On Saturday 26 November 2005 11:47, Bob Dove wrote:
Hi folks,
Have I missed the point? Did Digital Research create the GUI in vain? (DR was before Gates, Jobs or Linus mind). Was the 'desktop' that graphic thingy on screen showing replicas of file folders you could point at with the mouse cursor and click click to open to find your files all in vain? I think not! If it is so bad, why do most Linux distros offer the GUI desktop?
No, I kind of agree with you. As mentioned, the whole use of pointers opens a world of interaction that cannot be achieved easily with a keyboard and mouse.
Surely booting your machine to view on screen some icons that by pointy-clicky gets you where you want to be to do what you want to do - even play with C++ if that is your wish. Why do it the hard way - even if you can do it the hard way? So it is purer computing - so what???
I think you're missing the point a bit though - if you grow up in consoles and still prefer them for some stuff you're not trying for geek points, are you? You just personally find it much easier and more intuitive.
Besides which, there's a truism about the CLUI that gets missed. Typing commands in at a keyboard is often much easier, quicker and more intuitive than spending eons wheeling the mouse around.
If they'd removed mouses from computers and everyone had learned to use CLUIs, everyone would know this. As it happens, console-phobia means that everyone has learned to do things the long-winded, tedious way.
Don't get me wrong - there are some things which are easier with a mouse, and floating windows - not cutting off noses to spite faces here :)
I suppose if you spend your day typing machine code you may not need the desktop that the 99.999% of computer users do. I can open a directory on a drive, navigate to a program folder, find the exe file or other trigger - I used to do it in CP/M and DOS but why type out a path when you can point and click? The icon is after all a short cut to where you want to be, it is in effect a virtual command line.
To be fair, I don't think you can compare DOS to the average unix shell in terms of usability.
Even having said that, however, if you're looking for a report you saved last week, how far is Average Joe windows-user going to have got moving his patented Microsoft Bluetooth Headgear & Rod around the place informing XP's animated dog he'd like a (very slow) search performed and clicking the huge fisher-price button in the time it takes you to dir *rememberedstring* /p/w/s it?
I think it is the command line mindset that puts most people off Linux and locks 'em into 'doze. If Linux was perceived as 'doze but better and dare I say cheaper ('cos most of it is FREE) but as easy to use via pointy-clicky 'doze style 'desktops then I'm sure there'd be many many more users.
Actually, experience forces me to disagree with you there. That's almost how Mac OS X is perceived to be - that's how most end-users I know would describe what they've heard about it, but in the end, familiarity is what stops people changing computer systems.
They like their start button based environment, and they want to keep their current software - even if the alternative is better.
Reality is, People Fear Change, innit :D
Lets face it, most home computers have a form of doze pre-installed so the can switch on and point. They couldn't care two hoots how the magic of pointy-clicky works - just that it works for them. And then when it all falls apart, they call the guru in or go back to PC World.
Yeah, but a computer is not a simple device. To people who enjoy having to download several hundred megabytes of superfluous rubbish in Service Packs before thay can have a usable bluetooth stack in an OS they paid nearly 300 squids for, just because they won't get off their proverbial backside and seek one out, there will always be things like windows.
Just a personal opinion, but good luck to 'em. I enjoy the fact that when it comes to linux everybody helps each other, and newbies don't get treated in a disparaging manner and so on - I always help as much as I can myself not least because others have done it for me - but there is a certain set of windows zealots - Luddites with a big L that just cannot be bothered, and you get nothing but abuse out of these people because they have to use bash on a unix system, or because they REFUSE to read the manual and want you to magic the knowledge into their heads without any effort (indeed, consider that you OWE them this as a consequence of them bothering to try linux - probably not their fault, they're used to commercial software models) .
I say let Billy keep them because he can be providing a useful service to someone whilst Microsoft decides whether it ever wants to be a good compsci outfit again.
If ease-of-use junkies' souls are ever to be saved, there's always Apple, anyway.
In most cases that's extra profit for some-one! Ain't I a cynic eh?
I know what you're saying, but to my mind if there were fewer computer "shamen" in the world, we'd all be better off.
And that counts doubly for retail chains that will charge people money to run scandisk, defrag and spybot S&D on their computer and call it a "tune-up" (hahahaha).
Just my twopen'orth mind!
Cool - hope you don't mind my whittering on about it, that's all :D/
BD.
<Disclaimer: This disgruntled diatribe was brought to you by a particularly idiotic and abusive correspondence from one of said Luddites, and the letters O and T. Raghhhh>
Cheers,
--
Ten