quoth the Dave Nebinger: > > Why does something have to act/look like Windows to be ready for the > > desktop. If that's what you need/want just use Windows already! > > It's not that the next OS has to act/look like windows to supplant windows, > it's a question of usability... > > There's a lot of research that has been done and is ongoing re: user > interface design. So far the research supports the statement that "simpler > is better" in regards to usability is concerned.
Here we agree ;) But do your previous points actually work towards this? Is a blinking icon simpler than a terse text message? Is a self-updating computer simpler than an admin being in charge of updating his own computer? What happens when it installs something that breaks the system (we all know this can happen...). How many layers of 'simplicity' do we have to wade through to find the real problem? How is navigating through pages of GUI dialogues simpler than a quick edit of a text file? > The replacement for windows will be one that provides a simpler, consistent > interface, not one that is more complex and requires intimate details of > low-level file editing and command prompt access, the current face of > linux. > > I love linux and use it everywhere except my 7 year old daughter's computer > (granted I could probably do it there too except the sites that she likes > to use are too dependent upon IE). And I won't go back to windows, not > anytime soon. > > But I can realistically gauge how much it would take to move organizations > in the direction of linux and understand where 'linux is ready for the > desktop' zealots miss the mark. Most organizations are looking to cut > costs and simplify their infrastructure (again to cut costs). Linux on the > desktop won't do that in it's current state and would have to be > significantly dumb-downed before it can happen. I for one am glad it's not > going in that direction. You are implying here that Linux's ultimate goal is to replace Windows. I do not agree here. I think the two can coexist just fine. Linux for those end-users curious enough to go deeper into their computer's innards, and Windows for those that want it to 'just work' (innasmuch as windows works... :P) without having to learn anything about how it works. The server market is of course a different matter, but we're talking about desktop, right. I think a happy medium can be reached with certain distros trying to piece together a newbie friendly Linux desktop that moves towards some of the point you mentioned originally. As I understand it, Xandros and Linspire are working towards these ends. I just don't agree with the argument that 'Linux' in general needs to be more user-friendly. In my opinion (for what it's worth) Linux (and UNIX in general) is just fine the way it is. If the day comes where I have to point and drool my way through a gui to admin my Linux box, that is the day I move to FreeBSD... as this is exactly why I left MS all those years ago in the first place... the obscurity. $0.02... -d -- darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972 -- [email protected] mailing list
