On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM, JC John Sese Cuneta < jcjohn.sesecun...@laibcoms.com> wrote:
> Marked with :: > > :: It's not really deception per se. You have to consider where they're > coming from and where they're standing at. For us geeks, it's a > no-brainer. For them, it isn't. Our brains function way differently than > the non-geeks. And most of the time, we geeks are willing to spend more > time into reading, experimenting, learning, asking questions, finding > solutions, etc. They are not and they will never be. > Mimicking a UI of one OS is technically deception. And instead of letting those users get familiar with a Linux user interface, they'll continue on with the same thing from Windows. It is exactly this thinking - users "will never be" experimenting, learning, and asking questions - that made a lot of people call system administrators as BOFH in the first place. As tech people - knowledgeable in the systems - i believe it's the tech's responsibility to educate them, show them the hoops, guide them through the ropes a little. Yes they do experiment, yes they do ask questions, and yes they do find solutions as long as we are not so uptight about stuff and give them a little lee way to explore (within bounds). Honestly, they're just so damn afraid that they'll break something and afraid to earn the ire of the techs. > :: You see, if we ever want them to migrate, especially offices, we need to > see things from their eyes, from their perspective. We need to think like > them. We can not just go to them, present and demo "our superior" product, > and tell them every little and big thing that we can think of why they need > to migrate to Linux all we want. But if we can not address their needs, not > ours but theirs, then they will never bite. They won't even bother trying > it out. > Exactly. Under a consultant's point of view, it's bad form to just jump in without knowing what they want. But then again, when offering a Linux-based solution, make sure that they know it _is_ Linux with UI that's reminiscent of Linux and not some knock off of another OS, because that is definitely misleading. > :: Personally, I have more success in converting people to use Linux, or to > be exact, Ubuntu, by presenting it to them based on what they need and what > they are looking for in an OS. I first try to find out more about them. > Their habbits, what are their primary, secondary, and tertiary purposes of > using a PC, and their outlook in this matter. Then when the time is right > (or they gave the schedule), everything that comes out of my mouth has been > catered to them. > Totally different from the mimicked UI we were discussing a few paragraphs back. But I agree on you on this part. That's what I do to clients as well. But I make sure I let them know it's Linux, Ubuntu, whatever, and I keep the UI as it is. But that's me. :). > :: It isn't perfect, and it is harder in office evironments. But I have > better success in that method than presenting GNU/Linux and Ubuntu "as-is". > It is far from being a deception. We want to present GNU/Linux as a product > "for them, not for geeks". > Ubuntu is already usable as it is. Why change the UI to look like Windows? > So changing the desktop to Unity default, based on our experience, will >> further make the Windows users to _not_ to migrate, nor even try. "Unity >> for desktop as default" will not break that ice. For netbook, sure, it _is_ >> a netbook after all, we need space and speed. But for a desktop as >> default? It's a bad decision. >> > > I don't quite think so. It requires relearning - yes. Relearning was not > a barrier to Windows users who purchased Macs. They just have to learn the > ins and outs. Sadly, a lot of users want to be spoon fed. I've been there. > > :: Well, Mac users are better than Windows users, they always have been. > In what way were Mac users better than Windows users? > Mac and GNU/Linux have the lowest share vs. Windows. So our side > obviously can learn Windows much easier because our thinking has been molded > different already. Windows users are not, as you have said, "spoon fed". > And to add to that, Microsoft has a strong marketing department. > Actually we have _unlearned_ Windows easily because we took a chance at trying another OS. Whether we want to admit or not, most users have used Windows since they starting using the computer. Fortunately, I'm a DOS person when I first started with the PC. > > If the new user interface will be a lot simpler and straight forward to > use, then why not? At least it has to be made clear to migrants that this is > a different operating system, and adjustments will need to be made. > > :: If the name isn't "Windows" (or "Mac") then it is a different operating > system, there's no other way to be clearer than that. ^_^ > > >> This clearly tells me that Canonical is done with the "come Windows users >> try us out" phase. The recent decisions, from Jaunty onwards, were all >> signs to me that they have a new vision and a new objective. They are now >> treating Ubuntu as an independent "OS". A product worthy to be called an >> Operating System in and of itself. Ubuntu is Ubuntu. Ubuntu _is_ _the_ OS. >> > > I don't think they're going to drop "Linux" because it still is a Linux > distribution. To me the recent decisions were to make it a bit more > recognizable than "just another Linux distro". How will it distinguish > itself from the rest? It's still Linux but something will need to be done as > far as risks and bold moves are concerned. > > :: No, I wasn't referring to dropping Linux, it won't run without it. And > if you meant "name", they never used "Ubuntu Linux", not that I remember. > Regardless, that's what I was talking about. They're looking at the product > to become a "household name". Instead of "Linux", it will be "Ubuntu". It > is still Linux underneath, but the non-geeks know it by "Ubuntu". > Mac is Unix underneath. But do people refer to it as Unix? I think this is semantics :) :: For us, we care so much about correctness of terminologies, like > "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux". To the non-geeks, they do not care and never > will. What they want is a working operating system that they has a very low > (re)-learning process - in other words, they can use with minimal > supervision and QnA's. > > :: It's like this: "why fix when it is not broken?" For them, "why migrate > to Linux (or GNU/Linux) if I already have Windows?" We can't just sell them > "no viruses" if the individual or entity (office environment) have a system > in place that keeps viruses out ¾'s of the time. We can't just sell them > "it is faster than Windows" if the individual or their ITC department made > enhancements to it. If we want to sell the idea to them, then we need to > cater the product to them. If we want them to migrate, then we need to give > them compelling reasons to switch. > And compelling is using a UI that mimicks Windows? Anyway, going back to the original reason why this thread exists. I don't think it will matter much if Ubuntu goes the Unity route. if people wanna use it, I don't think it's that hard to learn how use Unity. And people will try Ubuntu not because it uses Unity as a GUI, or GNOME, or whatever. Regards! -- ------------------------------------------------------------- "Penguin, penguin, and more penguin !" www.madforubuntu.com baudizm.blogsome.com
-- ubuntu-ph mailing list ubuntu-ph@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ph
