> As a reluctant windoze developer newly encountering the Linux
> learning curve, I may have a few useful observations to
> contribute. I lurk on this development forum because I'm hoping
> to eventually port my software products to Linux, but so far my
> company only uses Linux for its servers. The bottom line for me
> is that regardless of how much I might like Linux, in its current
> state Linux is unusable as a desktop OS for my customers.
It is ironic that you would write about this today, since I was just
discussing this very issue with others earlier. Please note that I
don't write the following as a criticism of you personally; you simply
created an itch that I must scratch :-)
What is *really* ironic, in my book, is that Microsoft and its merry
band of Windows-only software producers seem to really think that they
are making software that is "easy to use."
I did some tech support for a family member yesterday. This person has
been using computers for at least 15 years, including almost 10 as a
home user. On the face of it one would suspect that such a person
reasonably could be expected to know how to install a hardware
driver -- particularly when accompanied by instructions -- onto a
Windows 98 Plug and Play computer.
And yet this person could not do it, and it's not for a lack of
intelligence, either.
The simple fact is unavoidable: Microsoft et. al. have *failed* in
their efforts at making computers "easy to use." Have a listen on the
real tech support lines and I'm sure that you will be forced to agree.
In light of this, it seems entirely disingenuous for Microsofties to
complain about Linux being "hard" to use. Obviously "hard" is a
relative term. Personally I found it rather simple and logical to
learn Linux -- and I have about one-half the computing experience of
the family member I mentioned.
People rant about writing "intuitive" interfaces, but really: how is a
GUI any more 'intuitive' than a command line? Again, it's a matter of
perception. Neither a GUI nor a CLI is "intuitive" to a man who has
never before seen a computer, which suggests that the reality is this:
"intuitive", in relation to human interfaces, is really far more a
matter of experience than anything else. To me it's obvious that if I
want to know what a file's contents may be under Linux, I simply need
to run the 'file' command. On the other hand, it was completely
NON-intuitive for my relative to figure out from an icon what a file
was under Windows, even with years of experience (the file in question
was a text file, with the usual memo-pad icon).
> I may call myself a software developer, but my real business is
> doing for my customers what they want me to do. They don't use
> my software because I want them to use it, they use it for the
> value it provides within the context of their own business
> operations.
>
You're right about this, of course.
And this has nothing to do with "ease of use" IMO.
> I submit that the primary obstacle to general acceptance of Linux
> as a desktop OS isn't Redhat, but rather the current nature of
> Linux itself. Linux suffers from an "expectance of expertise".
> It doesn't matter how superior the OS might be - as long as its
> learning curve and "cognitive operating overhead" impose
> significant demands on the user, it will be rejected by the
> majority of desktop users.
On the other hand, Windows pretends that there is little or no
expectation of expertise with its software...but this is a lie. How
easy is it to secure a Windows 2000 computer? How easy to do the same
with Linux? Neither task is one for the novice, but Microsoft has
represented its products as making the job a simple one. This is
false.
So which is worse: having an expectation of expertise, or pretending
that expertise is unnecessary when in fact it is?
> In its current state, Linux is still far too much a technician's
> operating system to be acceptable to the desktop market. My
> customer's wouldn't have a prayer of setting up their own Linux
> system - they would find the idea of manually editing the dozens
> of configuration files overwhelming, and the very thought of
> having to recompile the kernel would terrify them.
And Windows users can't figure out how to install a USB device, even
though everyone assures them that this is a "simple" task.
I've listened to Windows users who couldn't figure out how to write a
letter. My grandmother was utterly and completely incapable of
grasping the operation of a mouse, and she was a successful
businesswoman for 30 years (i.e., not a dope).
It is understood that Linux requires some expertise. Despite the
protestations of Windows evangelists everywhere, the simple fact is
that Windows too requires expertise. Simple tasks are easily learned
on *any* operating system; remember, one of the first commercial uses
of Unix was for keyentry folk in the U.S. Patent Office -- not a
"highly skilled" position.
> It seems to me that the key to Linux on the desktop is the
> development of an artificially intelligent installation,
> configuration, and maintenance utility that can take care of all
> the decisions and maintenance functions that are beyond the
> capability - or interest - of aggressively computer illiterate
> users.
Ditto for Windows. Did you know that under Linux I can pop a PC Card
out of my laptop, and everything is fine? But if I do the same under
Windows 2000, the OS complains that I've done a bad, bad thing and
that I must remember to tell the operating system beforehand what I
want to do.
Which one is more "artificially intelligent" here in handling things
in the background?
Yes, I'm hand-picking examples, but Windows advocates do the same when
they're criticizing *nix.
> Reliability and usability are far more important than aesthetics
> to users who depend on their software.
<irony>Which is why Microsoft spends so much on eye candy.</irony>
I'm not really trying to disagree with much of what you've said; my
point is that the Microsoft pot is about as black as the Linux kettle.
I was forced recently (due, yes, to my own inexperience on that
"intuitive" OS Windows 2000) to format a hard disk because it is
possible (unbeknownst to the average user) to so set file permissions
on Windows 2000 that even Administrator cannot log in. So much for
"user-friendly" (no, there was no warning from that "user friendly" OS
that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to tighly restrict permissions
on the root directory of the system drive).
In three years of running the "hard to use" Linux OS I have never been
forced -- either by personal ignorance or operating system failure --
to reinstall.
Which one is more usable and reliable?
Fred
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
