[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:28:45AM +0100, Simon Robert wrote: > Ben Goodger wrote: > > hence the Ubuntu and other more user friendly distros. > > "User-friendly" is subjective. I must presume you are substituting > "Windows-like" for people who are not you. > > user friendly is not subjective. It would include attributes like detecting > many bits of hardware and installing the software to deal with it without > needing to spend time on line learning how to configure whatever gizmo it is, > downloading software and dependencies, figuring out how to recompile a kernel > so the relevant modules are there etc etc. A computer is a tool, I quite enjoy > messing about with software, but there is nothing subjective about having to, > for example, learn all about DVB because a distro can't figure out a satellite > card is installed (something windows never does, but a few distros do) and > configure it "by hand". Many people just want to use a PC and they should be > able to use what is a superior type of software, linux, without having to > become expert in its complexities. Of course user-friendliness is subjective. Different users have different ideas of what friendly is; many people claim that command-line applications are user-unfriendly, but I generally find them to be much easier to use than graphical ones. Therefore, my idea of user-friendliness is different to, say, my housemate's, but neither of us is actually wrong. I'd get rather annoyed at any OS automatically installing software just because I'd attached a new piece of hardware; it should be easy to find out what needs to be installed, easy to install it, but not done automatically; on the other hand, other people probably aren't as fussy about what gets installed as I am, and would prefer not to have to worry about it. That's subjective. On the other hand, I suspect that many users, at least non-technical ones, have similar needs as far as user-friendliness goes; that's not the same as being objective, though. > As for debian, I would have tried it out except the versions I've tried, live > and otherwise, have never managed to get through the install process without > crashing. And that is my first criteria for looking at a distro. If it won't > actually install then I can't be bothered looking at it. After all would you > buy a car if to start it you had to read the small print of a manual which said > that to start it you needed to pull out the choke, half open the rear window > and lower the handbrake while turning the radio on.... I'm extremely surprised that Debian wouldn't install; I've had much more trouble with the new Ubuntu installer than with the Debian one. Does it crash at any particular point. > User friendliness, like attractive design, is not subjective. It is real and > identifiable. In software design it as important as functionality. If linux is > ever going to move out of the hobbiest niche market, as distros like Ubuntu > (not my favourite), mandriva, PClinuxOS, Suse etc are proving, then user > friendliness needs to be a prime concern. There is nothing more subjective than attractive design! I'm sure someone thought the Windows XP theme was attractive, but I think it's as ugly as sin; people think that shiny icons everywhere is attractive, but that doesn't make it objectively true. The Plymouth Civic Centre was, apparently, chosen for its attractive and modern design...50 years on, it's considered by many people to be an eyesore. For that matter, the new shopping centre and university building are meant to be examples of attractive and modern design; it seems more likely that they're an example of the infinite monkeys hypothesis. -- Benjamin A'Lee <bma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html