Facebook Interface

I think the thing the people really don't like is the feeling that they aren't in control.

When things don't change, people can feel like they are in control because they don't won't it to change, and it doesn't.

When people make a deliberate decision to initiate or accept a change, then again they feel like they are in control (they may have been manipulated by clever advertising, but that isn't relevant - they *feel* like they are in control). So hybrid cars etc are easy to explain.

When someone decides to accept a software update and there are little changes, they might not like them but they can probably accept it because they chose to perform the update after all.

But when you accept an update and it causes big changes, then the effect seems out of proportion with the decision and you get a strong feeling that you are out of control. *That* is what people don't like. Ever.

So I recommend small continuous changes which are - where possible - selectable ("Would you like to try the new Frobnicator widget once(1), every time (Y) or not now (N)?[1/Y/N]").

I call this "Evolution, not revolution" - I bet no-one has heard of that idea before...

(sorry - no citation).

Well they are pretty much the same as "normal" cars from a drivers pov. i.e No need to learn new stuff; no need to adapt to changes which seems to be one of the primary reasons people hate changes so much.

> iPads

Tables are not any "changes" they are new toys / tools. People don't replace anything with tablets they just buy it as an additional device. And no comparing sales to traditional computers does not prove anything. Some people are claiming "tablets are replacing PCs" ... but most PCs are "good enough" for what they are used for so people rather spend their money on new shiny stuff rather then buying a new PC.

> smart phones

That's the only point that is true here but the marketing and media hype seems to be stronger then peoples resistance to changes.

I know the FOSS community has trouble understanding this, but most people do not use a computer just to use a computer; they are not computer geeks. They don't think that installing 20 different alternatives to try them all out is fun. They don't think that seeing new technology is fun. They don't think that shell scripting to work around a GUI flaw is fun. All of these things take time, and that time could be "better" spent doing something that most people do find fun. That may be some other computer-related task (socializing online, playing a game, etc.) or something completely unrelated to computers (going to the bar, hanging out with friends or family, hitting the beach, playing a sport, reading a book, etc.).

So this is the problem. Either (a) you admit that the Linux desktops like GNOME are by geeks for geeks and nobody else and quit eschewing the geeky power users by saying you're aiming for more casual users, or (b) you realize that non-geeks aren't like geeks and stop the endless churn and massive redesigns and instead focus on polishing the little details of the things that already worked just fine and your supposed 10's of millions of users are already comfortable and happy with.

As it is in GNOME land, both groups of users are frequently getting knocked over. I have absolutely zero doubt that the GNOME designers and developers like what they're making (or they wouldn't be making it), but making what you like and what other people like are often different tasks. As a game dev, for instance, I still think MUDs are the pinnacle of online interactions, but you don't see me trying to convince people that GemStone IV is going to take over World of Warcraft by just replacing the text commands with touchscreen gestures, do you. It would be silly to believe something like that.