__/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Wednesday 02 August 2006 15:48 \__
>
> "Kier" <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.07.29.16.10.22.2484@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:07:06 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 08:03:15 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Letters: Linux, Love It Or Hate It
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Frank Ohlhorst's recent column, "A Linux OS For All," asked readers
>>>> | what needed to be done for Linux to gain more traction. And, boy, did
>>>> | they have a lot to say about Linux: the key players, where the
>>>> | open-source platform is now and where it should be headed.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.channelweb.com/sections/allnews/article.jhtml?articleId=191600067&cid=ChannelWebNews
> [...]
>>> I notice how you had to stick your 2 cents in and also how your letter is
>>> totally out of character with the rest of the letters.
>>
>> Bullcrap.
>>
>>>
>>> IOW you're the only one whose letter is overly hostile, negative,
>>> paranoid and way over the top.
>>
>> Oh, please, don't be so pathetic. That described *you*.
>
> Actually, I have to concur that the tone of Roy's letter is different
> from all the others. I didn't actually bother to read the names signed at
> the bottom any of the other letters, but when I read that one, I wondered
> who wrote it, and I saw Roy's name. I didn't read the original article
> though, so maybe Roy has a point when he accuses the author of spreading
> FUD. I don't know.
The E-mail I sent him was longer. He only quoted the very heart of the
argument while neglecting to mention compliments and praises. This seems
like the rational thing to do, in order for the article to contain just the
'meat'. Since flatfish hates me, he choose to interpret the tone of the text
as accusive, rather than a friendly tone (I always have this low tone in
real life). These ambiguities are among the dangers of E-mail
correspondence. This led me to several serious entanglement in the past and
a face-to-face encounter can often rectify that.
> Something else that stood out to be was that it seems the mainstream
> still has the perception of Linux being "difficult" or "geeky". And I know
> a lot of Linux advocates say Linux is not/no longer "difficult" nor
> "geeky". But of course, merely saying so will not nescessarily convince the
> people you're addressing.
>
> One of the correspondents made a good point about people hating change.
> Maybe someone should make a distribution that is as Windows-like as
> possible. It doesn't matter if you think certain features of Windows or
> design decisions are worst than the equivalent design decisions made in
> your favorite Linux distribution; the goal here is to get people to switch
> over to Free (as in liberty) software.
>
> For example, when the Linux machine first boots up, don't show all that
> scrolling text with the "[OK]" tags at the end. Just show a logo. That's
> what Windows does. Sure, the scrolling text is more informative, but lots
> of fast scrolling text that the end-user can't manage to read will scare
> the user. If you personally like the scrolling text, that's your
> perogative, and you don't have to use this (hypothetical) distribution. But
> again my point is to try and make things as much as Windows-like as
> possible, to ease the transition for skeptical, potential converts.
It has already been said, but my SuSE 8.1 box has the graphical bootloader
(grub), The bootstrapping process only contains a picture with a _REAL_
progress bar (unlike Windows XP and predecessors where there is an
almost-purposeless animation). If I press ESC, then I see the list of steps
in a colourful, graphical text form. I have seen modern distros that take
the same approach (being less verbose).
|
|
