The Penguins Are Angry
Ok, I am writing this blog to help explain my previous blog on Linux. If you missed that piece you are welcome to catch up here or here.
Now, the nice folks over at Linux Today were nice enough to post my Linux Blog. And of course as soon as they did that I received some “enthusiastic feedback”.
Some of you might not believe this but I really appreciated the comments. It is nice to know what other people are thinking and how they interpret my writings. So, to that end I am going to try and clarify my argument and respond to some of the complaints.
But before we get to all of that let me make a few things clear:
1. I don’t hate Linux
2. I am not a troll. In fact, I had no idea Linux Today would even pick up my article and since I posted that blog on a Mac site I really wasn’t looking to get in a fight with anybody.
3. The “Euro FUD” thing was taken a little out of hand I think. It was a joke ok? A joke. Ha ha, joke. With me? I don’t hate all of Europe just France. See, that was another joke. Ha ha. Anyway.
4. I would love to have an intelligent conversation with anyone who considers themselves a Linux power user. I have a few questions and would much rather have them answered in an thoughtful way than just have some one degenerate into name calling.
So, to that end lets get on with the response.
The point of my article was two fold: First, to explain where I thought Linux need to go and second, how I thought they should get there.
This is a key point that most of you missed. I am merely saying that I think if Linux wants to reach X then they will have to do Y.
With me? Now, you may disagree with X but at least consider if Y would get you to X, ok?
Think about it this way. I am working from the following assumptions:
1. Linux, as a whole, wants to become a force on the average consumer (not corporate and not server) desktop.
2. If Linux wants to do this in a reasonable time then they will have to change the way they operate.
You can disagree all you like with my position but at least argue the point I am trying to make. Every single post save one on Linux Today missed the boat entirely. I got some of the dumbest responses I have ever heard. Sadly only a few people actually tried to respond in some sort of coherent manner. Everyone else just called me names and said my article was stupid.
Ok, you think its stupid. Fine. Great. Wonderful. Now, tell me how you would reach the goal I mentioned without taking the path I charted. Don’t tell me you don’t want to reach that particular goal (because thats not what we are talking about) but instead try to evaluate my plan in that sense.
I feel like I am trying to talk a friend into buying a car. I tell him that he needs a driver’s license, driving lessons, insurance and all the rest. His response is to call me stupid and say he would rather ride a bike. Ok, you want to ride a bike. That is great. Does that make my statement about getting a license any less true? Just because you disagree try at least to articulate why it is you disagree. Do you find the path wrong or the destination?
To recap, I am trying to say that the way Linux, as a whole, operates needs to change if they ever hope to compete with Apple and Microsoft as a viable consumer desktop OS. That is all. I am saying they need to change if that goal is the one they want to achieve.
So, lets go with that. That is what they are aiming for. So, if that is the case then I think they need to do the following:
1. Converge distros
2. Charge for product
3. Standardize
That, in a nutshell, is my argument.
Now, here is what I want. I want to debate those 3 points with an intelligent Linux user, not one who is going to call me names, compare my article to Stalin and then run away and pout.
Conversely, if you feel that my entire premise is wrong please feel free to explain why you think this is so. By that I mean if you think Linux shouldn’t strive to be a desktop OS argue that point. If you feel that they will one day become a presence on the desktop by doing what they are currently doing, fine, argue that. If you agree with my goal but disagree with my methods then argue that. I don’t care what point you take all I ask is that you make a logical argument.
Almost every comment I received could be boiled down to this: “I am right because I said so”
Please people, lets try and put a little more thought into it than that.
So, who is up for a debate?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
OS X isn’t perfect, it’s just close
.
Anyway, I guess from my standpoint - and I figure I represent at least the typical user - if I don’t get a nice GUI then what’s the bother anymore? My first experience with a GUI was in 1985 with Amiga/Atari ST, sure beat the hell outta the old Apple II “BRUN ....” stuff. I understand that there are those in the community who actually like looking at command prompts, terminal screens, etc. but sadly the general public does not.
If (hypothetically) there was a battle between Linux, Windows, and OS X - and let’s face it, if you are arguing a point even somewhat passionately here then you feel that there is - wouldn’t the end goal of the Linux community be to see their project in the hands of the greatest amount of users? Shouldn’t you be pressuring Tivo to put some kind of “Linux Inside!” sticker on the box? The very idea that some very successful devices have been created around Linux should serve as an indicator of it’s power - and the power of the community behind it. I’m impressed at least. But when I go and install “the hot distro of the month” on my machine I’m always left wondering what the fuss is all about.
Saying that someone doesn’t know how to use a computer without icons and windows, well, that’s a good point. I thought we had all evolved beyond that - right or wrong - about 20 years ago, and I’m certainly the first to say that I don’t miss it. Does that make me any less a computer user? I’ve been doing this in one form or another since 1978 for whatever good it’s doing me. The obvious opposite to that point would be that Linux needs to join the 21st century, already in progress. I don’t mean that as a statement either, simply as a defense of those of us who like the simplicity of pointing and clicking (even in a software development environment). When I was a die-hard Windows user I despised the reliance on MS-DOS. Now I can’t stand the terminal window in OS X to the point where I love Automator just for the ability to avoid it.
I guess my point is this: it’s OBVIOUS that there are very very well implemented Linux-based products out there, hundreds of them. It’s got a lot going for it on a lot of levels, there’s no denying that. But the major point of the original arguement here (way back when) was that it has a long way to go as a user-friendly environment. The idea that “if these apple and windows converts need simplicity then we don’t need them” is really backwards. Ultimately we all need each other just to keep progress moving forward.
I agree that the users want an easy and understable GUI to work with because that’s the point of having a computer at home especially for doing what we are now doing with computer: pictures and movies editing, sounds recording, websites and more…
But Linux is really getting close to that point now especially with the Live CD I mentionned earlier like Ubuntu or Knoppix. With those distro’s, you can easily do pretty much all that Mac OS X can do (pictures, movies, internet, burning CDs/DVDs, connecting devices like Digicam or external hard disk so exactly what the classic users want) and everything is included in the package(or almost, just surf on the internet to get the rest) for free or almost. And the experienced Mac Users seem to like that a terminal is so easily reachable on the Mac OS X. It has always been on the Linux distro’s. On the other hand some people make Linux running on Macs… So what are we waiting for?
Dear James Stoup,
Forgive me for misspelling your name (#13, above), and my stupid mistake about GPL and not being able to sell Linux software. It is done all the time (I have even bought some!). Just had a mental lapse, sorry!
All the comments I have seen, here, about Knoppix and Ubuntu are true, they are really good distros. Another one that comes very close is Simply Mepis from a live CD. Mepis and Yos both are probably two which are boot-up GUI distributions which will, eventually, replace windoze for those GUI addicts.
Jim Mills
Thats fine. I just didn’t want people to start thinking the GNU GPL is inferior and makes all these walls instead of bridges. I just don’t want to see stereotypes about the GPL furthered anymore so I try to correct people quickly and respectably that way people do you not get the wrong ideas. I have seen some absolutely insane things said about the GPL. From people in forums to Microsoft. Once you understand the GPL it really is sheer brilliance.
Some people and companies try to say that the GPL is unenforceable but that is complete rubbish. Most cases involving the GPL never make it to court because the companies involved in violation of it always settle out of court. The GPL is a great thing. I also admit it is not for everything. Thats why there is also the LGPL. It has lesser restrictions so it would be more geared towards a software library like GTK.
As well I’d like to defend some of the people that get a little out of hand when subject matters such as people or companies “dissing” the GPL and spreading lies about it. To some of us in the Free Software world the GNU GPL is like the United States Constitution. Most people would get pretty upset if someone burned the Constitution in front of them. Take it from me, for every person that is rude in the Linux Community. There is 50 more that are not. You just hear the jerks alot more loudly sometimes.
I’m a Mac OS X user.
And, I also used to write for KDE News - look me up under “Savanna Says”.
So you could say I’m a fan of both, okay? =) My happy enthusiasm for Linux/KDE never faded, even though I no longer review things for them due to total lack of time.
But, I really think I should speak out here because something struck me during this entire argument, and it’s this:
The only people that are posting responses are people who actually know what the heck a “distro” is. Perhaps that should *give them a clue* - they *aren’t* your regular users.
In fact, I saw lots of posts on LinuxToday (and my articles have been posted there in the past so I know how tetchy they can be) which mentions that fact: regular users are *clueless*. I know this and regular users know this, and everyone knows this.
I think that they are proving this article’s point though, just by showing that the people who are arguing about all this crap are *not* regular users.
That’s why this article is correct in a way. It’s totally on the mark and, even as a KDE/Linux fan, I have to say he’s totally dead on with this.
Now, it may be that Linux developers don’t *want* it to go that way, but then they should say so and stop pretending with distros that they care about the average consumer. It’s totally obvious they don’t in many respects. Anyone you talk to on the street won’t know what the heck a “library” is, or a “distro”, or what the heck “ubuntu” or “KDE” is, and there’s a good reason for that. It doesn’t have to do with what gets installed on their system either, because even with Windows, they don’t know what the heck a “DLL File” or “cache” is. I have friends who don’t know that Email is on the same connection as “The Internet” (or “The Web”).
Duh.
It’s got nothing to do with what they use at the office and everything to do with how easy something is to use. I mean, some Linux guy posted about how MS people cry over how their development tools suck and how everyone will switch because of web development.
No they won’t, and stop being so silly.
Web Development? I dare anyone to walk out into the street and ask the guy selling shoes, newspapers, or the cop on the corner what the heck he thinks “Web Development” is. It’s 2005, and most people have no clue that “Internet Explorer” isn’t “The Internet”, even though it says it is on the XP Desktop.
Switching because of development tools? Dream on!
I’m not saying Mac is better because it’s easier to use, or that XP is either. Like I said: I love KDE. =)
But there is no way in *hell* that Linux will ever become a standard desktop for regular users until these issues are addressed. And if the point is not to make Linux like that, then maybe they should make a public move to state that this isn’t the goal. And *don’t* tell me that the OS isn’t a single voice. I know there isn’t a single person controlling Linux, but there could be some sort of debate about it.
As far as I know, there isn’t any debate about it. And if there has been, all of us “regular users” (blondes like me), haven’t heard squat. And we haven’t seen squat either, or there would be a lot of hype about switching to Linux.
I know friends of mine who haven’t even *heard* of Linux.
So when you spout off with numbers about CPU speed tests, or who controls what aspect of a desktop, or what the average load time is of Apache on a Mac vs. a Linux box, please understand: you’re proving his point. *Regular* users don’t know squat about that, and they don’t care. That’s his point (at least how *I* read it), and that’s what he’s saying: all that arguing crap is what is getting in the way.
Now, I’ve talked to the KDE devs of several apps lots of times, and I *know* how they think. I know they’re awesome and fun people and they love their private little universe, but when I ask if something could be made simpler, they answer back with a line of code and totally question why I wouldn’t actually understand that as second nature. I remember I once asked why there wasn’t a graphical package installer in KDE (at the time) and they totally laughed at me because they wondered how much more simple apt-get could get!
Cluebat time: command line? What the heck is that? I have to *TYPE* commands into a computer? Didn’t that go out with the *mouse*? (Average user speaking here)
So laugh at the article all you like, but your responses flaming him for it only prove that he’s right, and you’re wrong: Linux isn’t ready for the average person and it doesn’t look like many developer attitudes are either.
Again, I’m not saying that Linux *should* change, or be the one to “step up to the plate”, but he’s got a point and you all should own up to it and quit bitching at him because he happens to like Macs.
That’s the same crap that Microsoft Devs pull about “Linux Zealots”, and you know it. I thought Linux people were better than that.
Flame me all you want: i’m still on .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). =)
P.S. I was gonna post this on LinuxToday, but I figured I’d directly support the author here. Sue me. =P
Oh ya and one more thing: I already *know* that people are gonna say that I wrote how Linux “is ready for the desktop” in my articles two years ago, but that doesn’t mean it’s near ready enough for a lot of people. Some people will find it easy to switch, even some clueless people, but a lot of people won’t. I know what I said and I’m not backing down: I think some regular users *should* switch to KDE (or GNOME) and a Linux distro that’s easy to use like SUSE or Red Hat or anything else majorly commercial that totally allows you to install graphically.
But it *doesn’t* meant that Linux is ready for EVERYONE yet. Anyone can figure out a Mac in under an hour. I did write, however much I support KDE, that it did take me a little while to get used to some things. And many people don’t have the patience or the know-how.
So no, I wasn’t wrong then and I’m not wrong now. =)
Savanna,
Great posts. You hit the nail on the head.
Thanks for the comment Savanna, that was very well thought out, I appreciate your insight.
Dear Savanna,
You kind of hit the nail squarely, when you pointed out that Linux must “step up to plate” and produce a very good, and clean GUI desktop. KDE and Gnome have come a long way toward this goal, as you know. The individual distibutions such as Yos, Mepis, even old Mandrake, to a much lesser degree, have done this pretty well. Knoppix an Ubuntu are well on the way to spreading the “good word” about Linux being easy to use in the GUI mode.
Unfortunately (?) for the average computer or PC user, if there is one, command line control is the easy way to fix things. It is also, in my opinion the best way to write code for doing some what tedious computer or computational tasks.
One of the strongest points about Linux is there is something there for just about every one. The real problem with “converting the masses” is people are happy with doing things the Microscam way, even with all its drawbacks.
Linux, in my considered opinion, will never go away, just get better with time. On the other hand as James Stoup points out in his next article (after the one above), on this same site, Microscam is, most likely, doomed to lose its market share. I will add: unless Microscam changes its ways regarding its very poor software James Stoup is correct. Apple will always be there, in my opinion, however, you may own equal to or better for less money, if money is important to you.
Just keep in mind, all computer programs have bugs, finding and fixing them is the difficult part.
Sorry but I am just another one of those poor, ignorant, dis-illusioned Linux users who grew up in a sequential fashion using the following boxes Smoke Signals, ATARI ST, NeXT, PCs with DOS then Windoze, finally Linux on PCs. I like Apple, but it is kind of expensive for me.
Thank you for your comments.
Jim Mills
Remember the penguins are angry. I was a bit upset by the Mac users saying Mac is the best and Linux is crap. I have just found a nice article on Applematters that shoot straight down their arguments, especially those from Savanna. Sorry Man Sue Me as well. So let’s end the myth now…
The Mac Has Never Been User-Friendly
by Chris Howard
Jul 06, 2005
The computer industry sets itself up for a fall by continually promising the holy grail - user friendliness.
In reality computers are becoming less user-friendly and more complex. As fast as they add features to improve user-friendliness, they add others to complicate matters.
It’s all relative
So how do we tell if computers are user-friendly or not? The theory of relativity. User-friendliness is directly related to how experienced the user is. An interface can still be very intuitive but that is really tested by a novice user. In my past life when I was a programmer, it didn’t take long to build the system, what took all the time was building an interface. For want of a better expression, we had to “idiot proof” it. Not that the user is an idiot - far from it. Just inexperienced.
A funny story I experienced at work in 2002. A software vendor had just upgraded their application from DOS to Windows. They sent up their hotshot motor-mouth salesman to demonstrate it to the users. He knew how easy it was to use, so this would only be a five-minute demo for him.
Salesman (at 100mph) “It’s really easy. You just take the mouse click here, pull down this, click that, enter a few details, click…”
User: “What’s a mouse?”
Stunned silence.
It was so funny to watch - the salesman looked like one of those people you see running in one direction but looking another, who then hit a lamppost. Our guy had never used a computer except for this one at work that ran DOS. And, of course, it didn’t have a mouse.
Another story:
When my eldest was five, we bought him an old Mac Classic to learn keyboarding and mouse skills. One day I noticed he seemed to be using the mouse wrong. On closer inspection I found he was using it upside down! He’d turned it 180 degrees, so when he moved the mouse left, the cursor went right. And why did he do this? Because a mouse’s tail is at it’s bottom.
Using previous experience of what a mouse is and with no previous computer experience to bias him, he placed his own expectation and interpretation on how to use the computer. Remarkably, he had become quite adept at using the mouse this way.
This is what every novice experiences. Imagine though an older less dexterous person using a mouse for the first time? And then someone stuck two buttons on it! To my amazement, I have encountered many users who just never use the right click in Windows. This is meant to be one of those user-friendly features, yet for them it’s not. It’s not the way they are comfortable working. And in some cases they are scared of it. Which is also another common problem for new users - novices find computers (even Macs) quite intimidating.
Both these stories ironically, are about the mouse which was meant to make computers more user-friendly but the mouse is not alone. The QWERTY keyboard, the jargon, the operating systems, the applications… they all add up to an unfriendly, intimidating experience. There’d be very few people who haven’t experienced frustration using a computer - Macs included.
Do we give up?
Do we stop trying to make computers user-friendly? No. No way! But we should, as my experience shows, stop telling people they are. Because they’re not. Not even our beloved Macs.
With all my computer experience, I actually found learning the Mac OS X interface a steeper learning curve than others. I had to unlearn Windows ways of doing things. And that’s not to say that Windows does things wrong - just differently.
Like my son found, everything we do in life has to be learned and that learning is biased by previous experience. Everything we do a first time will likely pose challenges. But once we’ve learned something with all it’s quirks, we become complacent and think it’s easy. Until we try to show someone else.
How many of us technophytes provide support to friends and family? Why? Because computers are soooo user-friendly? Ha! While I was writing this, a friend rang and asked me to come over and get his broadband working. And he said something interesting, he said to me: “These things do not talk to me. I do not know their language”.
Therein is where computers stand apart. Here is someone who’s been using computers for several years yet still feels intimidated by them. Yes you can argue this is a technical and once off issue but it’s more than that that scares users.
Even though I wouldn’t have a clue how to fix a car, I don’t feel intimidated by cars. I get in, I understand the interface, it’s fairly consistent across all manufacturers, if something goes wrong I take it to the mechanic and say, “I don’t know anything about cars - can you fix it?” I don’t feel less confident in my ability to use the car and I don’t feel more incompetent or intimidated next time I drive one.
Yet with computers, the interfaces, the technicalities, the plethora of acronyms and other nerd-speak confound and intimidate. In the discussion on a recent article on Apple Matters, talk got onto the merits of Windows and it was interesting to hear people tell of their need for anti-viruses, firewalls and at least one anti-spyware application. Joe Consumer having to concern himself with things like this? Does not make computers user-friendly.
And don’t think Mac’s are that much more user-friendly…
- Look at Automator. Despite Apple’s claims, you still need a reasonable understanding of computing and program flow to learn it;
- And for the layman, having to drag and drop an application to install is a little less friendly than having an installer do it for you;
- The way applications show all files in an Open dialog is not user-friendly.
Let’s end the myth
When I had my business providing computer support to home and small business users, the slogan on my business card read:
It’s not that people are computer illiterate, it’s that computers are people illiterate
So many people found that lifted a great weight off their shoulders. It took away that intimidation and feeling of being a dumb, stupid, or an idiot. And why did they feel that way? Because someone told them or they’d heard that computers are user-friendly. And that wasn’t their experience.
User friendliness is a myth. Maybe one day they’ll be as easy to use as portrayed in Hollywood movies but until then should we keep telling people computers are user friendly, or this one is more so than that one? No - let’s just tell them they’re a damn pain! And that will actually make them feel better.
And to the teaser question - has there ever been a user-friendly Mac? Relatively speaking, maybe the original Mac.
The Mac Has Never Been User-Friendly
by Chris Howard
Jul 06, 2005
The computer industry sets itself up for a fall by continually promising the holy grail - user friendliness.
In reality computers are becoming less user-friendly and more complex. As fast as they add features to improve user-friendliness, they add others to complicate matters.
It’s all relative
So how do we tell if computers are user-friendly or not? The theory of relativity. User-friendliness is directly related to how experienced the user is. An interface can still be very intuitive but that is really tested by a novice user. In my past life when I was a programmer, it didn’t take long to build the system, what took all the time was building an interface. For want of a better expression, we had to “idiot proof” it. Not that the user is an idiot - far from it. Just inexperienced.
A funny story I experienced at work in 2002. A software vendor had just upgraded their application from DOS to Windows. They sent up their hotshot motor-mouth salesman to demonstrate it to the users. He knew how easy it was to use, so this would only be a five-minute demo for him.
Salesman (at 100mph) “It’s really easy. You just take the mouse click here, pull down this, click that, enter a few details, click…”
User: “What’s a mouse?”
Stunned silence.
It was so funny to watch - the salesman looked like one of those people you see running in one direction but looking another, who then hit a lamppost. Our guy had never used a computer except for this one at work that ran DOS. And, of course, it didn’t have a mouse.
Another story:
When my eldest was five, we bought him an old Mac Classic to learn keyboarding and mouse skills. One day I noticed he seemed to be using the mouse wrong. On closer inspection I found he was using it upside down! He’d turned it 180 degrees, so when he moved the mouse left, the cursor went right. And why did he do this? Because a mouse’s tail is at it’s bottom.
Using previous experience of what a mouse is and with no previous computer experience to bias him, he placed his own expectation and interpretation on how to use the computer. Remarkably, he had become quite adept at using the mouse this way.
This is what every novice experiences. Imagine though an older less dexterous person using a mouse for the first time? And then someone stuck two buttons on it! To my amazement, I have encountered many users who just never use the right click in Windows. This is meant to be one of those user-friendly features, yet for them it’s not. It’s not the way they are comfortable working. And in some cases they are scared of it. Which is also another common problem for new users - novices find computers (even Macs) quite intimidating.
Both these stories ironically, are about the mouse which was meant to make computers more user-friendly but the mouse is not alone. The QWERTY keyboard, the jargon, the operating systems, the applications… they all add up to an unfriendly, intimidating experience. There’d be very few people who haven’t experienced frustration using a computer - Macs included.
Do we give up?
Do we stop trying to make computers user-friendly? No. No way! But we should, as my experience shows, stop telling people they are. Because they’re not. Not even our beloved Macs.
With all my computer experience, I actually found learning the Mac OS X interface a steeper learning curve than others. I had to unlearn Windows ways of doing things. And that’s not to say that Windows does things wrong - just differently.
Like my son found, everything we do in life has to be learned and that learning is biased by previous experience. Everything we do a first time will likely pose challenges. But once we’ve learned something with all it’s quirks, we become complacent and think it’s easy. Until we try to show someone else.
How many of us technophytes provide support to friends and family? Why? Because computers are soooo user-friendly? Ha! While I was writing this, a friend rang and asked me to come over and get his broadband working. And he said something interesting, he said to me: “These things do not talk to me. I do not know their language”.
Therein is where computers stand apart. Here is someone who’s been using computers for several years yet still feels intimidated by them. Yes you can argue this is a technical and once off issue but it’s more than that that scares users.
Even though I wouldn’t have a clue how to fix a car, I don’t feel intimidated by cars. I get in, I understand the interface, it’s fairly consistent across all manufacturers, if something goes wrong I take it to the mechanic and say, “I don’t know anything about cars - can you fix it?” I don’t feel less confident in my ability to use the car and I don’t feel more incompetent or intimidated next time I drive one.
Yet with computers, the interfaces, the technicalities, the plethora of acronyms and other nerd-speak confound and intimidate. In the discussion on a recent article on Apple Matters, talk got onto the merits of Windows and it was interesting to hear people tell of their need for anti-viruses, firewalls and at least one anti-spyware application. Joe Consumer having to concern himself with things like this? Does not make computers user-friendly.
And don’t think Mac’s are that much more user-friendly…
- Look at Automator. Despite Apple’s claims, you still need a reasonable understanding of computing and program flow to learn it;
- And for the layman, having to drag and drop an application to install is a little less friendly than having an installer do it for you;
- The way applications show all files in an Open dialog is not user-friendly.
Let’s end the myth
When I had my business providing computer support to home and small business users, the slogan on my business card read:
It’s not that people are computer illiterate, it’s that computers are people illiterate
So many people found that lifted a great weight off their shoulders. It took away that intimidation and feeling of being a dumb, stupid, or an idiot. And why did they feel that way? Because someone told them or they’d heard that computers are user-friendly. And that wasn’t their experience.
User friendliness is a myth. Maybe one day they’ll be as easy to use as portrayed in Hollywood movies but until then should we keep telling people computers are user friendly, or this one is more so than that one? No - let’s just tell them they’re a damn pain! And that will actually make them feel better.
And to the teaser question - has there ever been a user-friendly Mac? Relatively speaking, maybe the original Mac.