Just to leap into this discussion at an arbitrary point.... Someone mentioned back in the thread about menu systems. I think that one of the mostdifficult things for people in the windows mindset is the very confusuing set of naming for *nix utlities, and the perpetuation of those names in a place like the "K" menu in kde, or the "Foot" menu in gnome.
A simple example, photoshop is an intuitive name, it pretty much tells you the sort of thing you expect to find when you start the program. WE all know The Gimp is pretty much a functionmal equivalent, and a powerful one at that. Some may also know that gimp stands for Gnu Image Manipulation Program, which starts to tell you something about it. However the simple entry "the gimp" in a menu will not say much to a newbie who is cruising his new install (assuming he got that far) looking for interesting/useful software. Somw distros make it easier by renaming the menu items to something informative, like "Advanced Picture Editor" instead of "The GImp". Informative, obvious, inviting, non-threatening. now lets talk about the REALLY obvious names - bash, sed, awk, grep, vi, emacs....hell even "mozilla" and "konqueror" aren't informative compared to the rather obviously named "Internet Explorer". So what I am saying is that besides the installation, configuration and packaging metaphors offered by various distros, real simple things like appropriate menu naming can help people out immensely. On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 21:40:49+0100 antonovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hehe! I tried to tell him that there will be little difference > > between KDE on RH and KDE on MDK, but Windows-centric IT people > > are a bit odd sometimes! RH on my laptop and MDK on my desktop > > look fairly similar at a desktop level, but configuration apps > > have different styles...other than that it would be hard to pick > > between them if it were not for that red hat replacing the 'k' on > > the start menu... > > As someone who is in the process of migrating I have a little > experience here... though I can't say that I am even a very > experienced Windows person (in fact I'm really not!). However, I first > tried installing Redhat 8 and was very quickly discouraged. In fact, > it delayed my beginning to use Linux on a daily basis by at least 6 > months. Since installing Mandrake 9.1 I have been inseparable from my > little beastie... much to the dismay of my wife! I am fully prepared > to believe that Redhat is more powerful, or cleaner, or whatever, but > I found from first putting in Disc 1 Mandrake was just simpler to > grasp. The install was more intuitive for a Windows person and easier > to understand for a person of reasonably limited IT experience. It > basically did what I wanted. > I also find that the gui system tools, particularly Mandrake control > centre, are a lot easier to understand. Maybe almost exactly the same > tools (KDE system guard, etc) are available for Redhat but sure as > s@@t I couldn't work out weather I was Arthur or Martha in Redhat. > It may just have been luck - that I was in the right mood and the sun > was at the right angle - but I don't know how long it would have taken > me to migrate if I only had Redhat. I may even decide in 6 months that > Redhat is "better" and start using that. I have an open mind, but I > would DEFINITELY recommend Mandrake over Redhat for the "reasonably > bright and interested but not yet a true computer geek [trying hard to > be!] who has experience only with Windows" person. > At the end of the day, however, if I had got it in my head that Redhat > was better I probably would have tried with that for a bit longer. My > advice would be... "Ok, if you think Redhat is better give that a go. > But I know quite a few people who have found Mandrake good for getting > to know Linux, so if Redhat is a bit confusing give it a try." Or > something similar. Cheers > Anton > ps. As soon as I get time (when will that be?) I will probably try a > few others... Suse, Gentoo... as... why not!? > >
