I skimmed. Sections 4 and 5 basically sum up my point as well.
In section 4 he's basically conceding that the UI is poor, then qualifies it with something like "but that's only because it's not designed to be used by users, but is designed to be used by the designer". Sounds backwards, doesn't it?
And section 5 is complete bull. Pretty much everything he says there is wrong. It just goes to show that your average Linux'er has no clue when it comes to UI design, which was my original point.
A good interface and a powerful program are not mutually exclusive. VS is a great example. Any novice can pick up VS and create a project with minimal guidance, and use the program easily and readily. On the other hand, the program is MUCH more capable than just that, and somebody who's used it for years can do far more with it. What's more, the interface doesn't slow you down.
Word is like that too. As is Excel. And probably a few other MS programs that Linux fanboys love to bash.
This is a concept that is totally lacking (or at least is extremely rare) in the Linux world, and is why I made my earlier statement.
"Intuitive" is the word, here. Very little about Linux is intuitive. That's the problem. Maybe PC intuition is driven by Windows, and sure... that's unfair. But that's reality. And it's no excuse.
The Firefox example he gave in section 1 is another thing I found interesting. He also mentioned how "different can be better" and how Firefox was successful because it was different from IE. And while that's true, it's also because Firefox's UI is good
. You can pick it up and use it, and familiarize yourself with it pretty much instantly. It's intuitive
Section 3b hits home in a big way though. That's dead on. Linux is great if you like to dick around with your OS a lot. But if you want something that just works - then it's a poor choice. Since I'm of the latter persuation, that is a big part of the reason I'm not a fan.
That and... I hate the command prompt. If your user has
to open a command prompt to do something, you're doing it wrong. There's nothing wrong with commandline interfaces, but if they're the only
way to accomplish something that should be a relatively straightforward task, then it's a big problem.
I've had to resort to the command prompt for several things on my Ubuntu box. Each time I was frustrated as hell.
The most recent instance of this happening:
I had to manually mount an external USB drive as read/write. I couldn't just plug in my external drive and use it. I had to go in the command prompt, and type a few lines of cryptic BS in order to get the drive to work. Which of course I had no idea how to do, so I dug through some man pages and online FAQs before finally falling back to my Linux-savvy IRC friends who walked me through the process.
It took 2 hours. From the time I plugged in my USB drive to the time I copied a file to it -- 2 hours. I'm not exaggerating.
Another funny part of this story -- the USB drive was actually NTFS formatted, and instead of just mounting the drive when I plugged it in, I got a message telling me what I had to type into the command prompt in order to mount it
. If you don't think that's completely and utterly retarded, then you'll never understand my position.
This kind of thing isn't infrequent, either. It seems like every time I need to do something new, it's just more trouble.
Before the USB drive I think it was repairing a broken package install (I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to do it from Synaptic). Before that it was something else I can't remember.
And don't get me started on the whole "compile your programs instead of installing them" thing.
|Windows is easily considered a crappy operating system since it costs infinitely more than Linux|
So Windows is bad because it's not free. *rolls eyes*
|and has the possibility of providing a worse and less stable service than something that is free|
The "Windows is unstable" malarchie has gotten out of hand. It was true back in the days of Win9x/WinME, but WinNT is very damn stable. I had no trouble on my old Win2k box.
How come nobody ever makes these jokes about Macs? Have any of you ever used a pre OSX Macintosh before? They crash like every half hour. Win9x was solid as a rock by comparison. I think this is just propaganda from MS haters.
Besides -- the problem with "Windows" being unstable is not really a Windows problem. It's generally Explorer, or other programs that run on top of windows. I would agree that Explorer isn't the most stable piece of software around, but then again neither are any of the File Managers I've tried on Ubuntu (and I've tried a few)
|There are a TON of bugs in Windows just based on design that makes it bulky and / or slow |
Of course. Everyone knows Linux is bug free, has no UI flaws, and runs 10x faster. Oh wait.... none of those are true.
|It's sometimes not good to have everything GUI based. I personally prefer a console based package update system.|
This is the world I never understood. There's like some weird fetish where people like doing things the hard way.
Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
I have to tell you that most people don't see it the way you do, though. But I'm sure you already knew that.
Remember that English (and any other language for that matter) depends on the words AND the context they are used in.
What about Lojban? XD