Re: Re: Ok. Heh, is there still an smtp-based list out here:D

Hi,

>> If the user isn't ready for the OS then perhaps that's precisely because the OS
>> isn't ready for the user. 
> 
> But we're not starting even. The OS may not be "ready" *for users who
> have been trained for some 20 years in the Windows way of doing things
> (and I've used Windows since 3.11, but 95 and later users don't even
> have my experience with non-GUI applications--WordPerfect was *great*
> under DOS), and Linux for the most part has resisted the temptation to
> deform its design to compensate for the fact that the userbase has been
> crippled for all that time.

That's a borderline offensive statement. You are saying that Windows users are
somehow "crippled" with respect to Linux users. I'll ignore that part of the
paragraph and reply to the rest:

Why does a user have to be "ready" for Linux? You are suggesting that Windows
users should be converted to Linux, but that it's their fault because they're
not ready for it because they are used to a certain design paradigm. OK, but if
you (general you) are telling somebody to convert, don't you think it's your
business to make that process as easy as possible for them?

Basically, what I am reacting against is the trend that says something like
this: "why oh why does everyone still use Windows and not use the clearly
superior Linux operating system", but then goes on to say something like "those
silly Windows users want to dumb down Linux and make it 'easy' for them to use,
despite the problem being their own habits and inability/unwillingness to learn
a new system".
I am not sure if this is your sentiment but that is the impression I get; if I
am wrong please correct me.

Nonetheless the suggestion that Windows users are not ready for Linux implies
that Linux is inherently superior. But for all practical intents and purposes,
if changing to Linux means incurring a large cost in terms of time etc., what
incentive, really, does converting to Linux have for the 'normal user'? I
converted to Linux because I have fairly specialized needs that were becoming
harder and harder to address under Windows. But how will you convince my
girlfriend that she *needs* to convert to Linux, if that process won't be very
fast and easy?


> The jury is still kinda out as to whether that's a "good idea" in that
> it's not good for marketability, but it certainly is admirable in the
> sense of having the courage of your (design) convictions.

On this we agree. But I find it strange that you say the jury is out but then
suggest that Windows users are 'crippled'. Maybe you did not use that term in
the way I am understanding it.


>> I think that argument can go both ways. The main
>> problem I see with Linux and the "normal user" is any kind of system
>> maintenance. For most normal use (email, office, web, chat) Linux is just fine
>> -- depending, of course, on the distribution you choose to use. I might not
>> recommend Gentoo or straight Debian for complete Linux beginners, for instance.
>>
> 
> Well, as a Gentoo user, I'm not completely sure about that. Depends on
> the user, tbh. I, on the other hand, wouldn't recommend Ubuntu to a
> beginner, as I, who have used RedHat, Mandrake, several flavors of
> Debian, SuSE, Slackware, and Gentoo, couldn't get anything to work using
> it. Yet 'everyone' says it's the most trouble-free newbie distro to be had.
> 
> OK. <shrug>

Hmm. Well, everything worked for me when I installed Fedora and Ubuntu on
desktops. Everything I tried was disastrous on my Dell laptop several years ago,
although apparently that has gotten better since.
- Debian I would not recommend because it's too CLI-oriented and the appearance
of synaptic during installation can be somewhat scary.
- Gentoo I would not recommend because it depends a little bit too much on
understanding and/or being willing to undertake the compilation process. Most
people I know don't want to even have to see that stuff.
- Fedora I quite like, although I prefer the package management in Ubuntu
(thanks to Debian).
- I have no experience with Mandrake/SuSE/Slackware.


> But this all comes down to the fact that if you are your computer's
> administrator, you should know how to administrate it effectively for
> your needs. 

I disagree with that statement. If we followed that logic, then we should
require that people who want to drive cars for their needs should know how to
fix things when they go wrong!

I think you are also wrong to conflate "computer user" with "computer
administrator"; someone should not need to know how to administer a system just
to be a user. If a Windows user is not ready to be a sysadmin, then maybe it
could be said that Linux is not ready for non-admin users.


> The problem is that everyone is trained by Windows into
> believing that the OS itself is adequate to do its own administration,
> which-- if Windows is meant to be the example of this philosophy-- it is
> not. 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "do its own administration". For most
purposes, you don't really need to touch the OS once you've done an initial
setup. Granted, things get messy after a while and reformatting starts becoming
a good idea (damned registry), but you can still do everything you want to do
(assuming that "you" are a normal user).


> But we're talking about a userbase that truly believes that
> "reformat and reinstall" is a perfectly normal, acceptable, and proper
> repair strategy for all problems great and small.

Hmm. Most people I've spoken to are terrified of the idea of reformatting. Of
course this is just anecdotal.


> So it's likely only to be expected that asking such a userbase to learn
> even the most minimal list of commands necessary to administer a machine
> would be considered unreasonable by those users.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that it is in fact an unreasonable thing to ask.
> 
> It just means that the users think it is.

Well, ok. But like I said above, if it means that they have to spend some amount
of time learning it, and you present no incentive to them that relates to them,
they have absolutely no reason to adopt your technology.

What it comes down to is that the technology evangelist has to explain why their
technology is good for you, and how it can work for you, not why you should be
good for the technology.

> People used to think that the world was flat, too, but it was still
> round, the whole time.

Yes, that is true. But following this analogy, you are comparing Windows users
to the ignorant flat-earthers and Linux users to the enlightened round-earthers.
 I think that analogy is somewhat lacking, unfortunately. This isn't really an
argument I want to get into, though. Suffice it to say that if Linux were really
so obviously superior *for the normal user*, its market share among normal users
would be higher. The fact that its share has been increasing slowly in the last
few years is, IMO, an indication that (some) Linux distros are adapting to the
normal user's needs, which I think can be summarized by the expression
"no-hassle user experience".

If what I want is email, http, office and chat, I just want that to work. I
should *not* have to know *anything* about *any* system administration if that
is all I want. The system should come packaged in such a way that I can turn it
on, do some incredibly basic setup like entering my name, timezone and so forth,
and it should "just work" without me having to ever see a "sudo".

Cheers,
- David

-- 
David C. Haley
http://david.the-haleys.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Can't Unsubscribe? Check http://desktopian.org/listunsub.html
        LS List Homepage: http://wuzzle.org/list/litestep.php
            Get the LS FAQ: http://lsfaq.shellfront.org