On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Les Mikesell wrote: > 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 Of course it doesn't have to. It can mean that seeing them is usually unnecessary. > > 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 There is no way but the one true way and developers are its prophets. It should have been easy for me to get rid of vim's awful colors and its automatic indentation. That said, too much automation can be a security hazard. > 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. Yup. That is how one makes seeing the the details usually unnecessary. Of course what's good for a power developer is not necessarily good for a novice. Having flags like --novice and --power-developer that affect multiple other flags can help with this. To assist in the transistion from novice, it shouldn't be too hard to discover what flags are affected by --novice and better yet, why. -- Mike hennebry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "I AM DEATH, NOT TAXES. *I* ONLY TURN UP ONCE." -- Death
