I don't want to protract what is essentially an off-topic discussion for
this list, so this will be it from me.
I don't know what would give someone the impression that I was saying
Windows is intuitive and Linux is not. I explicitly stated to the
contrary. Also, it is ridiculous to dump on everything Windows does just
because someone likes or prefers Linux. The Mac and Windows got some
things right. No sense reinventing the wheel.
When you constantly insult Windows by using demeaning nicknames for it
and refusing to see *anything* good about it (not uncommon on Linux
lists and message boards), you place yourself in the category of a
zealot who is waging religious wars over operating systems. The computer
world is full of OS religionists, to be sure. You have your Mac
evangelists, who have actually made death threats against columnists who
have questioned the Mac's superiority in everything. The excesses of
Team OS/2 are well known. The Windows world has plenty of missionaries
and Microsoft groupies. Linux has its fair share of fanatics, too. I
prefer an even-handed approach where one can consider the pluses and
minuses without regard to the orthodoxy of the venue in which the
discussion is taking place.
Sridhar said:
>> I was referring to a much looser definition that is commonly in use
within computing circles, particluarly in computer publications
(including consumer magazines). <<
Are these the same folks who think "it's" is a possessive pronoun?<g>
>> The definition I am using refers to what a user has learnt and
experienced in the past, and how that affects their expectations when
they try something new (to them). <<
Then "intuitive" isn't the operative word and shouldn't be used in this
way. It just degrades the language and confuses people.
>> Using your definition, how is copy/paste behaviour "intuitive" to
anybody? Is a key
combo like Ctrl-c or Ctrl-v "intuitive"? <<
No. Truth be told, there isn't much about using a computer that is
intuitive. Well, maybe if you have a simple e-mail and Web browsing
machine where the pictures and words are almost impossible to miss, you
might call it intuitive, but most operations aren't that simple.
However, *consistency* of operations within an operating system means
you learn once and then can use that in everything else. When you have
ten different ways of doing something and no application can be counted
on to do it in the same way, any possible "intuitiveness" is out the
window and you must learn (and remember) the procedure for each
application you use.
>> Your idea of "intuitive" only works at a basic level, like dragging a
file icon onto a printer icon (which, I believe, GNOME-Print can do). <<
As can KDE. Which illustrates that I wasn't doing a "Windows-good,
Linux-bad" comparison. Intuitive features can be, and are being,
incorporated into Linux desktops.
>> I _do_ realise that I was unusual. I wasn't trying to boast about my
abilities <<
I didn't think you were.
>> I was just trying to illustrate that a clear mind, like that of a
child, can learn new things much more easily than one that is fettered
by many habits that have accumulated over time. Like the old maxim, "you
can't teach an old dog new tricks". <<
The maxim is, of course, untrue because you *can* teach an old dog new
tricks. I don't think it was easier for people whose first computer
experience was DOS to learn the system than for people who learned
Windows to learn another system, though. When you had essentially
nothing else, you either learned it or didn't use a computer at all.
Lots of people simply gave up--I know them! Or they gave up until they
encountered a Macintosh. Apple used "The Computer for the Rest of Us" as
an early advertising slogan for the Mac. Many DOS users eagerly adopted
Windows 3.0 and then 3.1 with sighs of relief because they had to deal
with the hated command line so much less. There are holdouts to this
day, but a large majority of users simply prefer to work with a
graphical interface. They want to do what they want to do, not spend
weeks massaging an operating system before they can get to work or play.
>> Simple console commands like how to change directories and how to
copy or delete a file can be very useful, even in Windows. <<
They are of limited usefulness because you can do it all from the
graphical file manager. But I agree that it's another tool in your
toolkit if you can do things from command lines.
>> Many (but obviously not all) new GNU/Linux users just end up saying
"stuff it, I'm going back to Windows". A total newbie can't do this, and
so are more determined. <<
What a total newbie can do is just give up entirely on using a computer.
Don't forget, the explosion in computer use (and sales) didn't come
about until computers were easier to use. It was only when you didn't
have to belong to the High Priesthood to use the thing that masses of
ordinary people considered investing their money in a computer.
>> I still couldn't understand the logic behind ideas like the ghastly
Registry <<
You have lots of company among Windows users on that.<g>
>> the poorly-designed filesystems (yes, even NTFS) <<
Geek territory.
>> and the awkward drive-lettering scheme <<
More awkward than Unix drive lettering? Doesn't seem so to me. I
understand the rules for hard drive lettering and I can use whatever
letter I want for my removables once the hard drives have their letters.
Windows NT/2K lets you assign the letters. This is doubtless a "what
you're used to" issue and I doubt it would keep any prospective refugee
from Windows from migrating to Linux.
>> Microsoft seem totally unwilling to change these <<
Because of consumer demands for compatibility with old hardware and
software. If you abandon the old methods for putatively better ways, old
hardware and software may not work. This is simply unacceptable to lots
of users. So do you listen to your customers or to the techies?
>> It is a well-known fact that Microsoft doesn't innovate, [etc.]
Here we're getting into religious stuff again. Some would argue with
you. I'm bored with the topic.<g>
>> This is a vast oversimplification of things. Have _you_ ever been a
developer or a sysadmin? <<
No. And I never will be. It's totally outside my sphere of interests.
>> Developers _cannot_ make graphical menus and dialogue boxes for every
sort of error under the sun. <<
They've done pretty well with the Macintosh. I don't care whether
*everything* can be put into a menu or dialogue box, but I sure do want
to be able to do just about all of what I, as an ordinary but fairly
high-level user, need to do without hunting through hundreds of pages of
some sort of manual or searching all over the Internet trying to find
out what obscure command or procedure will allow me to install a sound
card or SCSI card or digital camera or an Expert Set for a typeface
(that last one seems to be a lost cause).
>> Why do you think Microsoft leave an option for a "Safe Mode" with a
command line? <<
Safe Mode isn't a command line interface. It's a load of Windows with a
minimal set of standard drivers and is used for troubleshooting, to help
with isolating a problem. You can get a command line option at bootup
until Windows Me came along, which will not boot into plain DOS.
>> To quote yourself, "Do you have evidence to support this, other than
wishful thinking and some anecdotes?" <<
I clearly stated that I was giving a personal anecdote, not making a
general statement.
>> Either the (largely Microsoft-sponsored) press is making stuff up
about Windows' unreliability, or you and a few others are an exception
to the rule. <<
I don't know that there is so much serious complaining in the "press"
about Windows' unreliability. It's all the rage in certain quarters, of
course.
>> They may not say it openly, but many mainstream computer publications
(especially anything by ZDNet or by their parent, CNet) _love_
Microsoft. They may chuck-in the occasional pro-GNU/Linux and
anti-Microsoft piece, but most articles are in support of the company.
[etc.]<<
I've been an activist in various causes for well over 40 years, and I
can tell you that "they've been bought off" is the stock answer when
mainstream media do not adopt the same line as the members of the cause.
The idea that others may simply not agree with you seems not to enter
one's consciousness. When things seem very obvious to you, it can be
difficult to understand why everyone doesn't agree. Well, people have
different values, different ideas of what's important, different
criteria for judging. I think it's quite insulting to assume everyone
who doesn't agree with you has been bought off somehow or just doesn't
know any better.
--Judy Miner
