[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Linux for the Masses and the Experts  (was: Worth reading...)
From:       Derek <fountai () hursley ! ibm ! com>
Date:       1999-07-16 14:11:50
[Download RAW message or body]

> It all depends on your definition of "power computing".  We trade power for
> safety on a regular basis.  It's why JVMs have restricted access to your
> platform.  It's why we don't let just anybody log on as root.  As root I'm a
> god; no one on the system has more power.  As root, I'm also the most dangerous
> environmental hazard on the box.  The problem is that nobody balances their
> requirements in exactly the same way.  Take word processors, for example. If my
> only concern was training time, I'd give my users a paper and pencil.  If it
> was total control over the output, I might give them WordPerfect.  If it was
> productivity (measured in content), I might give them klyx.

I'm still a bit confused by your argument Dave. Your second sentence of
the above is absolutely correct. I would suggest however, that if you
give someone a system which is pathetically easy to use, and they know
what they are doing, they'll ignore your efforts and modify it to their
tastes and abilities.  If they don't know what they are doing they'll
just use it, until such time as they become expert when they will start
to modify it.

I'd guess that everyone on this list started to fiddle with their
desktop as soon as they installed it. I certainly did. The way KDE came
out of the box was way below me, but that didn't prevent me using it. My
girlfriend, OTOH, still has her desktop set up exactly as it came out of
the box. I showed her how to get to the email, and she uses that. But I
can't get her to do her WP stuff in Wordperfect because KDE is too
difficult. She's not stupid. It's KDE's problem, not hers.

If KDE were made to initially appeal to the lowest common denominator,
that wouldn't exclude power users from using it, as long as it could be
quickly adapted to the power user. The problem is when KDE appeals to a
medium denominator, which I would suggest it does now. The people below
the threshold - and there are countless millions of them - just go back
to pen and paper (the Redmond variety).

> It's arrogant at best to think that my choice of how to *start an application*
> is the best for EVERYBODY.  It. simply. isn't.

Of course, but you have to start somewhere when it comes out of the box.
KDE already offers a method of starting eg. Wordperfect out of the box:
You click through the directory structure until you find it, then click
on it to start. But that's too difficult. I'm saying that a consistent
way of doing things, out of the box, is a good thing - we have that. I'm
saying that restricting people to doing it one way is a bad thing - we
don't have that. And I'm also saying that choosing the simplest method,
out of the box, is a good thing - and that is what we could have, but
don't have.

Referring back to my one user, the WP icon did not appear on her desktop
by default when I gave her KDE. She had to go digging in the file
manager and had to work out how to get it on the desktop. Or rather she
didn't. I did - she was back in Windows long before she tried any of
that.

If the WP icon appeared to the desktop, she'd have used it. If it had
appeared on your desktop, presumably you'd have removed it. Where's the
problem in appealing to the lowest common denominator?

> Aiming for consistency within an organization is laudable; it cuts support
> costs.  Aiming for consistency across the entire world is draconian.

Consistency, in that everyone has to work the same way, is draconian.
Consistency, in that everyone starts at the same point and moves ahead
at their own pace, makes sense as long as the starting point is low
enough for everyone.

> > On Linux people want to be different and we mustn't take that away. But
> > if a reviewer loads Redhat, or COL, or SuSE, and *always* sees exactly
> > the same thing, we've made a huge step.
> 
> Backwards, IMHO.

To which you are entitled. :-)

But note the word "loads" in my quote. If the starting point is
consistent, why is that a step backwards?

> It is the *desktop*, not the environment, nor the window manager, that I'm
> talking about.  The desktop is all that the casual user sees, and they have no
> interest in how it works.  They only care that it does work.  The common thread
> through all of the advantages of the NewDeal desktop for new users is that it
> is less powerful and therefore both easier and less dangerous.  For newbies,
> this IS an advantage.  It is unreasonable to believe that this is a viable
> alternative for everyone.

I am also talking about the desktop. And I am not suggesting we have
just one, fixed in such a way that everyone has to work the same way.
All I am suggesting is that we have one, consistent offering, aimed at
the lowest user when KDE comes out of the box. After that, it's up to
the user.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]