted they show.
My premise is this: For Linux to get on peoples desktops it *must*
become very easy for the average user to configure. After this more
software and support and drivers will follow. Lets provide a chicken to
lay that golden egg.
> However, it's two years later, and my how things have changed.
> Those who took up the Gauntlet have definitely delivered some
> extraordinary work. Mandrake, which starts with a basic Red Hat
> release and packs it with hundreds of new GUI-based applications
> which can be launched without going to the shell console, gives
> a sense of how much can be done with Linux in such a short time.
> Very few of these applications even existed three years ago.
> Even old favorites like Lyx have received KDE facelifts.
Things are very exciting at the moment and are progressing in good
directions, I'd like to see this continue. It is also interesting to
note how distributions and tools are now "competing" for user acceptance
- KDE has improves because of gnome and visa versa. I hope that Eazel
will further the cause of ease of use. I have much faith in their
founders and their close contact with the Gnome team.
One thing M$ did well was to court developers. Linux must do the same
and provide wonderful libraries and consistent api's for us programmers
to use, and MORE programs WILL be built.
> Even old EMACS looks more like "Word on Steroids".
I have a problem with Emacs - I hate it and like vi. But compared to M$
word there is no alternative that offers the broad range of functions
(of course in the unix world this is seem as bloat-ware - but for normal
users this is nice)
> Linux now supports 15 HTML browsers, plus a few XML browsers. It
> also supports 4 office suite equivalents, and the commercial versions
> all support import/export to Microsoft compatible formats.
I have found the import/export to be a problem. In a world that talks in
M$ formats this is an important area.
> Meanwhile, we're also seeing tools like Cygnus, which let developers
> compile Windows versions of the more popular Linux utilities.
And this is fantastic as are the many cross platform gui libraries.
> > There is already too much FUD in the world.
>
> Very true. Perhaps the worst form of this is claiming that Linux
> has no GUI interface.
Yes there are more GUI's than days in the week to choose from :-)
Are they consistent as discussed above? NO.
>Or claiming that Linux is inferiour because
> users can/do go to the text interface.
True - I hate not knowing *exactly* what is going on under the hood.
>Although I've successfully
> configured servers, workstations, and even applications without
> resorting to the CLI, I've also found myself in situations which
> would have required editing the registry (or reloading the box)
> on Windows that were trivially corrected using the CLI on Linux.
>
> > Comments please?
>
> Nicely woven into your very intelligent proposal.
<blush>
Thanks for your informed comments Rex, I hope that others will take up
the challenge of talking about the real issues the will prevent Linux
getting on the desktop. I would like to emphasise that I am not stating
that Linux *should* or *must* be on the desktop or that Linux should
change in an effort to achieve this. Just that standards and change are
a prerequisite for inroads into the desktop market that has been defined
by the evil de-facto standards of M$. It would be a shame to deny people
less competent with computers the advantages that Linux has brought to
us. I hope that the many fine projects aimed at ease-of-use will
continue and the attitudes of even the most die-hard Linux advocates
will acknowledge that it is more important that people use Linux rather
than the select few who can figure out how to.
Thanks again.
Lets not leave Linux just as the best server platform.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
