* List: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk
Hey all,
I forgot I even did this:
"Looking forward to the New Dawn" http://linuxtoday.com/stories/7362.html
Heh, it actually got published :0)
Whaddaya think?
James Green.
[ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce@stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]
* List: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk
I'm impressed! A very professional piece.
Linux is already a "commonplace secondary OS" however I'm sure some of its appeal to many is the fact that it is different and is not a main stream product.
Does one not feel a little sense of superiority when talking to MS users because one knows that they are using an OS that is not that user friendly and take some skill to master out of the box. I know I do and to be honest I'm not that proud of the fact that I do but it's human nature.
The appeal to me is that it is different and not the same the majority, I'm sure most Mac users have similar thoughts.
I for one hope it does become a real contender on the worlds desktop, it certainly deserves to but if that does happen I expect there will be another *different* OS waiting in the wings to learn, use and feel 'smug' :-) about.
Cheers
BJ
----- Original Message ----- From: James Green jg@cyberstorm.demon.co.uk To: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk Sent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 8:32 PM Subject: [ALUG] Obvious plug <g>
- List: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk
Hey all,
I forgot I even did this:
"Looking forward to the New Dawn" http://linuxtoday.com/stories/7362.html
Heh, it actually got published :0)
Whaddaya think?
James Green.
[ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce@stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]
[ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce@stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]
* List: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 09:11:38AM +0100, John Woodard wrote:
Does one not feel a little sense of superiority when talking to MS users because one knows that they are using an OS that is not that user friendly and take some skill to master out of the box.
Not really. I have a grudging admiration for those that really have Windows under control, as it's not that user friendly and takes some skill to mater out of the box. I feel that Windows is an even harder thing to master as so much of the inner workings are concealed from the user or admin. It turns a difficult task into a near-impossible one. Combined with the lack of decent documentation, an encounter with Windows becomes a full-scale battle for me.
With the Unix world, most skills learnt on one system transfer to another. Granted, I had to learn the basics for some work, which isn't a motive most have.
[...]
The appeal to me is that it is different and not the same the majority, I'm sure most Mac users have similar thoughts.
Most Mac users give little consideration to that. They just like being able to connect stuff and have it work (in general). That's one (the only?) benefit of the tight hold Apple has over the hardware side.
* List: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 08:32:56PM +0100, James Green wrote:
- List: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk
Hey, let me start upsetting the list ;)
"Looking forward to the New Dawn" http://linuxtoday.com/stories/7362.html
[...]
Whaddaya think?
(A bit more proof-reading would have been good for such a high-profile location. I think this is also a failing of the editorship of major linux websites at present.)
The fragmentation may be GNU/Linux's main point of frustration. A home user may offer a friend help in setting up their printer, but he knows the KDE method, not the GNOME method, and since the friend's parents have both just got to like GNOME they aren't keen on messing about getting KDE to work just to set up a printer.
This sums up my problem with the article (as well as highlighting why I think the current fad for desktop environments is a wrong turn that we will be cursed with correcting at a later date).
Linux[1] is all about choice, but it's also all about consistency. To take your example above, configuration files are[3] text files[4] living under /etc and it's a fairly simple task to find /etc/printcap to configure the printer and follow the trail from there to the various printer subsystems (eg ghostscript). To place a GUI abstraction on this and expect it to cope with everything is a wrong turn.
Yes, you need to understand the structure of the system, probably having a book to hand in the early days, but it does all have reason, a kind of logic to it. A modern computer system is an incredibly complex thing and this complexity is reflected in the configuration system, whether you see it (Linux) or not (Windows).
Arguing for a removal of choice (as you appear to earlier, although you also seem to argue against) or for concealment of the complexity (in the quoted paragraph) is to argue against Linux.
Long live diversity. The corporates may never realise it, but we're doing them a favour. Individuals will appreciate the power to be individuals again.
Long live diversity!
Endnotes
1. The existence of Daemon/Linux[2] comprehensively shows that we shouldn't call it GNU/Linux, however much we admire the GNU project.
2. Linux with all GNU parts replaced with BSD equivalents. Strictly not ready for real work yet.
3. Read "should be", ref http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
4. Occasionally text files are compiled to dbs (eg sendmail aliases) for speed.
* List: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Mark J Ray wrote:
To place a GUI abstraction on this and expect it to cope with everything is a wrong turn.
No, it's not.
If the underlying config files are ordered and structured sensibly, it should not be a problem. And quite frankly, a GUI interface is often far, far easier for novice users than hacking a text file.
Yes, you need to understand the structure of the system, probably having a book to hand in the early days, but it does all have reason, a kind of logic to it.
I don't see why you should have to understand the structure of the system. Surely a properly designed OS and interface should let even novices get up and running quickly?
for concealment of the complexity (in the quoted paragraph) is to argue against Linux.
You, sir, are talking nonsense. If to argue for concealment of complexity is to argue against Linux, why then are almost all the major distributions trying to do just that? Take RedHat, with their extensive GUI config tools (for better or for worse). Take Debian, with their extensive package management system. All attempts to make things less complex for the end user. Why? Because at the end of the day, complexity is not what the end user wants. Accessibility, flexibility and stability is what it's all about.
Andrew.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.Savory at uea.ac.uk All views are my own - who else would want them? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce@stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]
* List: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 03:54:05PM +0100, Andrew Savory wrote:
To place a GUI abstraction on this and expect it to cope with everything is a wrong turn.
No, it's not.
Yes it is.
If the underlying config files are ordered and structured sensibly, it should not be a problem. And quite frankly, a GUI interface is often far, far easier for novice users than hacking a text file.
No, you're talking about a GUI interface (== A Good Thing), while I was talking about a Control-Panel like GUI obstruction.
I don't see why you should have to understand the structure of the system.
Not in general use, perhaps, but if you want to do something more complicated than an iMac can do, prepare to learn.
for concealment of the complexity (in the quoted paragraph) is to argue against Linux.
You, sir, are talking nonsense. If to argue for concealment of complexity is to argue against Linux, why then are almost all the major distributions trying to do just that? Take RedHat, with their extensive GUI config tools (for better or for worse). Take Debian, with their extensive package management system. All attempts to make things less complex for the end user. Why? Because at the end of the day, complexity is not what the end user wants. Accessibility, flexibility and stability is what it's all about.
You, madam, are talking nonsense. Complexity *is* what the user wants, although only the brave admit it. What's the first thing a sane user does when contemplating the install? Looks to make sure that most (all?) of their hardware is supported. If it doesn't support their super-widget-drive 2935, they don't install. Flexibility breeds complexity. Accessibility provides a natural brake on it.
What is done by most distributions is not concealment of the underlying system, for it is still accessible when you need to do something not forseen by the config tool admins. No-one can really say that using one of the current generation of distribution-supplied configuration tools really helps you to make a start on manual configuration. Is this, a family of completely dissimilar distribution-, release- and even system-specific fundamental tools where you want to go? Well, that's your choice. As soon as it moves to try concealment (as RedHat's *cfg tools look as if they will soon try), you make a lot of enemies, including me.
What is needed, now that we're starting to get the FHS kicking in and a regular structure for configuration files under /etc, is a tool that uses this structure and puts nicer interfaces on the parts it knows about, while still allowing you to hack it directly if needed. It could even adapt to config file formats it doesn't understand, as far as possible.
Something like BSD's sysinstall, but for the whole shebang, really.
Now please make some attempt at thinking my points through before responding, instead of just flaming at random prejudices and misunderstandings, else the list's Signal-Noise ratio is doomed.
-
Andrew Savory -
James Green -
John Woodard -
Mark J Ray