Mainstream . . . (LONG)

[Tony Hammitt]

Couldn't you just have some preset configurations and let the user choose
the one they liked or put up with the default?  I guess I don't see the
point.

Are you saying that configurability itself, even if unused, will make the
OSS desktops less useful?  Back to your tape recorder analogy, isn't it nice
to have a player with auto-reverse rather than being stuck with ejecting the
tape and flipping it over to play the other side?  I could still do it the
other
way, but why should I?

Are people not happy with having the option to have a choice about how
their computer looks?  Is everything either required or forbidden?  I think
that your normal Joe Average User should be happy with the default look
and feel of KDE, GNOME or whatever.  Then once they get a few clues
under their belt, maybe they can play with the themes or other desktops.
But they shouldn't be locked into using whatever they first see just on the
off chance that they will never want to change it.  Give them a little
credit.

Just my opinion.  I still use FVWM 1.24.

Later,

    Tony

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Densmore <DensmoreB at ctbsonline.com>
To: 'Walter' <Zscoundrel at netscape.net>; KCLUG (E-mail) <kclug at kclug.org>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 8:47 AM
Subject: RE: RE: Mainstream . . . (LONG)

> Walter,
>
>    Only one flaw in your logic. Linux and KDE/Gnome are powerful, stable,
> and infinitely =configurable=.
>     Therein lies the problem.
>     The more configurable, the less marketable to =mainstream= audiences.
> Interfaces need to be dumbed down a bit for the average user, believe me I
> know from personal experience. Complex things tend to turn average people
> off. which explains why people use cassette players instead of reel tape
> players (except of course professional recorders), even though the reel
> players/recorders are superior [they're just too complicated].
>
> Remember Rich Cook's definition of programming:
>    Programming: A race between Software Engineers
> (striving to make bigger and better idiot-proof programs)
> and the Universe
> (striving to make bigger and better idiots).
> So far the Universe is winning!
>
>
> PS. I also pay for my Linux software, for all the reasons you do. although
I
> generally buy direct.
>
> Best Regards,
> Brian
>
> Brian Densmore <mailto:DensmoreB at ctbsonline.com>
>
>
> Associate
> Computech Business Solutions <http://www.ctbsonline.com>
> voice: (816) 880-0988
> fax: (816) 880-0998
> :-{)>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Walter [mailto:Zscoundrel at netscape.net]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 5:11 PM
> > To: kclug at kclug.org
> > Subject: Re: RE: Mainstream . . . (LONG)
> >
> >
> > I have to disagree.  If you look back at Microsoft
> > annoncements, you will see that there are more copies of Red
> > Hat Linux out there now than all the copies of 'doze 3.1 ever
> > sold.  (this includes all of the licenses of 3.1 that were
> > paid for twice as part of a new computer and then replaced
> > with OS/2 that included a license of 3.11 and some other
> > pretty 'loose' counting practices!)
> >
> > There are people writing software for Linux, and more will,
> > once we establish that there is a market for it.  I know that
> > we can easily download a number of distributions freely, but
> > instead, I try to buy the package from a local vendor.  It
> > costs me a little more, but the time I save is well worth the
> > few dollars and it tells 'Sam's Club', 'Barnes and Noble' and
> > 'Office Depot' "Thank You!" in a way that executives,
> > stockholders and even bean counters can appreciate.
>