[cumbria_lug] Observations

[jenruss+jen at mail.plus.net]

> Easier only matters for the first few runs, though. Once a user has
> become familiar with a software package, he/she won't need the added
> bloat and cruft; equally, it's usually very difficult (or impossible)
> to remove the user-friendly components later.

I was thinking mainly in terms of setup/config, rather than the actual
running of the applications. For example, tools like Install Shield, that
holds the user's hand while the program is set up, and then cleans up after
itself.

> But the average
> box running NT4 or Win98 is nowhere near capable enough to run a
> modern desktop Linux, so companies have to buy new hardware anyway.

We had SuSE 8.1 running on my friend's computer a while ago, with whatever
KDE that came with. I can't quite remember what spec it was, but it's
certainly nothing more than a P2. It took a while to boot, but was
otherwise quite happy. I do see your point, though.

>> what's to stop people releasing two versions of their package - one
>> with full install assistance, and one with only basic install
>> assistance?
>
>Support. Maintaining separate codebases and/or packages is a
>nightmare; just ask RH about their policy with GCC "2.96" or SELinux
>in FC2 kernels. It's a good idea, but very difficult to implement.

I'm not so much talking about different packages as the same package, with
an optional easy-to-use setup tool or front end. They're already doing it,
to some extent. In my limited time with Debian, I found four different ways
of installing packages (apt-get from command line, tasksel, dselect,
package manager). All were basically apt-get behind the scenes, but they
were very different in terms of user experience.

I don't think that making things easier to use necessarily has to translate
into bloatware. There are very few functions that the average user will
make use of in a modern system that weren't available in, say, Win3.1, and
yet there's no way any modern windows would run on a 486, because it's full
of stuff people don't use and probably don't even know is there. The basic
functions of MS Office have barely changed in that time, installing stuff
still consists, as it did then, of double-clicking on setup.exe or similar,
web browsing is still little more than using the "back" button, typing URLs
into the bar or clicking on a favourite/bookmark. The only major change
from the user's point of view is the "start" menu, and the fact that MS are
trying harder and harder to hide program manager/windows explorer.

One problem I have with Linux is that there's far too much stuff. I only
need one email client, one web browser and one office suite. All the
standard installs seem to provide at least three of each, meaning my
programs tree is just horrible to navigate around. Just streamlining that
would make a big difference to the user experience.

I'm sure it must be the same behind the scenes. Am I actually making use of
all the different bits and pieces that are running in the background? I
doubt it. Do I actually need my word processor to display in 24bit colour?
I think not. Do I need photo-quality wall paper on all four of my desktops?
Ordinary plain blue will do for me. Cut all that out, and you have a lot
more spare room for making things easier to use, without having a bloated
system.

I don't think there are any distros I would recommend to a new user,
because none of the ones I've seen are simple enough to get set up and
working. I don't think Linux can realistically crack the home market
without cracking the business market, and vice versa. One of the biggest
benefits that Windows gives to a home user are that it's what they know,
because it's the same as it is at work. If businesses move over to a Linux
desktop, then Linux needs to be ready to go home with the users, and that
means easy to install & cofigure. One of the biggest benefits Windows gives
to businesses is that their staff know it, because it's what they use at
home. If people start moving over at home, then Linux needs to be ready
with a cheap and easy transition for businesses. I don't think it's really
ready for either of those things. It's getting there, but there's still a
long way to go.

The other thing that really needs to change is Linux's image. Just about
everyone that's heard of it thinks it's a geek toy, not really an option
for me. There's only one way I can think of to really change that image,
and that's to come down of the soap box and give people what they want -
Windows with fewer bugs and problems. Lindows may be a long way from
perfect, but I can see it being a very useful stepping stone to encourage
people away from MS. Maybe once more people see the benefits of moving that
far, they'll be tempted to move further.

Hugs,

Jen


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .