Hi Sir Rick,
Ricky wrote:
I disagree about your new-user 10 year oldâs approach to Linux. Granted that he would have a CLI close to his fingertips, he would probably favor what ever GUI is already resident (assuming there is one.)
I was a 10 year old once (11 years ago), and I was programming in DOS using Turbo Pascal 5.5 and 7. I had no idea what a GUI was, and was still playing around with Wordstar and Word Processor for Kids (WPK) back then. I still remember Garfield to create garfield cards to be printed out on a dot matrix printer.
NOW though, chances are a 10 year old might be using a computer which actually already has Windows in it. But if the 10 year old got really at home with a console on Linux, I wouldn't be surprised if the first window he opens is one which invokes an instance of a shell. And I won't be surprised if he doesn't care really what desktop environment he uses just as long has his favorite console based editor is already there.
Just like Apples and Oranges, the Windows shell experience is different from Bash. And if you've been having a staple diet of Linux shells and X terminals, you wouldn't be caring too much if your desktop environment was GNOME or KDE.
This is my entire point. He can use Linux without opening a terminal window and typing bash commands. He would be able to do productive work meaningful to him, manage his files, play games or whatever, and not have to use the CLI at all to have a meaningful experience. His trauma may come about from crossing GUI environments such as going from GNOME to KDE, WinXP, or Mac OSX. Similar trauma happens to me when trying to learn a completely new GUI as what happened to a lot of Mac users when OSX came out. (strangely enough, OSX being BSD at heart, early version almost required an occasional trip to the terminal application and working on sh)
Yes, but that doesn't mean that Bash shouldn't be promoted either. You can always say "There are GUI environments in Linux! They look great! They're getting better as the years come! ... And then there's bash."
It's more like this (IMO): If you can't see a GUI tool to do it, then chances are opening up a terminal window and typing in commands might do the trick. OR, if the 10 year old was a whiz kid coding C/C++ in Linux using the latest GTK+/QT libs, then he might just make a GUI frontend to the CLI based tool he wants to use. :D
I also started computing on CLIâs. Iâve had to deal with a teletype connected to a PDP-11, graduated to developing applications on R-DOS and AOL. I had to deal with a command prompt on the Apple II and early versions of MS-DOS. In almost every case, I would have to create scripts to manage my most frequently used work, test these scripts, re-write them, think hard about how to manage files, etcâ
Wasn't it fun? :D Kidding aside, I don't feel right managing my files with a Windows Explorer or Nautilus/Konqueror session. I like the notion of being able to compile my code using make and makefiles and controlling the details instead of relying on an IDE to build it for me. I like vi better than emacs -- and I feel more productive in vi than in Eclipse for example.
It's all subjective, and to have a "meaningful" and "productive" experience with a computer doesn't necessarily entail a GUI. I had a "meaningful" and "productive" experience with an ssh shell to a beowulf cluster master node, and I didn't complain when I was logging on to the undernet network using a CLI based IRC client or checking my mail using mutt.
But GUI choice eventually boils down to personal preferences and initial experience. This is where the Open Source community has to wake up. CLIâs are easy to swith back and forth from because you always have to have a manual or help iption available. GUIâs are supposed to be intuitive and are learned heuristically (trial and error.)
And the choice between a GUI and a CLI boils down to personal preference too in that matter. There are manuals for GUI's too, and for libraries, and tools, c shell, z shell, k shell, vi, and the list goes on...
I like GUI's too, don't get me wrong. But like I said, the Open Source Community is not like a big company whose direction is defined by a board of directors, or a CEO, or a group of stock holders. After all, the Open Source community is composed of voluntary members who want to contribute.
That said, it's not easy to get direction when everyone in the community has his/her own agenda. It's not impossible, but it's not easy either.
So if you want to capture the hearts of users, the Open Source Community will have to sell the idea of alternative GUIâs more than the concept of a better more secure kernel. Otherwise, Linux and other open source OSâs interest will remain in the server/developer market rather than the general user market.
To capture the hearts of users... I really don't know about that. I promote open source software because I like the development process, the involvement of the users, and the freedom that surrounds it. I don't hide the fact that yes, maybe some tools need improvement, and that the direction of the open source community is quite undefined.
I promote open source (Linux distributions that is, and the use of Linux in the enterprise and mission critical solutions) because I feel comfortable using it. Maybe some people aren't but the best marketing tool IMO is that of personal experience and testimony from satisfied users.
I have my complaints and I have my praises, and as long as the Open Source Community stays a community of individuals not answering to any higher authority like a board of directors, then it wouldn't be easy to do what you are suggesting the Open Source Community to do.
Maybe you can start a company which does this? :D
Gnome, KDE and other GUI environments are fully capable of allowing a rich user experience today. Itâs about time advocates start extolling that fact rather than concentrating on issues like kernel stability and security â not that these arenât important features â and the day may come where you can enter into any computer store in Manila and see a PC with a Gnome interface sitting next to whatever XP or OSX box happens to be in the Window.
Good idea sir Rick. :D But I advocate Linux the kernel, which is really great for stable application deployment, and mission critical solutions. But then I'm a developer, not a marketing guy. :D
(Honestly, just as long as I can code in Linux using vi, g++, make, the libraries, cvs, and bash without it unexpectedly hanging up on me or choking on what I'm doing, then I'm fine with it. :D)
Your points are certainly something to consider sir. :D
-- Dean Michael Berris ymid: mikhailberis [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
