On Tuesday 05 December 2000 09:32 am, Mark Johnson wrote:
> I told myself I would stop contributing to this thread, but I
> feel compelled to say one more thing.
Me too, but rules are for breakin'. At least it's more Linux
orientated lately.
I don't think the complaint
> is with Linux the OS.
As you prob'ly know, but a lot'a newbies don't.... only the kernel is
Linux. IOW's < 1mb out'a the normal/average 1.5 to 2 gig install. All
the rest is third party software from various, hopefully open source,
providers, and only coordinated by the distro.
> 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.
now you're seriously gettin into opinions, but that's OK
'Course M$ says there's NO separating their OS/desktop/browser,
which is disingenous... ah hell it's a flat out lie! Even Janet
snapped to that one ;>
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.
IMO, desktop is paramount. I happen to really like KDE, and even
the near beta 2.1 version I'm runnin (which is slower load/faster run)
than the KDE2 version that 7.2 installed, isn't as kludgy and sluggish
as my W98 GUI. BTW, I run W98 build 721 (RC2) which is a little meaner
and leaner than the final release.... and I've separated it from DOS-
7.1 and keep the registry well maintained and optimized, the drive
regularly scanned and defragged. It's a good OS, just bloated, and I
_very rarely trust_ it with a connection to the Net, *never* with
mail/news/IRC. In that sense alone it's the worst OS on the planet, a
verifible virus attraction.
>
> I'm getting the impression that some feel having a GUI means the
> abondonment of the CLI.
As I aluded to above, booting Windoze to a pure DOS (7.1) prompt is
a major part of my maintaining that OS, just as many op's in Linux are
best done from a 'pure' (ie, no X) CL. I preen and clean/optimize the
registry, scan and defrag the HDD without Windoze overhead. IMO, the
only way to successfully run M$ is to hack into it on the CL.
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.
Well my previous post/diatribe wasn't about GUI's. My main point is
that the responsibilty for the successful usage of any OS, with/without
GUI, depends first on the USER, and that includes his/her choice and
knowledge of suitable hardware. My feeling, and i believe I adequately
expressed it, is that M$ has encourged substandard hardware and USERS
to go along with it.
>
> The thing is, within reason, the system should never let the user
> fail,
Well, in good ol' Texas talk, I believe that's just plain bac'asswards.
That's M$ speak
> because the user is always going to be the weekeast link.
But designing an OS to work around USER falabilities will only
result in an inferior OS (and hardware). Proof's in uncle billy's
puddin
> This is Human Factors 101.
Never took that course 8^p
>
> 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,
you're referring to Linus' kernel? 'Course it is, as is *BSD, the
new Mac X-OS, and all other flavors of Un*x. The saving grace is it's
free, as in beer, spirit, and liberty. UNIX is very speciallized,
proprietary and high $$, and on very high $$ hardware.
and
> the desktop is becoming just a (bad) windows clone. Having said
> that I still love linux.
and as with any OS/GUI, the USER has the primary responsibility for
successful operation. Winblows is a very good OS, if the USER takes
the time and care to run it properly. I for one would be the first to
recommend dual booting to maintain maximum system usability/
flexability. I chuckle every time I read someone post "if I can only
solve <insert problem/function> I'll wipe Winblows off my system"
IOW's, *never* nuke your Winblows CD ;>
>
> Final note, I think we are having an incongruity in perspectives.
> For example, my perspective is purely ergonomics with respect to
> software soley.
i fail to see what wear an' tear on your body has to do with
software... other than maybe pullin your hair out ;>
> Tom's position was about the usability of the OS
> with respect to hardware.
nope! my main point is the sad state of hardware that has been
encouraged (to the point of dictated) by Micro$oft, and the misguided
prevalence of USERS to first blame the OS, whether it's Linux, Windoze,
or other. 'Specially since the first problem is usually in between the
keyboard, mouse and chair. Precipitated beforehand by the choices
that interface made while (he/she) was at the hardware shop ;>
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.
huh ??
Some like to use a car analogy. Would you blame putting diesel fuel
in a gas tank, on Ford? It's ludicrous (IMO) to say anything like, "I
don't wanna know what's under the hood, I just wanna turn the key and
drive it."
I don't think that I should be
> considered a dumb user for wanting that.
It would be unkind to say GI>GO, so I'll just say that any USER of
any hardware/OS is at the mercy of the effort they're willin' to expend.
--
Tom Brinkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Galveston Bay
