Ah, Then why don't you call Linux an OS for geeks and Windows an OS for
everybody else (who knows how to spell English)
Ron Speers
Balibago, Angeles City
--- On Tue, 10/26/10, hard wyrd <hardw...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: hard wyrd <hardw...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ubuntu-PH] SJVN reports that "Ubuntu changes its desktop from
GNOME to Unity"
To: "Mailing List para sa Ubuntu Pilipinas (Philippines)"
<ubuntu-ph@lists.ubuntu.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2010, 5:36 PM
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
--
ubuntu-ph mailing list
ubuntu-ph@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ph
--
ubuntu-ph mailing list
ubuntu-ph@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ph
