At 08:47 PM 7/25/2001 +0200, Jens Benecke wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 05:57:39PM -0400, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > At 10:46 PM 7/24/01 +0200, Jens Benecke wrote:
> > >On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 03:10:51PM -0400, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > > > At 08:50 PM 7/24/2001 +0200, Jens Benecke wrote:
> > > > >On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 01:28:36PM -0400, Joel Hammer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > DOCUMENTS IN EMAIL EFFORTLESSLY!!!!! etc....
> > > > >
> > > > >You would perhaps get a few more clueless beginners to buy your
> > > > >distro, but you will most certainly scare off *ALL* experienced
> > > > >Linux users ...
> > > > this attitude is one of the prime reasons linux faces such an uphill
> > > > battle.
> > >What are you proposing? Dumb down Linux to get accepted by the "stupid
> > >masses" (quote from Futurama, not my own)?
> > No, I'm objecting to the (apparentl) arrogant attitude frequently
> > espoused by linux bigots.
>
>OK.
>
>Please don't count me as a bigot. I want people to have a *choice*. But
>having choice must include the choice of not using a GUI, and using vi
>instead of KWrite.
i agree.
>I'm afraid if Linux is to be tuned down to mainstream the availability of
>those apps will suffer (because they can't be clicked). Guess why Microsoft
>makes such an effort to hide the DOS framework under Windows.
to some extent i agree. i just don't think making people do everything the
hard way
is good because "it weeds out the idiots".
> > >Sorry, been there, done that. I've been using the Web and Usenet since
> > >1994, when it was _not_ totally swamped with pr0n, SPAM, banner ads,
> > >"E-Z click-here buy-now" javascript pop-ups, and all the rest.
> > color me unimpressed. i was around back before there was a web or usenet
> > (and all email was via UUCP). i'm well aware of all this.
>
>OK. You know what I mean then.
>
> > >I don't dislike the idea of making technology accessible to 'the
> > >masses'. What makes me want to cry out loud (some of the time) is that
> > >people start stripping (crippling) useful technology because they assume
> > >that "most people" are simply too retarded to use it and get confused.
> > i've never claimed that all of linux is for everyone. nor do i advocate
> > dumbing down linux so mom&pop can use it. the original issue was "it's
> > convenient to be able to open an email attachment right from the
> > message". i agree. you're the one who made the sweeping statement about
> > "all experience linux users". arrogant. and demonstrably wrong.
>
>Wrong, maybe. I was perhaps a little paranoid. OK.
>
>But I still fail to see the "uphill battle" you were referring to. Granted,
>Linux is not as 'user-friendly' as Windows, if 'user-friendly' means being
>able to directly click on READ_THIS.txt.vbs attachments.
it isn't features like this being missing that are the problem - it's
running into
people who tell me (and others) that just because i can't configure my X
settings
with a handy GUI (like w9x) that i'm stupid and/or lazy and should go back to
using windows (i'm not making this up).
> > >Making Linux more 'user-friendly' would probably include removing or at
> > >least hiding xterm, because it is "user-unfriendly". It would perha..
> > >..uld complain they cannot access "their computer".
> > this is all a huge strawman.
>
>Perhaps. Compare it to web pages who use Javascript links "because it's
>more user friendly". Or pages who consist of one 1.5MB Flash file because
>"it's more user friendly".
i don't think that's user-friendly at all, just someone going overboard
because of
some spiffy "features". yes, it annoys me too :)
>Those admins don't give a damn about the perhaps 30% users they cannot
>reach, because they simply fail to see that their way of being more
>user-friendly means excluding many people.
>
>I almost see that coming in Linux if people start complaining about not
>being able to open Melissa vi... er, Word attachments directly.
>
> > >Keep Linux honest. Not user-friendly. Don't hide or disable
> > >functionality just because you ASSUME that many people would not
> > >like/use/understand it. That's simply arrogant.
> > agreed. no more arrogant than not wanting to put in features that are
> > convenient because you perceive it as pandering to the masses.
>
>I assume you know why e.g. Outlook is such a big virus threat.
>
>Yes, exactly. By e.g. allowing people to directly open unknown attachments
>without thinking.
to some extent. mostly though because their code is sh*t and full of bugs and
security exploits.
>No, I don't think that is generally a bad idea. I only think that _some_
>apps should not make things so easy that people stop using their brain.
>That is BAD in the long term, even if it is easier in the short term.
>
> > >When people install Linux, they don't expect Windows, they expect
> > >functionality.
> > agreed. none of which has anything to do with the specific issue you
> > started in on originally.
>
>You got me carried away. ;)
>
>My point was that user-friendlyness can go too far. If you _really_ want
>100% perfect user-friendlyness pay a secretary. A young, unmarried one
>preferably.
can't disagree totally there :)
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
