I told myself I would stop contributing to this thread, but I
feel compelled to say one more thing. I don't think the complaint
is with Linux the OS. Everyone I think is agreed that the OS
is a great achievement and that you must get proper hardware
to run it on.
The desktop is another issue that is really not even bound to
the OS. I think most folks comming from MAC and Windows to Linux
have been "spoiled" in a way by the desktop offered by those
systems. Even the BeOS has very good (better) desktop. The reason
is because MAC, Windows, and BeOS folks really care about the
desktop in general, the Linux folk don't and so it was/is never
seriously persued.
I'm getting the impression that some feel having a GUI means the
abondonment of the CLI. Probably a reaction to the susidence
of the DOS prompt in Windows. But just think how attractive
Linux would be keeping its powerful CLI and supplying a massively
intuitive, progressive GUI. But the obstinance toward GUIs is
very surprising to me - I don't get it.
The thing is, within reason, the system should never let the user
fail, because the user is always going to be the weekeast link.
This is Human Factors 101.
I have yet to think of Linux as an innovative, progressive OS.
It's still to me at its heart really just a unix clone, and
the desktop is becoming just a (bad) windows clone. Having said
that I still love linux.
Final note, I think we are having an incongruity in perspectives.
For example, my perspective is purely ergonomics with respect to
software soley. Tom's position was about the usability of the OS
with respect to hardware. This makes sense, as I would expect that
as you move closer to the meat and bones of the computer this
requires more user responsibility and thoughtfulness, but as you
become more abstracted from the computer machinery, the software
should present different levels of abstraction in response to the
comfort level of the user and to keep the user from making a mistake.
The CLI at the low end of the abstraction, tcl/tk & DrakConf somewhere
a little above that, and the work by HelixGnome and Eazel on the
outer most edges. The GUI (which CLI is a part of) allows you to
sacrifice or gain control at the level which you in certain contexts
prefer to work within at the moment. For me when doing heavy duty
file management, cp and ls dont' cut it. I need/want a full blown
file manager with transparent ftp capability because this is the
context that I want to work at. I don't think that I should be
considered a dumb user for wanting that.
ugh... this was long... sorry...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 Tom Brinkman had this to say!
> A lot has been said about 'when Linux is ready for the average
> users desktop'. Mostly inferring that this is a good idea to begin
> with. I think not.
>
> While Linux and most other Un*x flavor OS's have progressed
> remarkedly in the last few years, the desktop systems have been goin'
> further an' further south. Most of y'all recognize the 'winmodem'
> situation, but fail to see that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
> There's a sh!+load'a win-hardware out there now, and the situation's
> become worse and worse over just the last few years. Many of y'all are
> tryin to run Linux on win-hardware. Specially those that post " but it
> works great in Win..." This is a USER problem, IMO.
>
