On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:01:25 +0200 Ben Francis ben@franci5.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
[about how the current state of Linux doesn't make it easily accessible to a lot of people]
Forgive me for summarising your post Ben but I wanted to keep my comments as short as possible and I've all sorts of ideas sloshing round in my head.
I agree with you 100%, both about the current state of Linux and the Cathedral and the Bazaar :o)
I use Linux for many reasons but primarily because I'm a geek/techie/whatever. I like the fact I can get the source and tinker with it. Most of the people I meet are motivated similarly. Not all of them it's true but then not all generalisations are correct (not even this one! :o) )
Which means that most of the software is designed and built by technically minded software enthusiasts who enjoy the intellectual challenge and stimulation it affords.
However, after 25+ years designing and building software, it's my experience that I and my peers are not very adept at creating GUI's (or HCI's or HMI's) or whatever you want to call them. This becomes apparent to me on the rare occasions I work on a project that's perceptive enough to employ a specialist to do this work (the best one's seem to be graphics designers with an interest in computers but not software per se). In these cases the level of acceptance and commitment from the end-users of the final products is noticeably higher (and often even when I feel the underlying software engineering is somewhat lacking in quality this seems to be true).
Which means that, in their current form most GNU/Linux projects are technically excellent but are often "as user friendly as a cornered rat". However, over the past few years I do think there's been a gradual but noticeable improvement so perhaps a cornered hamster might be a better analogy. :o)
The references to the Mac are very apt. I've often been struck by how enthusiastic people who've used Macs are about them. The interface neatly encapsulates the underlying complexity and allows them to get on with using it as a tool. Just as you don't have to be an electronic enthusiast to use a home hi-fi system or television, or a mechanical specialist to drive a car.
I think a lot of software designers and writers fear that a simple and friendly user interface means that the underlying software engineering will have to be simplified and that they will have to compromise functionality or design integrity (to the extent where even to use the words "user friendly software" evokes a hostile reaction from some).
But this is not true. We do it all the time when creating software. We deliberately create object models to encapsulate and hide complexity and present a simpler interface to other software components. There's no suggestion (well not that I've heard - yet) that in doing this we're sacrificing any engineering quality.
The big challenge for open source software writers going forwards is to go out and actively seek input and advice from graphics designers and similar people as well as the many people for whom the computer is just a piece of office equipment, entertainment centre, etc . People who, basically, couldn't give a toss about the software as such but just want a tool to do the job and will ask the awkward questions like "why can't I just switch it on and use it?".
So if you've offended some people Ben perhaps it's no bad thing. Someone once said "Sometimes our job is to oil the wheels so that things work smoothly but sometimes we need to increase friction until traction takes place" (I think it was Sir John Harvey-Jones).
If you think you have a valid point (and I think you do) then don't worry about upsetting a few people. Another quote, George Bernard Shaw said "Reasonable people adapt to the world; unreasonable people persist in trying to adapt the world to themselves. Therefore all progress depends on unreasonable people." After all where would we be if RMS was a more reasonable person (tongue firmly in cheek! :o) )
Keith