Replies

We perceive computers primarily as tools...

See, I don't think you do--or most people for that matter. I'm not blaming you. It's a matter of definition, I think.

Tools require some form of (at least) rudimentary training in order to operate properly. yet we (as a society) think if we just plug in a computer, or sit some kid down in front of it, all our problems will be solved. Sitting someone down in the control cabin of a construction crane will virtually guarantee destruction of some sort. The same goes for computers.

Insisting that all OSes and computers need to run/look like Windows because that is what "everyone" is used to is not only wrong-headed, but can be dangerous. It leads to stagnation--not only in computer/software design, but also in our ability to think and remain in control of these tools that we use all the time.

What I think would really be helpful, at least from a desktop perspective, is for the whole Linux desktop community to agree on a single standard desktop, and the closer to Windows look and feel the better.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Limiting a tool of this power and complexity to one interface is like saying that a tablesaw should only be able to cut pine 2x4s at 90-degree angles. What's the point?

The truly great thing about Linux is the choice that it offers. Not only the choice of not giving your money to a liberal corporation like MS, but also of usability. Desktop choices like Gnome, KDE, LXDE, and XFCE (to name but a few), kernel choices and whether you really want to upgrade or not--this is what we're really about. We're not really trying to to get rid of MS, but thinking that we should imitate them is short-sighted to say the least.

If you don't want to invest the time and effort needed to learn about the tool sitting on the desk in front of you, that is also your prerogative. However, don't complain that it's too difficult when you don't really want to learn how to properly operate it.

Windows is like a base-model automatic (to use an analogy from you), with its hood welded shut and no real controls inside. Other OSes provide more functionality, but you have to learn to use it. More freedom does require more learning.

—See, I don’t think you do—or most people for that matter. I’m not blaming you. It’s a matter of definition, I think.—

Actually, I’ve been using Visio since before it was a microsoft product. And I hated the latest version of office (as everyone did) but embraced it because I knew it would be the new standard in my office. I soon learned to love it and became the “office guru” at my workplace. I have also taught classes in Microsoft outlook as well as many mainframe Y2K remediation tools. I also worked at Compuware as a Sales Engineer. What this means is that I combined my sales background with my IT background to work with salespeople to answer technical questions, perform training at client sites, install the product on mainframe systems, etc. I’ve programmed in Assembler, Cobol, Dyl280 and 260, Powerbuilder, Visual Basic, C++, C#, Fortran and am currently using Visual Studio and Microsoft’s SQL studio to produce my system’s documentation.

I see all computers and computer software as tools. I use them as tools. I know how they work at least enough to do my job well. The problem is that if you are in a world dominated by Microsoft and Mac, and there is no compelling reason to be “different than everyone else”, it is not worth bothering with something different.

I sold a Beta portable VCR and Camera to a doctor back around 1980 to a doctor. A little over a month later he wanted to return it for VHS. The reason? The medical community had a huge library of material he needed but it was all in VHS. Sure, Beta was better, but his VCR was a tool and he needed to use it as such. It would not do what he needed it to do.

To apply that to Linux, I am no fan of Microsoft (just as I hated VHS), but I have become a power user of their office suite and have trained others in it. I use it as a tool in my job on a daily basis. I’ve used open office (and I am sure there are others). It is a reasonable faximile, but other than to save a few bucks (it’s free), what would my motivation be to learn it? There are only so many hours in the day and I really have to budget my time. Why would I spend all that time learning a product that is not fully compatible with everything those I work with, and I, use to perform our jobs?

There has to be a compelling reason to move from the “standard” to something else. For computer hobbyists I can see the seductive quality of using Linux. Heck, if you are running your own web server company I can see using it. But for the rest of us, there is no compelling reason. We only see our computers as tools and we already know how to use the tool we are using. We get work done. The tool works very well.

Could Linux be better than Windows? Sure. Beta was a lot better than VHS. I have learned to choose my battles. That is why I threw away my ubuntu disc and went back to practicing my bass.

I'm not suggesting forcibly limiting Linux. I'm suggesting that an operating system that has many popular desktop options, each different in their own way, might be better served having one (additional) common offering that is tailored to users migrating from the most widespread existing competitor.

Your point is exactly mine - in order to migrate to Linux there is extensive training required. My point is that, right now, for the vast majority of users on desktops in a corporate environment, that training, which has a significant cost, has zero benefit. Users don't want, don't need, and likely won't use the fredom/complexity/choice of Linux. It's overkill, and then some. The OS is a means to an end - acessing applications. If the OS (and I'm including the desktop here) gets in the way, then it is a detriment rather than an asset, regardless of it's inherent capabilities.

Linux could be a real gamechanger, given the separation between the kernel and the desktop environment. Instead, it becomes a liability.

If you dropped most people into a Formula 1 car, they probably wouldn't be able to start it (assuming they could even get in). You could argue that the F1 car controls are better designed, and better laid out, but frankly, it doesn't matter if you're out of milk and need to go two blocks to the grocery store. Could an F1 car be built that operated like a run-of-the-mill sedan? Yes. Would it compromise it's performance? Probably, but when the average owner isn't going to take it to the track, that compromise is worth the gain in usability.

The thing is, all things considered, it is relatively easy, under Linux, to make an F1 operate like a generic sedan because of the segregation between the kernel and the desktop. It should be considered another strength of Linux, rather than a weakness. And those users who actually need/want the freedom/choice/complexity can still acess it, and are most likely to be able to access it, or willing to be trained in order to reap the benefits.

And, frankly, I'm not sure stagnation in software design is a bad thing. All too often, interfaces are changed seemingly for change's sake with negligible benefit, but extensive training costs. To be honest, what I want from software designers is more stable code that performs well. As long as the interface has basic functionality that the users can understand, I don't care if it never changes. In fact, I'd prefer that it not change unless the change brings huge productivity gains - something I have yet to witness in my career.