Article link
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
--- In [email protected], "Ritesh Agrawal"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> In the following article, I refer to the GNU/Linux OS and various FOSS
> projects under the catch-all name of "Linux". It just scans better. . .
> [Linux] != [Windows]
> (Linux is Not Windows)
> Translations: [Chinese Translation by Xiao Shu]
> <http://www.ubuntu.org.cn/lnw> [Spanish Translation by Claudio
> Cortes]
>
<http://claudiomet.blogspot.com/2005/10/especial-linux-no-es-windows.htm\
> l> [Swedish Translation by 'Non Plus Ultra']
> <http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNWswedish.htm> [German translationby
> Felix Schwarz]
>
<http://www.felix-schwarz.name/files/opensource/articles/Linux%20ist%20n\
> icht%20Windows/> [Hungarian translation by Andras Csepinszky]
> <http://unixlab.bsd.hu/LNW/index.html> [Portugese translation by Mike
> Silva] <http://antibit.net/O_Linux_Nao_Eh_O_Windows.html> [Finnish
> translation by Väinö Lappi]
> <http://webd.savonia-amk.fi/www/kt22440/LNW/linux_eioo_windows.html>
> [Bulgarin translation by Ivan Dimitrov]
>
<http://www.linux-bg.org/cgi-bin/y/index.pl?page=article&id=advices&key=\
> 379756576> [Turkish translation by Selin Dogan]
> <http://www.ruzgar.org/strns/linux_is_not_windows_turkish.html>
> [Dutch translation by Edwin Blommerts]
> <http://www.belgianhacker.no-ip.org/bh/Index.php?pages=2&url="">>
>
> (Note: [Link] denotes a link to a relevant web article.)
>
> If, as I do, you spend any amount of time on a Linux forum, you'll
> eventually grow exasperated, as I did, by the number of posts that run
> something like this:
>
> "Hi! I've been using Linux for a few days, and it's mostly great. But,
> it's a shame that [something or other] doesn't work like it does on
> Windows. Why don't all the developers completely rewrite all the
> software so it acts more like Windows? I'm sure Linux would get lots
> more users if they did!"
>
> You may even have had a go at answering these questions, only to be shot
> down in flames by a Linux newbie who takes it as read that his idea,
> based on years of experience with a different OS plus a few hours on
> Linux, is revolutionarily brilliant, and you only don't like it because
> you're an "old-school Linux user" who thinks that GUIs are the spawn of
> the Devil and everybody should be forced to stick to the CLI.
>
> This article is aimed at explaining to those newbies exactly why their
> ideas tend to get flamed rather than embraced.
>
> First and foremost, the most cherished argument: "If Linux did this, it
> would get lots more people converting from Windows!"
>
> So, allow me to explain something that is fundamental to understanding
> Linux: The [Link]
>
<http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php?title=who_do_i_think_i_am&mo\
> re=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1> Linux community is not trying to provide the
> average Windows user with a replacement OS. The goal of Linux is not
> "Linux on every desktop".
>
> Really. It honestly isn't. [Link]
>
<http://www.varbusiness.com/sections/movers/mover.jhtml;jsessionid=2DBOI\
> 2IWW3CNQQSNDBGCKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleId=18804216&_requestid=1323686> .
> Yes, they're both an OS. Yes, they can both be used for the same things.
> But that makes Linux an alternative, not a replacement. It might seem an
> insignificant distinction, but it's actually a vitally important one.
>
> Linux <=> Windows is like Motorbikes <=> Cars: Both are vehicles that
> get you from A to B via the roads. But they're different shapes,
> different sizes, have different controls, and they work in fundamentally
> different ways. They are not freely interchangeable. They have different
> uses and different strengths & weaknesses, and you should pick whichever
> is appropriate, not pick one and expect it to do everything that the
> other can do.
>
> Somebody who drives a car might be sitting in a long queue of traffic
> someday and see a motorbike go sailing past him. He might envy the
> biker's ability to largely ignore something that is a crippling problem
> to a car. If that driver then said "I know all about cars, so I must
> know all about motorbikes!" then he'd be wrong.
>
> * If that driver bought a bike and then found that he was
confused by
> the accelerator being a hand-controlled twist-grip instead of a
> foot-controlled pedal, he might complain that motorbikes should be
> fitted with a gas pedal.
> * If that driver had a wife and two kids, he might find the bike's
> single passenger capacity a flaw. He might suggest that bikes be
> re-built so they could carry four people, two abreast.
> * If that driver were to try and drive away, only to find that he
> fell over because he wasn't used to having to keep balance, he might
> suggest that bikes should be re-designed with four wheels.
> * If the driver were to find himself leaning around the corners, he
> might suggest bikes should be fitted with stabilisers to keep them
> upright when cornering.
> * If the driver wanted to keep his bike from being stolen, he might
> complain that there were no doors to lock potential thieves out, making
> his bike much more likely to be stolen than a car.
> * If the driver found a crash helmet an encumbrance, he might
suggest
> that an airbag in the bike's handlebars could be fitted as an
> alternative to the annoying helmet.
>
> And in every case, he would be wrong. Because he thinks that a motorbike
> replaces a car, he thinks it can and should do everything a car can do.
> He thinks it can work in the same way that a car does, that 'missing'
> car features can just be grafted on.
>
> In the same way, well-meaning Linux newcomers make suggestions about
> making Linux more like what they're used to. And they get nowhere, for
> all the same reasons. Linux and Windows might both be used for the same
> purposes, but so are a car & motorbike. That doesn't mean you can swap
> directly from one to the other, and it doesn't mean features can or
> should be swapped directly from one to the other.
>
> Too many people think that migrating from Windows to Linux is like
> switching from a BMW to a Mercedes. They think that the controls should
> be the same, their experience should transfer directly, and all
> differences should be largely cosmetic. They think that "I need a car to
> use a road, I need an OS to use a computer. Cars all work the same way,
> therefore OSes should all work the same way." But this is not accurate.
> "I need a vehicle to use a road, I need an OS to use a computer. I know
> how to drive a car, I'm ignorant about motorbikes. I know how to use
> Windows, I'm ignorant about Linux." - this is accurate.
>
> A Windows user must realize that he's only an experienced Windows user,
> not an experienced computer user; just like a car driver is only a car
> driver, not an all-road-vehicles driver. A Windows user on Linux must
> realize that he has just become a novice again, just like a car driver
> on a motorbike. A Windows user must be willing to learn that there are
> different ways of accomplishing the same task, just as a car driver must
> get used to the handlebars replacing a wheel and the need for a crash
> helmet he never had to use before. And they have to be prepared to
> accept that "different" does not mean "inferior".
>
> This simple fact causes great difficulty for the more established
> Windows users. They come to Linux with many Windows habits ingrained and
> an attitude of "I know exactly how to use a computer, thank you very
> much." The problem is, they don't. They only know how to use Windows.
> When they come to a different OS, these "power users" can be the ones
> who have the worst problems: They have far more to unlearn.
>
> Where a newbie will just say "I don't know" and start exploring or
> asking on forums, the Windows Power User will say "I know how to do
> this, I just do this, this, this, and then. . . It doesn't work! Stupid
> OS!" And then they'll say "If knowledgeable me couldn't get it working,
> a newbie will stand no chance! Linux is nowhere near ready for desktop
> use!". They don't realise that all their knowledge is working against
> them, causing them to have more problems than the less knowledgeable
> users. They've made the mistake of thinking Linux is different software
> doing the same thing as Windows, when it's actually different software
> doing different things. It's not doing a bad job of the same tasks, it's
> doing a good job of alternative tasks.
>
> Linux is an alternative to Windows, but not a replacement. It will never
> be a replacement, because it has incompatible goals. Microsoft's goal is
> to get their software onto as many PCs as possible, as their priority is
> profit. Linux has no such goal, because Linux is free. It has a
> different priority.
>
> To understand this is to understand FOSS [Link]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSS> . It's perfectly understandable that
> Linux newbies don't understand it yet - they're new to it. They're used
> to thinking in terms of proprietary software. So let me explain it:
>
> Typical FOSS software is created by somebody who looks around, doesn't
> find any pre-existing software he likes, and so writes his own. Then,
> because he's such a nice guy, he throws open the source and says to the
> world "Help yourself!". He can do this, because it costs nothing to
> duplicate software, so it costs him no more to give it to the whole
> world than it would to keep it to himself. He doesn't suffer by giving
> his software away.
>
> However, the important thing to remember is: He doesn't benefit from
> giving his software away, either. Whether it gets used by one person, or
> by one billion, makes no difference to the developer. Oh, sure, he gets
> the satisfaction of knowing he's made a popular product: The number of
> people using it can be a nice ego boost; a way, if you will, of keeping
> score. But it doesn't make him any money: It's FOSS.
>
> If the software is a success, other people get interested in it, and
> they help improve it. That's the biggest advantage of FOSS: Every user
> is a potential developer. Everybody can chip in and do their part in
> making software work better, do more, be less buggy. It's great when a
> piece of software attracts a community of developers. But it's great for
> the software. It makes the software better. It doesn't make the
> developer richer. It just creates more demands on his time.
>
> FOSS is the exact opposite of proprietary software like Windows: FOSS is
> all about the software. It's not about the number of end users. Software
> that works well but has only a few users is considered a failure by
> commercial software standards, but a success by FOSS ones.
>
> FOSS is about making good quality software, software that can DO things.
> If you want to use it, you're expected to invest time in learning how to
> use it. It was created and given to you, free of charge, by people who
> invested a lot of their own time in it for no personal gain. The least
> you could do to repay their contribution is invest a little time of your
> own before you complain that it doesn't work like the parallel Windows
> software.
>
> "Aha, now I've got you," says a newbie smugly. "There are Linux projects
> with the goal of replacing Windows, not just being an alternative."
>
> It's easy to see where that idea comes from. KDE and Gnome, for
> instance, provide a desktop environment that's far more Windows-like
> than typical Linux window managers and the CLI. Linspire is a distro
> based almost entirely around the idea of making Linux Windows-like.
>
> However, paradoxically, these prove my point better than they prove the
> newbie's.
>
> Why? Because these projects are normal FOSS projects, revolving entirely
> around making the software better. The only difference is, one of the
> definitions of quality in these projects is "How easily can a Windows
> user use it?"
>
> As soon as you factor this in, you can't help but agree that these are
> 100% typical Linux, with the sole aim of improving software. These are
> projects made by even-more-selfless-than-usual Linux developers: They
> aren't making software for their own use, as they know Linux very well.
> Instead, they're making software entirely for other people's benefit:
> Software that makes the transition from Windows to Linux easier.
>
> These developers have recognised that there are Windows users who want
> to move to Linux, and they've put a lot of effort into creating a Linux
> environment which Windows users find comfortably familiar. But they
> haven't done so to try and replace Windows, though the end result might
> give that impression. The end goal is what makes the difference: The
> goal is not to make a Windows replacement; the goal is to ease the
> Windows-user's transition to Linux.
>
> It's not uncommon to see community hostility towards these projects.
> Some of it for rational, understandable reasons ("KDE is a resource hog,
> so use Fluxbox") but some seems to be an irrational, hostile,
> "Windows-like software is bad" attitude. This isn't, actually, an
> anti-MS or anti-Windows attitude. Instead, it's the far more
> comprehensible dislike of what isn't understood.
>
> The 'typical' Linux user is a hobbyist: He uses computers because
> computers are fun, programming is fun, hacking is fun. And Linux is a
> far better OS for a hacking hobbyist: He can take it apart to its most
> fundamental level, and reassemble it exactly as he sees fit.
>
> However, the current influx of Linux users has a large percentage of
> non-hobbyist non-hackers. They want a computer that Just Works, a
> computer that works like Windows. They aren't interested in spending
> time setting up Linux to make it work the way they want it, they want it
> to work like that out-of-the-box.
>
> And that's perfectly okay, but from the typical Linux user's
> perspective, this is like somebody who wants a Lego car that comes
> pre-assembled and glued together so it can't come apart. It is alien to
> their understanding. The only way they can react is with a baffled "Why
> would anybody want that?"
>
> It's baffling. If you want a ready-made model car, buy a toy car. If you
> want a car you can build and take apart, buy Lego. Why would anybody
> want a Lego car that can only be used as a toy car? The whole point of
> Lego is that you have fun assembling it yourself!
>
> This is how a typical Linux user reacts to the "Why can't it Just Work?"
> brigade: "If you want it to Just Work, use Windows. If you want to hack
> it, use Linux. Why do you want to switch to Linux if you have no
> interest in taking advantage of its open source nature?"
>
> The answer, usually, is that they don't actually want to move to Linux.
> They just want to get away from Windows: They're running away from
> viruses; they're fleeing malware; they're striving to be free of
> restrictions on how they use their paid-for software; they're trying to
> escape from the clutches of the E.U.L.A. They aren't trying to get into
> Linux, they're trying to get out of Windows. Linux is simply the
> best-known alternative.
>
> More on that later. . .
>
> You might think "Okay, that explains why developers don't make a
> deliberate effort to make their software work like Windows. But surely
> Linux software could be given a GUI that's Windows-user-friendly without
> it interfering with FOSS principles?"
>
> There are a few reasons why this isn't the case.
>
> Firstly: Do you really think that somebody who creates a piece of
> software deliberately gives it a [Link]
>
<http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php?title=the_great_ui_debate&mo\
> re=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1> lousy user interface?
>
> When somebody devotes a large chunk of his own time to create a piece of
> software, he will make the user interface (UI) as good as possible. The
> UI is a hugely important part of the software: there's no point having
> functionality if you can't access it via the UI. You might not know what
> it is, but there is always a reason why the UI works the way it does.
> That reason? Because it is the best UI the creator could create.
>
> Before you insist that a more Windows-like UI would make the software
> better, bear this fact in mind: The creator of this software, a coder
> who, by definition, knows far more than you do about this piece of
> software, doesn't agree with you. He might be wrong, but the odds are
> against it. [Link]
> <http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/blog/2005/11/coders-interfaces.html>
>
> Secondly: There already ARE nice, Windows-user-friendly GUI frontends
> available. I can't think of any function off the top of my head that you
> can't control via a GUI, no matter how high-level. You can compile a
> kernel (make xconfig), set up your firewall (fwbuilder), partition your
> hard drive (qtparted). . . it's all there, pretty, interactive,
> intuitive, and user-friendly.
>
> But the 'release cycle' of Linux isn't like Windows. You don't get the
> finished, highly-polished GUI package released right from the start.
> GUIs add complexity and no functionality to software. A developer
> doesn't sit down and design a pretty GUI that does nothing, he sits down
> and creates a piece of software that does what he needs it to do.
>
> The first thing a piece of software does is be usable from the command
> line interface (CLI). It will probably have all sorts of invocation
> options and maybe a lengthy configuration file. This is how it starts
> out, because it's functionality that's required. Everything else comes
> later. And even when software has a nice GUI, it's important to remember
> it can still usually be controlled fully from the CLI and the config
> files.
>
> * This is because the CLI has many advantages: The CLI is universal.
> Every Linux system has a CLI. Every executable can be run from the CLI.
> It's easy to operate software via the CLI remotely.
> None of these are true of the GUI: Some Linux machines don't have the
> X11 windowing system installed; Some software has no GUI; Some software
> is not available from GUI menus; It's often not easy or practical to use
> a GUI tool remotely.
>
> Lastly, multiple GUI frontends can exist to do the same job, and there's
> no telling which you may have installed.
>
> So do remember, if you ask "How do I. . ?", you'll mostly be told how to
> do it via the CLI. That doesn't mean that it can only be done from the
> CLI. It just reflects the relative importance that the GUI has compared
> to the CLI in the development of a software project.
>
> * Windows is totally GUI-centric. It's a GUI-based OS with a lousy
> (but soon to improve) CLI. There's pretty much no such thing as non-GUI
> Windows software. That tends to make people think of the GUI as a vital
> and integral part of software. But in Linux, software gets released as
> soon as it's functional. Only after it's become stable, reasonably
> bug-free, and feature-rich, does it become worth adding a GUI.
> Try thinking about software without a helpful GUI as a "sneak preview"
> rather than a finished product. FOSS is very rarely 'finished', it's
> always being improved. In time, it will be made user-friendly. But most
> of the time, it's more important to make it work better than make it
> 'feel' better. Be glad you've got the functionality long before all the
> wimps who need a good GUI, instead of demanding tomorrow's software
> today. FOSS is more of a journey than a destination.
>
> The last thing you have to bear in mind is, GUIs for software will often
> be a separate piece of software. It may even have been developed
> completely independently of the original piece of software, by
> completely separate developers. If you want a GUI, it's not unlikely
> that it will be a separate installation, rather than all one piece.
>
> This does, admittedly, mean an extra step to get that elusive,
> 'Windowsy' GUI behaviour, but that shouldn't detract from the fact that
> you can, right now, do just about anything you really want to via a
> pretty, "just like Windows" GUI. You just have to remember: a GUI is
> usually the LAST step, and not the first. Linux doesn't do form over
> function.
>
> Thirdly: Linux is deliberately designed for the well-informed,
> knowledgeable user, rather than the ignorant beginner. This is for two
> reasons:
>
> * Ignorance may be bliss, but it's also short-lived. Knowledge is
> eternal. It might take days, weeks, or months to get your knowledge
> level up from "Linux newbie" to "average Linux user", but once it's
> there, you've got years of Linux use ahead of you.
> Putting in lots of code to make software easier for newcomers would be
> like permanently bolting stabiliser wheels to all bicycles. They might
> make it easier right at the start, but after that. . ?
> You wouldn't buy a bicycle with stabilisers on it now, I'm sure. And not
> because you're some anti-user-friendly freak. No, it would be because
> they're useless to you, and useless to anybody other than a beginner,
> and all they'd do is get in the way.
> * No matter how good software is, it's only as good as its user. The
> most secure door in the world is no barrier to thieves if you leave the
> window open, the door unlocked, or the keys in the lock. The most
> perfectly-tuned engine in the world won't get very far if you fill it
> with diesel fuel instead of petrol.
> Linux puts all power in the hands of the user. That includes the power
> to break it. Nobody wins in that situation. The only way to keep Linux
> working well is to learn enough to know what you're doing. Making it
> easier for a user to meddle with functionality he doesn't understand
> would just make it more likely he'll break something by accident.
>
> Fourthly: Where, in any of the above text, did you see a way that FOSS
> would actually benefit from attracting lots of typical Windows users?
>
> Take your time. Re-read it, if you like. I'll wait.
>
> The guiding principle of Linux and FOSS is "make good software". It is
> not "Make Windows-replacing software". The only thing a horde of typical
> Windows users will contribute to Linux is complaints. What will they
> complain? "It doesn't work like this on Windows."
>
> No, it doesn't. If it worked like Windows, Linux would suck. It would be
> an inferior copy that nobody would use. The reason people are so
> passionately fond of Linux is that it doesn't work like Windows. It
> doesn't do everything for you, it doesn't assume you're a perpetual
> ignorant newbie, it doesn't hide all the inner workings from you.
>
> Windows chauffeurs you around; Linux hands you the keys and puts you in
> the driver's seat. If you can't drive, that's your problem. And your
> fault. Plenty of people will help you learn if you ask. And if you make
> a suggestion that's the equivalent of fitting cruise control, you might
> get somewhere: This leaves the driver in control, but takes some of the
> effort out. But you'll get very short shrift if you try and convince
> anybody that what Linux really, really needs is a chauffeur.
>
> "But it would get Linux so much more mainstream!", the newbie cries.
>
> It might well do. But how many Linux developers would benefit from Linux
> going mainstream? Linux is free, as in beer. None of the people creating
> Linux profit from it gaining a bigger userbase. None of the people on
> the Linux forums profit from it gaining a bigger userbase. Linux's aim
> is not "gain a bigger userbase" - that's the goal of proprietary
> software.
>
> Linux's goal is to make a really good operating system. Developers are
> busy adding features, removing bugs, and improving existing
> implementations. They're not busy putting up billboards advertising how
> good their stuff is. That should tell you something about where their
> priorities are.
>
> And look at what this approach has done to Linux's userbase: It's made
> it grow. Linux started out tiny, and has become huge. The reason it has
> attracted such widespread acclaim? Because its focus has always been on
> quality. The users attracted to Linux are users who want the freedom and
> quality that only FOSS can give them. Linux became big because it didn't
> care how big it got. Developers focussed solely on making it work, and
> work well, and so they attracted users who wanted an OS that worked, and
> worked well.
>
> To suddenly throw that all away and focus instead on making Linux all
> about replacing Windows would be to kill the very thing that has made
> Linux what it is. There are corporations out there that have seen
> Linux's growth, and want to cash in on it. They're frustrated by the
> GPL, which makes it very hard for them to sell Linux at Microsoft
> prices. "Linux will die if it stays open," they say, "as nobody can make
> money off it like that."
>
> They don't realize that making Linux proprietary would be killing the
> goose that lays the golden eggs. Linux became big because it was FOSS,
> and nobody was trying to make it a Windows substitute. Linux is thriving
> because it's fighting Windows on a front that Microsoft can never defeat
> it on: Open-ness and quality.
>
> To most Windows users, Linux is an inferior Windows copy. It has less
> apparent functionality, less integration, and lots more complexity. To
> that type of user, Linux is seen as a bad OS. And correctly so: It
> doesn't meet their needs. Their needs are an OS that's very simple to
> use and does everything without them needing to learn anything.
>
> Windows is created for non-tech users. The widespread perception amongst
> those users is that Linux is hard to use. This is not the case, but it's
> an understandable misconception.
>
> Linux is actually blissfully easy to use. Genuinely. It is really easy
> to use. The reason it isn't perceived this way? Because the term "ease
> of use" has been so badly distorted. In common usage, "easy to use" now
> means "easy to do something without knowing beforehand how to do it".
> But that's not really "easy to use", is it? That's "easy to figure out".
> It's like the difference between:
>
> * a safe with a notice above it saying "You unlock this safe by
> turning the dial to 32 then 64 then 18 then 9, then turn the key and
> lift the handle up"
> and
> * a car that can be unlocked by pressing the remote control "unlock"
> button.
>
> It's far easier to unlock the car, right? One button from anywhere near
> the car, opposed to numerous highly-specific dial-turns. However, it's
> easier for somebody who doesn't know how to unlock either to get the
> safe open than the car: the safe has clear instructions in place, while
> the car just has buttons that aren't even attached to the car.
>
> Linux is the same. It's easy to use if you know how to use it. It's easy
> to use, but it's not always easy to learn. Only if you are willing to
> invest the time in learning Linux will you find it easy. Inescapably,
> the more you break a task down into simple steps, the more steps you
> have to take to accomplish that task.
>
> As a really simple example, take this arbitrary exercise: You want to
> move five lines (paragraphs) from the middle of a text document to the
> end.
>
> In MS Word; MS WordPad; or MS Notepad; all "user-friendly" Windows text
> editors, the quickest way to do this is:
> - Ctrl-Shift-Down
> - Ctrl-Shift-Down
> - Ctrl-Shift-Down
> - Ctrl-Shift-Down
> - Ctrl-Shift-Down
> - Ctrl-X
> - Ctrl-End
> - Ctrl-V
>
> (That's assuming you use the keyboard. Otherwise, you need some
> Click-and-Drag mouse operations and a reliable autoscroll.)
>
> In vi, however, it is:
> - d5d
> - Shift-g
> - p
>
> (Or if you know vi really well, just ":1,5m$" will also work!)
>
> Vi, which is about as "user-unfriendly" as it gets, beats Microsoft's
> offerings hands down. Why? Because vi was designed for functionality,
> while Microsoft design to be "user-friendly". Microsoft break everything
> down into easy steps, and so it takes far more steps to accomplish the
> same task.
>
> This makes vi far quicker and easier to use for virtually all
> text-editing tasks. Just so long as you know how to use it. If you don't
> know "d5d" means "Place five lines of text in the buffer, and delete
> them from the document" then you're going to struggle to make vi work.
> But if you DO know, then you're going to fly along.
>
> So when some newbie sees how fast and easily an experienced vi user can
> do stuff, he readily agrees that vi is superior to Word for text
> editing. Then he tries to use it himself. He starts it up, gets a screen
> full of ~s, and when he types, nothing appears on the screen.
>
> He finds out about the text-entry and command modes, and starts trying
> to use vi with a limited knowledge of it's functions. He struggles, as
> there are so many things he has to learn before he can make vi work.
> Then he complains "vi would be much better if it was as easy to use as
> Word!"
>
> But the real problem is "I don't know how to use vi and can't be
> bothered to learn." But that would mean the problem was with him, so he
> blames his problems on the software instead. Never mind all the
> thousands of people who are happily using vi without any problems: It's
> too hard to use, and must be changed!
>
> And believe me, if he can make a text editor that is as "user-friendly"
> as Word and as functional as vi, he'll be met with nothing but applause.
> In fact, he'll probably be awarded the Nobel Prize For Extreme
> Cleverness, as nobody else has been able to do it yet. But just whining
> about vi being hard to use will be met with derision, because there's no
> problem with vi, the problem is with him.
> [PEBKAC illustration from UserFriendly.org]
> <http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19980506>
> From UserFriendly.org <http://www.userfriendly.org/> Copyright ©
> 2004 J.D. "Illiad" Frazer.
> It's like buying da Vinci's paintbrush and then complaining that you
> still can't paint. The brush wasn't what made the Mona Lisa, it was the
> skill of the artist. The brush is a tool that relies on the user's
> skill. There's no way to get that skill other than practice.
>
> Same with vi. Same with many pieces of Linux software that new users
> complain is "too hard" or "not intuitive enough", whether they're
> talking about a text editor, a package manager, or the command line
> itself.
>
> Before you start insisting that something about Linux needs fixing,
> there's one important question to ask: "Do experienced users have a
> problem with this?"
>
> If the answer is "No", then the problem is on your end. If other people
> can use it successfully, why can't you? Have you taken the time to learn
> how to use it? Or did you just expect it to work for you right from the
> word 'Go'?
>
> "User-friendly" and "raw functionality" are exclusive. All the little
> buttons and drop-down menus that are vital to make a piece of software
> simple to use are just obstacles that get in the way of the experienced
> user. It's the difference between navigating from A to B with a map &
> compass, and going from A to B by following the road signs: Anybody can
> get there by following the signs, but they'll take twice as long as
> somebody who knows how to go straight there.
>
> [Map of routes]
>
> If I want to paste the value of a formula in Excel, I have to do it via
> the Edit->Paste Special->Paste Values menus. I don't want to navigate
> through all these pain-in-the-rear 'friendly' menus, sub-menus and
> dialogue boxes. I just want to do it. And, to be fair, if I reprogram
> the shortcut keys and record some macros, I can make Excel and Word do
> most things at the push of a button.
>
> But that's not really user-friendly, is it? That's still requiring the
> user to invest a lot of time in the software. Linux requires you to put
> the time in to learn how to use the existing functionality.
> "User-friendly" software makes you put the time in to creating the
> functionality.
>
> If that's the way you prefer it, that's fine, go ahead and do it that
> way. But don't ever lose sight of the fact that the fault lies with your
> ignorance and not with the software itself. All Linux software is
> supremely easy to use, once you know how to use it. If you don't know,
> it won't be easy, and it won't be because the software is at fault.
>
> Now, you might be starting to feel that Linux has an attitude problem.
> It doesn't want users, it doesn't want to make life easy for its users.
> . . it's just for snobbish l33t h4xx0r5!
>
> Nothing could be farther from the truth. Of course Linux wants users!
> And of course it doesn't want to make things hard. Quite the opposite:
> Hard to use software is, by definition, bad software.
>
> But you have to realize, its definitions may be different to yours, and
> different to the 'traditional' proprietary software culture.
>
> Linux wants users who want Linux. And that doesn't mean just the name.
> It means everything: The free, open-source software; the ability to
> tinker with your software; the position of being in the driver's seat,
> in total control.
>
> That's what Linux is. That's what it's all about. People migrate to
> Linux because they're sick of viruses, sick of BSODs, sick of spyware.
> That's understandable. But those people don't want Linux. They really
> just want Windows without the flaws. They don't really want Linux. So
> why should Linux want them?
>
> But if they give Linux a try because of viruses and spyware, and then
> decide that they love the idea of an OS that they control. . . That's
> when they want Linux for its own sake. And that's when Linux wants them.
>
> Before you decide you want to switch to Linux, ask yourself "Why do I
> want to switch?"
>
> If the answer is "I want an OS that puts all the power in the hands of
> the user and expects him to know how to use it": Get Linux. You'll have
> to invest a substantial amount of time and effort before you get it to
> where you want it, but you'll eventually be rewarded with a computer
> that works exactly the way you want it to.
>
> BUT. . .
>
> If the answer is "I want Windows without the problems": Do a clean
> install of Windows XP SP2; set up a good firewall; install a good
> anti-virus; never use IE for browsing the web; update regularly; reboot
> after each software install; and read about good security practices. I
> myself have used Windows from 3.1 through 95, 98, NT, and XP, and I have
> never once had a virus, suffered from spyware, or been cracked. Windows
> can be a safe and stable OS, but it relies on you keeping it that way.
>
> If the answer is "I want a replacement for Windows without the
> problems": Buy an Apple Mac. I've heard wonderful things about the Tiger
> release of OS X, and they've got some lovely-looking hardware. It'll
> cost you a new computer, but it'll get you what you want.
>
> In either case, don't switch to Linux. You'll be disappointed with both
> the software and the community. Linux is not Windows.
>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "linuxtechbiz" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
