Mainstream . . . (LONG)

[Brian Densmore]

I'm not saying configurability is bad, but I know many people outside of
techies like us. Some are computer literate, intelligent people, some are
computer illiterate intelligent people, some are neither. I'm saying
configurability = complexity. What we need are interfaces and 'wizards' that
hide that complexity, while retaining the configurability. People don't want
to have to remember which item buried 15 layers deep in some menu/control
panel controls what. Heck, I don't like remember that myself. It is
frustrating, I am now running Helix Gnome and its so damn configurable that
I can't get it to "open" gif files by clicking or double clicking on them in
a file manager (KDE does that by default). Another thing, the interfaces
better start out by default with W* point and click associations, or Joe
average will get frustrated. It's bad enough having to learn all the
behaviors of one GUI. Of course this is all dependent on the intended
audience. If the audience is only going to be computer professionals and
hackers, well then KDE and Gnome are perfect the way they are. This is of
course also dependent on the age of the users being targeted. Younger people
tend to be more computer literate.

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: Tony Hammitt [mailto:tony at speedscript.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 2:58 PM
> To: kclug at kclug.org
> Subject: RE: Mainstream . . . (LONG)
> 
> 
> 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.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> majordomo at kclug.org
>