I fit the "gnubie" (New to GNU/Linux as opposed to new to computing. There's a vast difference.) label to an amazing degree of accuracy; so I should probably keep "my head down and my mouth shut", but this topic is a bit aggravating. It's not about single click versus double click or any other mouse function, it's about *different.*
Interspersed comments. Sorry to waste the bandwidth people; On Wednesday 30 October 2002 11:07 am, Levi Ramsey wrote: > Apologies for the gratuitous flame. I do think that between Adam's > somewhat unclear message and the way you read it, there was a > misinterpretation. > > On Tue Oct 29 21:14 -0800, David Walser wrote: > > Well yes, but you're missing the grand point. > > Double-click *itself* is stupid. What the KDE > > developers have tried to do is minimize as much as > > possible double-click being required, and that's a > > wonderful goal. > > Why is double-click stupid? Is it simply because Microsoft and Apple do > it? I'm not going to say that anything MS and Apple do is what we > should automatically follow, but most newbies (which are the only people > that this default affects, really) are coming from a Windows or Mac > background, where I would suspect the majority are using double-click > (afaik, Windows defaults to double-click and I don't seem to remember > MacOS even having an easily accessible means of changing the > clickedness). Double click is "stupid" is just an opinion that I happen to agree with. I once ran Windows 98 SE (32 months ago) and had it set for single click activation from the last time I re-installed it about 3 months earlier. It's one of the reasons I won't use Gnome. Not because it can't be changed but because it's a default. When I started using Mandrake (7.2) I was sort of used to (KDE's) single click, and would prefer not having to change a default to get back to it now or in the future. Having to change a (relatively simple) default to _get_ double click-a-bility may be a good thing for Windows converts if they want it, since a bit of "This ain't Windows boys and girls" is a possible way to prevent some rather silly and common gnubie errors by reinforcement of the "differences." The people that want this are quite possibly the same people that refuse to read read-me files or man pages, and won't look for an answer in a Google search. The ones that generate so many RTFM/STFW answers on other mailing lists and newsgroups in other words. For the rest of us; if we wanted Windows or a Mac we'd use them, wouldn't we? The people that I've 'converted' *like different.* I don't even have a Windows install any longer and doubt I ever will again. > > I admit that I'm much more used to double-click. My mother's Windows > box is set to single-click. When I have to fix Windows after it does > something braindead, it's even money that I'll single-click somewhere > (say to check its properties) and activate that icon. That's something > of an annoyance to me. I imagine that anybody more used to double-click > would find that an annoyance. The question becomes, then, among new > users (who are affected the most by this) are more of them single-click > or double-click? For the reason stated above, I suspect more are > double-click. Of course, however we choose to move, at least one > journalist, in their review of Mandrake 9.1 will rant about "I've always > used single-/double-click and those stupid people at Mandrake chose to > default to double-/single-click." *Journalists and other critics?* "Those that can, do." (Such as the worthy people responsible for this fine distribution.) "Those that can't teach." (A worthy and beneficial profession that also applies to a number here.)" Those that can't do _or_ teach become critics or marketers of some sort, and are then totally disconnected from *all* reality, are unfortunately too loud to be ignored, and it's against the law to do more drastic things to them. <sigh> At the least it would get one talked about if one gave in to temptation. > > > > If any Linux UI (apart from Ice...) is emulating > > > Windows, it's KDE. > > > > Well it's more underlying technical stuff Gnome is > > modeling after Windows, but no, Ice and KDE are > > certainly not Windows clones, nor are they trying to > > be. KDE is trying to be a sensible graphical desktop > > environment, taking ideas from everywhere and > > innovating on its own, and Ice is simply trying to be > > a non-resource intensive, but still usable (and > > simple) window manager. > > What about Gnome's underlying structure is modelled after Windows? Mono > doesn't count (as there are absolutely no plans to make Mono an > underlying part of GNOME). I have no idea what this part of the conflict is about and not much interest; but: The apparent goal to "build a better Windows" I find confusing. With no technical skills to offer; other than possibly a small facility with words, I have no right to make demands of, or to complain about, anything that the management and developers do. I do know; however, that if Mandrake devolves into a Windows clone (in the user interface or in any other way starts becoming overly "Windows default friendly") I'll be searching for a new distribution to support. Why anyone should care is a simple question to answer. I'm a _consumer_, I support Mandrake by buying (at least) every second release. I've helped more than a few friends and most of my family "see the light," and around two thirds of that number do the same. So far. Small potatoes or a drop in the bucket; but adding drops quickly fills a bucket now doesn't it? I'd prefer Mandrake be Mandrake; not cater to terrified Windows refugees/users. That duty falls (or should) to those of us that have enough sense to read and (mostly) understand the answers; the small ability to 'help' install an OS that mostly installs itself, and the time to teach enough for other 'gnubies' to find answers for themselves. Just one newbie's opinion. -- Charlie Mahan Edmonton,AB,Canada Registered user 244963 at http://counter.li.org <misquoted> "Let the flames begin!" <\misquoted>
