On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 09:25, BRUCE STANLEY wrote: > > And that is a main problem if the goal is to get the masses to seriously > consider Linux. If not, then it is a 'geek OS' for 'geeks Only' who > are not motivated to make the OS user friendly beyond a centain point. User-friendly often means hiding the details. There are some Linux distributions that lean this direction. SME server on the server side, xandros, linspire, etc. for desktops. They don't seem to be displacing the more general distributions - and they can be frustrating if you want to do something that the interface designer didn't expect. > I have seen this type of environment before at two different (now defunct) > Mini-Computer Vendors (remember the 80s?). The Developers tend to think > that thier world viewpoint is good enough for everyone. It was always > a battle for Tech. Support to get them to see it the customer's way. > After all, they were buying the hardware and software. That doesn't apply the same way to free software. The developers are the ones who understand the way software should work. Why should they hide options for the people who don't understand if they aren't forced to? On the other hand, good defaults make sense for everyone. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
