Linux Usability: ZDNet Gets It Wrong Date: 2007-09-25 00:27:25
In something we can only surmise to be a purposefully inflammatory article about the Linux Usability Wars, Don Reisinger aims to torture and misinform on a whole new level of ignorance:
And the real money quote of course
Oh boy. Where to begin? First, "usability" is not a shameful concept that is centered on electronically challenged numbnuts and elderly people. Secondly, combining advanced functionality and efficiency of use is not an oxymoronic concept. Lastly comes a more general: WTF? Where do you get this concept that a Mac is offering a reduced Linux featureset because it has better usability? Why do you suggest that Linux will become all crashy and riddled with security holes if it should ever become less painful to configure? Let me close with meta questions like: How, exactly, is the wish to no waste quite as much time configuring basic stuff somehow outing usability folks as illiterate pussies?
Also, and I'm saying this because for whatever reason Linus Thorvalds' name keeps popping up in these discussions: when we talk about "Linux" we usually don't mean just the kernel. We are in fact talking about the whole ensemble with graphical user interface, which is in most cases KDE or Gnome plus some gunk supplied by your distro of choice. So could someone please tell me why, for the love of your favourite deity, anybody is even asking Linus - the kernel guy - for his opinion on usability stuff that is mostly centered on UI and has absolutely nothing to do with the kernel itself? Of well, I guess argument from authority is not just for right wing nutcases anymore...
You also probably know that these two entirely different ideas could create three possible paths Linux can take for the future: stay geeky and appeal to the advanced tech guru in all of us; go mainstream and leave the advanced functionality and reliable kernel behind to compete with Microsoft and Apple; or face a "civil war" that could lead to total Linux annihilation.
And the real money quote of course
Linux is typically not for the mainstream. And why should it be? If we want unstable systems, we can buy a Windows box and if we want a pretty design with far less functionality than a Linux machine, we can buy a Mac.
Oh boy. Where to begin? First, "usability" is not a shameful concept that is centered on electronically challenged numbnuts and elderly people. Secondly, combining advanced functionality and efficiency of use is not an oxymoronic concept. Lastly comes a more general: WTF? Where do you get this concept that a Mac is offering a reduced Linux featureset because it has better usability? Why do you suggest that Linux will become all crashy and riddled with security holes if it should ever become less painful to configure? Let me close with meta questions like: How, exactly, is the wish to no waste quite as much time configuring basic stuff somehow outing usability folks as illiterate pussies?
Also, and I'm saying this because for whatever reason Linus Thorvalds' name keeps popping up in these discussions: when we talk about "Linux" we usually don't mean just the kernel. We are in fact talking about the whole ensemble with graphical user interface, which is in most cases KDE or Gnome plus some gunk supplied by your distro of choice. So could someone please tell me why, for the love of your favourite deity, anybody is even asking Linus - the kernel guy - for his opinion on usability stuff that is mostly centered on UI and has absolutely nothing to do with the kernel itself? Of well, I guess argument from authority is not just for right wing nutcases anymore...
Comments
Name
Email
URL(optional)
Text
Page time:
0.898 seconds.