Answers inline, as usual.
> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:35:48 -0400 > From: Chris Penn <cantorm...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LinuxUsers] Synaptic Dropped From Ubuntu 11.10 > To: SoCal LUG Users List <linuxusers@socallinux.org> > Message-ID: <BANLkTi=spnbuffubnkpolhcnhmc1vd9...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Ragi, > > I have missed your email style. > I have missed our philosophical differences on software licensing (kind of masoquist in my part I guess) haha :) > > My argument is not that the Software Center is pointless. I actually > recommend this program to less experienced computer users over > Synaptic for the purpose of damage control with the hope that they > will switch later on. My issue with Mark's last few choices is that > he is replacing, at least in theory, good applications with less > stable, simplistic, harder to use, poorly functioning idealism before > the code is realized. > If Mark was replacing "good applications" with "less stable, simplistic, harder to use, poorly functioning idealism" the I don't think anybody could argue that those actions would be wrong. But, I don't think those apps are ideal for the Desktop use case. See below. > > Apt is is definitely what I use 99% of the time. Synaptic has its > advantages, This I cannot I argue against. Yes, it does have many advantages. > primarily for desktop user, over Apt wrt to convenience > and usability, especially if you are one of those people that believes > Desktops should cater to the lowest common denominator. We couldn't disagree more. I hardly thing is Apt is convenient for the *typical* Desktop user. > The Software > Center isn't even in the same league as Synaptic or APT and thus > should not replacing anything. Furthermore, Synaptic is NOT that hard > to use nor does it have a good GUI competitor. > > It sounds like you are saying Apt is useless on the desktop. If so, I > disagree. The terminal is faster, easier for some people, and MORE > "feature-rich" regardless of whether one has Unity installed or not. > OK, let me put this way. I think OSX has a lot of paradigms that are very good. Most Mac users never see the command line. Yet, I do have it open *everyday*. I use it to manage my databases, compile things or even move files around. However, having the command line as primary means of installing anything should be a no-no. And a GUI that just regurgitates whatever the command line shows is not much better (actually, it is quite worse in that regard). > > "I applaud the balls that Mark has to make decisions like this and I > love how Ubuntu, little by little, keeps getting closer to a decent > *Desktop* OS." > > I do not think either of us has a clear understanding of what makes a > "decent" Desktop OS. > Actually, without sounding too snobby, I think I actually do. Let me explain what I think is different between a Server OS and a Desktop OS. It all boils down to the *purpose* of using that piece of software. When I setup a server, I want to know exactly what it is doing. I want it to work fast. With servers, that usually involves tweaking the I/O. I want to know the page sizes of every process, so that if a request comes in, I don't have to hit disk since it is already cached in memory somehow. This may involve recompiling kernel settings, choose the appropriate file system (are my files big, small, fragmented, do I need redundancy, backup strategy). I want to squeeze every single cycle of the CPUs, so I want to make sure I know exactly what it is running. I don't want unnecessary wifi services runnings because I am connected to a gigabit all the time. Knowing every single piece of software that is running also means my system is more secure. Every package adds a potential security hole, so I want it to start as barebone as possible and add things as needed. WHY? Because the purpose is to have a reliable server that responds fast and is super secure. I will not run anything besides what I need. Contrast this with a Desktop setup... I want my browser to work (display flash, whatever). I want to send e-mail. I want my power management to work when I close the lid. I want skype to work. When I look for software, I just want to know what is a good choice (whatever is popular in the Mac store) - I don't care how - just work. If there has to be process 10 context switchings that have to happen for my multitouch trackpad to work correctly, so be it. I don't care. I would rather pay $100 and throw more memory on my laptop than to try to debug what the hell is going on. Work work work. I don't care how, just please don't crash. Work!! But do it ***nicely****. The purpose of my Desktop OS is, to put it bluntly, just "to get shit done". That's it. The moment that I have to drop down to a terminal, to change one single little text file to accomplish any of this, the battle is lost. Not good. Why? Because my mom can't do it - and she is really good with computers. When people *design* GUIs, their goal should be how do I make my users **happy** - contrary to the popular belief that it should only concentrate on how do I make my users accomplish their goal - which is only a subset of happiness. Let me explain there are three drivers of happiness 1) pleasure <-- the tool that I use should be a pleasing experience - smooth transitions among elements, scaling effects, etc 2) flow <-- it should be intuitive. If someone that has never used the tool before picks it up and can figure out what to do, then the flow is right 3) meaning <-- at the end, if the user *accomplishes* the task that they set to achieve, it will give it meaning. A UI that makes you happy will have those elements. Desktop OSes should be designed with these things in mind - **very** different from a server OS, because the purpose of both are completely different. > > "And yet, when he is looking for something as simple as a good e-mail > client (with a GUI - like normal humans use), he runs into > problems.".... > > (As usual, no offense Jeff) > I still believe Jeff's email problem could be solved with a better > exploration of the many email alternatives available to him. I do not > think 347 email alternatives is a bad thing. There is something for > everyone. Software for humans should be for all humans, not just > cubical obsessed Desktop programmers or Window$ administrators. > > Chris... > > And I think you are correct in the sense that your Desktop OS should be catered to you. Yet, I think that if all he wanted was to send e-mail, that should just be there. And work without any mockery. Now, if he wants something more complex - that is a different story. You should be able to find an OS that fits you. That is probably not Ubuntu. It is just that right now, IMHO, Ubuntu is the closest thing that any Linux-based OS has gotten close to get the Desktop experience right for most people. And for the case of Ubuntu, Mark is the driving force making decisions that are getting us there. - Ragi
_______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list LinuxUsers@socallinux.org http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
