> > > Why does something have to act/look like Windows to be ready for the > > > desktop. If that's what you need/want just use Windows already! > > > > It's not that the next OS has to act/look like windows to supplant > windows, > > it's a question of usability... > > > > There's a lot of research that has been done and is ongoing re: user > > interface design. So far the research supports the statement that > "simpler > > is better" in regards to usability is concerned. > > Here we agree ;) But do your previous points actually work towards this? > Is a blinking icon simpler than a terse text message? Is a self-updating > computer simpler than an admin being in charge of updating his own > computer? What when it installs something that breaks the system (we all > know this can happen...). How many layers of 'simplicity' do we have to > wade through to find the real problem? How is navigating through pages of > GUI dialogues simpler than a quick edit of a text file?
Is an icon simpler than terse text? Yes. And it is seen across more industries than just the computer industry. Sewing machines now come with buttons with images representing the type of stitch rather than using text. Cars come with idiot lights that have pictures rather than 'service engine soon' (which is itself an over simplification of a problem with the car rather than an indication of what the problem is). We all know a red light means stop, a green light means go, and the yellow light means speed up because you're about to get pinned by the red light ;-) We are beings designed to work naturally from symbols, signs, and icons; not terse textual messages. That's what the research has and is proving out. > > The replacement for windows will be one that provides a simpler, > consistent > > interface, not one that is more complex and requires intimate details of > > low-level file editing and command prompt access, the current face of > > linux. > > > > I love linux and use it everywhere except my 7 year old daughter's > computer > > (granted I could probably do it there too except the sites that she > likes > > to use are too dependent upon IE). And I won't go back to windows, not > > anytime soon. > > > > But I can realistically gauge how much it would take to move > organizations > > in the direction of linux and understand where 'linux is ready for the > > desktop' zealots miss the mark. Most organizations are looking to cut > > costs and simplify their infrastructure (again to cut costs). Linux on > the > > desktop won't do that in it's current state and would have to be > > significantly dumb-downed before it can happen. I for one am glad it's > not > > going in that direction. > > You are implying here that Linux's ultimate goal is to replace Windows. I > do > not agree here. I think the two can coexist just fine. Linux for those > end-users curious enough to go deeper into their computer's innards, and > Windows for those that want it to 'just work' (innasmuch as windows > works... :P) without having to learn anything about how it works. The > server > market is of course a different matter, but we're talking about desktop, > right. That's the wrong assumption. Basically to say "Linux is ready for the desktop" is in kin to saying that "Linux is easier to use than windows so it can supplant the current installation base"; I don't think anyone here can say that with any sincerity. I don't think linux is out to (or even could) replace windows. I do think it has it's place. What it's destiny will turn out to be is beyond my guess. Most folks, where work is concerned, expect to have the computer 'just work'. Your boss wants you to show up at 8 am and be productive for 8 hours, not spend time figuring out the innards (unless that, of course, is what you're paid to do ;-) That's the one thing that windows, I hate to say, has - it just works. > I think a happy medium can be reached with certain distros trying to piece > together a newbie friendly Linux desktop that moves towards some of the > point > you mentioned originally. As I understand it, Xandros and Linspire are > working towards these ends. I just don't agree with the argument that > 'Linux' > in general needs to be more user-friendly. In my opinion (for what it's > worth) Linux (and UNIX in general) is just fine the way it is. If the day > comes where I have to point and drool my way through a gui to admin my > Linux > box, that is the day I move to FreeBSD... as this is exactly why I left MS > all those years ago in the first place... the obscurity. I don't want to see linux/gentoo/freebsd/whatever go in that direction either. I'm happy with my gentoo systems and don't want to see them bastardized to become more like windows. My argument, however, was to be 'ready for the desktop,' to supplant windows, requires that they do so. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
