|
Show me the code!Show me the code!Posted Sep 16, 2005 7:02 UTC (Fri) by frazier (subscriber, #3060)In reply to: Show me the code! by gallir Parent article: UserLinux: Autopsy
But GUI desktops affect how the _users_ interact with the computer. Those who chose just one desktop over the other are the ones not thinking in users.Why? Please explain.
(Log in to post comments)
Show me the code! Posted Sep 16, 2005 13:44 UTC (Fri) by gallir (subscriber, #5735) [Link] A user wouldn't realise a change of theMTA (Postfix or Exim), but she does realise any change from Kmail to others MUAs. The same, if not more, applies to the desktop environment: it is another program. Users don't care about the MTA running in their computers, but they do care about the programs they use every day. By selecting one desktop you are taking lot of decisions for the user, not for improving her/his direct experiencie, but due to legal --licences?-- or technical reasons --easier to maintain?--. Hence, adopting just one of the two major users' desktop environment and simultaneously accusing KDE developers of taking care only developers' interests is contradictory, to say the least.
Show me the code! Posted Sep 16, 2005 17:12 UTC (Fri) by frazier (subscriber, #3060) [Link] By selecting one desktop you are taking lot of decisions for the user, not for improving her/his direct experienceActually, making those decisions simplifies the experience, making it better for them. It is important to remember that:
Most people really don't want to use computers, they really just want to accomplish things and the computer is a tool they use. They don't particularily like them, they aren't an interest or a hobby, and they don't follow news for them more than they have to. More software is not in the interest of the less technical user or businesses in general. From the UserLinux perspective, look at the mission statement:
service, and support options
designed to encourage productivity
and security
while reducing overall costs.
Show me the code! Posted Sep 25, 2005 22:47 UTC (Sun) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] Great ideas. It didn't work.UserLinux made a so basic mistake, a fundamental misunderstanding of FOSS that surprised me considering the reputation and background of it's backers. Free software is only about users when the users can provide a contribution. UserLinux started off by alienating at least 1/2 of the developer base of free software. UserLinux depended on contribution. Very bad start. UserLinux attempted to define the free software user experience by excluding worthy projects and their developers. Bad idea. It was very predictable. Anyone who used or contributed or thought highly of any of the excluded packages were uninterested. Not only uninterested, but actively excluded by comments similar to yours. So the project died. Ubuntu could afford to pick favorites because they hired the help, and didn't depend on contributions. I for one, who contributes substantially to FOSS, was insulted by the whole presentation and philosophy behind UserLinux. It wasn't for me, and actively questioned the morality of my contributions. So I, along with many others, didn't contribute. Derek
|
Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
Powered by Rackspace Managed Hosting.