[Wolves] Too many cooks

[Andy Wootton]

Kevanf1 wrote:

>I'm going to play devil's advocate here so just bear with me.  The
>reason for making it (Linux) look and feel like Windows is because
>that is what the majority of PC users like.
>
What else have they seen?

>We've moved along from
>Linux being purely a command line OS to a more or less GUI
>environment.  Why?  Because most people prefer that.  I know that you
>can't do as much with a GUI but millions and millions of people
>shudder at the 'primitive' command line.
>  
>
I hardly use the command line so I won't try to defend it. I used ICL 
GEORGE III, DEC TOPS-20 and VMS command lines before Korn and Bash.  I 
think the syntax of every Unix shell I've seen is horrible. I don't see 
any reason that you can't do everything with a GUI other than inadequate 
design.

>Windows offers the ordinary,
>everyday PC user an easy and friendly interface to their PC. 
>
I disagree. It offers a familiar interface once you are used to it. I 
tried to move from the Win 3.1 to the Windows 95/NT GUI without 
instruction. All I could work out how to do was create shortcuts and I 
didn't know what they were for. I needed some training..

>So, going down this route, the people
>using Windows are happy with how it looks and works and feels.  People
>do not like change even though, as we know, in this case changing to
>Linux is for the good.  
>
What if the person next to them was achieving more at lower cost?

>The only way manufacturers - aprat from the
>small handful - are going to start supporting Linux with their own
>drivers is if Linux is adopted by more users.  To do that those users
>need to be presented with a familiar system.
>
or a system that is so much better that some investment of time is worthwhile. Given a choice between compromising on design and poor hardware support, I'd live with limited hardware.

>The average PC user
>wants to work at their PC not have go through a long learning process
>all over again.  They've already done that with Windows.
>  
>
OK. Let them.

>Now, please, tell me where and why I am wrong.  I'll simply add that
>all the arguments that I have put are not my own but they are those
>spoken to me by people I have tried to persuade to try Linux - even
>though they like the Live CDs etc that I have introduced to them. 
>Remember, devil's advocate here :-)
>
I've used this analogy before here: if you feel the need to convert 
someone to use Linux, look at their stereo. If you find an all in one 
music centre with crappy sound then give up. If you see a seperates 
system with components from several different manufacturers and a rats 
nest of cable at the back then you've found a potential Linux user. To 
use any Unix system you have to value quality of result above ease of 
integration. Most people don't.

Woo