In a message dated: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:47:28 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, at 3:24pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> Apparently, it is a friggin' *stated goal* to remove many configuration >>> options from Gnome. >> >> So where's the value add to switch from MS? Sure, there's the "it's free" >> argument, but for most users, they don't care. > > Define "users". Since we're specifically discussing the desktop configurability of Gnome2, I thought it clear that we would be also discussing the end/home user. However, that is not necessarilly so, as you've pointed out. But I'll get to that in a moment. >For most home and small office users, "free" (gratis) makes a *HUGE* >difference. Agreed, however, the realistic difference is nothing. The only place I know of where the "average" home user can purchase a computer for less because it either has no OS, or has Linux, is Wal*Mart, and even then, it's at WalMart.com, not in the stores (or so I'm lead to believe, please correct me if I'm wrong). If the end-user can only get a discount for not having an OS or having Linux on the system by purchasing on-line, is it safe to assume they already have a computer through which they have access to the net? If so, then, what are most likely to buy: a) something with no OS on it b) something they've barely heard of or c) something which they're very familiar with and use every day, but costs an extra $89-100? I'll bet on option C. They need a *very* compelling reason to choose A or B. I don't think $100 is enough in *most* cases. (It is for me, but I'm not your average user, and neither is anyone else on this list :) >Where I work, we get a number of customers this way. "Here is >the Microsoft-based solution; it will cost you $20,000, most of that in >software license fees. Here is the Linux-based solution; it will cost you >$5000. Any questions?" How many of them are asking you to outfit the entire office with desktops? (I'm not being facetious or a p.i.t.a, I have no idea what you're business model is, and therefore no way of knowing what types of customers you have or even what you do.) I'm making an assumption here that you primarily install servers and infrastructure vs. desktops. In which case, I'll agree, that the lower price tag of Linux is incredibly attractive to those signing the check. Especially so, since they're getting all the same, if not, more functionality out of the Linux-based solution than they would from the MS solution. Additionally, a "server" is something they don't sit in front of all day long and have to use for daily productive work. A server is some machine in the back room or closet that the IS group deals with when it's broken. Otherwise, it's just a shared drive or a web site, etc. In which case, the "attraction to the user" of Gnome2 has absolutely no applicability and is not the conversation we were having. On the other hand, if you in fact do install entire offices with desktops, and people are choosing Linux over Windows because of price, then this does have relevance to our discussion. In this case, the purchaser wants to know that Linux is going to look and feel just like whatever they're used to using in other jobs or at home. By removing features and configurability from Gnome2, they'll accomplish that! I don't agree with the practice, and think Paul I. is on the right track when he says "hide don't remove" the features and configuratbility options. But for the most part, people think computers are a very specific set of interfaces with a very specific set of configurable options. Giving them more will confuse them, and therefore lead them to conclude that "more != better", rather, "more == difficult, complex, confusing". Which is bad. Corporate customers do not, under any circumstances, want to slow down or inhibit the productivity of their people. Giving them a limited number of configurable options on the desktop is actually a good thing from a productivity point of view. That's what they're used to, and they've come to accept that. Keeping in mind that the average person is a sucker for eye-candy, and not more interested in "Functionality over form" like myself. Now put yourself into the management role, with an eye on employee productivity for a moment. Imagine if eveyone could endlessly customize every possible aspect of their environment. Let's just say that each person spends just one half of one day perfectly tweaking their desktop to suit them. (I've seen some people spend an entire day or more doing this under Gnome and E ;) That's a tremendous amount of time wasted on not being productive at all, which is a huge amount of money wasted for absolutely no business gain. One thing I have to credit MS with is the amount of usability testing they've done with their interfaces. They're not perfect, but they do spend an inordinate amount of resources on discovering "what do users want". I give the Gnome people credit for following that lead in this sense. From a corporate sales perspective, that's where the money is. If we really want "World Domination", then we have to give the "user" what they want. The "user" in this case, being Joe Average, and those sitting in corporate environments who sign the checks. Most people purchase a computer and get MS because that's what they use at work or at school. If Linux can penetrate the corporate environment and people get used to that at work or school, they'll start getting it at home as well. > But if the Linux computer costs $200 less than the one that includes >MS-Windows for "free", which one do they buy? :) In most cases the Linux computer isn't $200 less, it's only $100 (I just checked WalMart.com, and w/ LindowsOS it's $199, for Windows XP it's $299). -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss