In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:29:03 -0500
<Q8%fh.77638$aJ6.711399@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:j74654-tn4.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
>> <scatnubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on 13 Dec 2006 11:16:27 -0800
>> <1166037387.558959.67040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:12691734.CCgUhsLFtS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> > What is Look XP
>>>> >
>>>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> > | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>>>> > | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>>>> > `----
>>>> >
>>>> > http://lxp.sourceforge.net/
>>>> >
>>>> > Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit
>>>> > like
>>>> > that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government
>>>> > deploys
>>>> > as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this
>>>> > year).
>>>>
>>>> This is a good thing, IMHO. Not because I want Linux to look like XP
>>>> (I
>>>> like Gnome a lot), but because it gets rid of one more excuse for people
>>>> who
>>>> dismiss Linux as too difficult to learn. I don't think these dismissive
>>>> people are maliciously lying, but I think they are simply unable to
>>>> express
>>>> themselves well, and mistakenly point to Linux looking different from XP
>>>> as
>>>> the reason for Linux not being any good.
>>>>
>>>> Now we've removed that barrier and can go a bit deeper, to the real
>>>> issues -- the core issues. I see this project as a step towards
>>>> improving
>>>> communications. It's more symbolically useful than directly useful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd disagree. I think if it looks like XP, the uninformed will expect
>>> it to act like XP, which I think will just make it more difficult to
>>> learn. I can see people saying that Linux is no good because it looks
>>> different from XP, but wouldn't they just say well it looks like XP,
>>> but it doesn't work like XP, so it still sucks?
>
> Yes, this is exactly my intent. People don't know what they want. They
> *think* they want Linux to look like XP. So we give them a Linux
> distribution which looks like XP. Then they play with it a bit and realize
> that this isn't what they want after all. Instead, they want Linux to *act*
> like XP. And we're progressively getting closer to what it is these people
> *truly* want.
Careful. I'm not sure users, Linux or otherwise, want
an XP interface, despite the massive amounts of research
money Microsoft has presumably poured thereinto. (Did the
research group postulate a search doggie and an animated
paper clip? :-) )
Otherwise, I'd have to agree, and the discussion is of course
colored by what people expect, which of course is XP since for
the most part that's what they've seen, if they're relatively new to
computers. (Me, I've worked on a number of machines, from old klunky
paper-tape-loaded affairs to modern servers.)
>
> [...]
>>
>> In short, if Linux is for some reason required to look
>> like XP it should behave like XP as well. This might
>> include a bug-for-bug compatibility list for such things as
>> "shortcuts", single-click-open/execute for Office (which
>> could lead to increased local user attack susceptibility),
>> and a browser that reproduces all of IE's faults.
>>
>> There are also issues with the file system. Unless there's
>> a modification to Linux ext2/3, reiserfs, or jfs that
>> allows for case-preserving (as opposed to the current
>> case-sensitive) naming, some users and programs can get
>> confused.
>
> You're right. These are all significant issues. We may all agree here
> that ActiveX at worst was a dumb idea and at best was an okay idea but
> poorly executed, but some users *want* their browsers to support ActiveX (if
> only because the use a bank or other financial institution whose website
> requires it).
As you've probably already noticed, there are multiple issues here.
- The bank interface wants ActiveX.
- The bank may have subcontracted with a company who likes to develop
websites which use ActiveX.
- Microsoft may have leaned on the bank (or the subcontractor) to
use ActiveX.
> People who want Linux to be "better" than Windows would
> probably consider implementing ActiveX support to be a step backwards, and
> would actively fight it.
Define "better". I have problems with such a generalized metric.
(Probably comes from being a software engineer too long. :-) )
After all, ActiveX is a powerful, flexible system (too powerful
and flexible, as it turned out) and exists in more controlled,
limited forms in OpenOffice, Java's JEditorPane, and Web browsers
(applets and Flash).
> People who want Linux to be a "replacement" for
> Windows want it to emulate Window's behaviour, poor design decisions and
> all, like you said. This is why I really don't think getting people to
> switch to Linux is as easy as some of the posters here seem to imply, and
> why I'm trying to point out that a lot of the so-called "advocacy"
> techniques I see employed in this newsgroup simply aren't all that
> effective.
What effectiveness? We beef here. Might be useful. :-)
>
> I *want* more people to switch to Linux.
Why?
> Having more people use Linux
> will make my life as a Linux user easier, via the network effect.
Too vague. I'll admit there's a plus in having more Linux users out
there (for starters, support people won't give one funny looks over the
telephone), but other than that, it's far from clear whether we want
more Linux users, more people aware of Linux, or simply more choices
of which one is Linux.
> And since
> I want more people to switch to Linux, I want the people in this newsgroup
> to become more effective advocates, so that they can actually convert more
> people. Unfortunately, when I criticize a person's particular advocacy
> strategy, they seem to interpret it as a criticism of Linux itself, and thus
> label me a troll or a Windows advocate (in the pejorative sense).
>
> As a recent convert, I'm trying to shed some light on the thought
> process of a typical Windows user, but my advice seems to be largely ignored
> here.
Try the thought process of a typical *user*, Windows or otherwise, and
you may hit closer to the mark. It may also depend on the task: one
might play games, browse the Web, compose research papers, or send
messages to relatives.
All these are possible with XP and Linux (as well as with
other solutions). Sending messages to relatives might not
even require a computer nowadays (there was a specialized
keyboard-like device at one point, though presumably it
flopped; mobiles can send short text messages to each
other, although that's a form of cheating since mobiles
are computers, just not desktop computers).
There is also the issue of working around problems, as exemplified
by the old adage:
Q: "It hurts when I do that."
A: "Don't do that."
It's one of the reasons we *have* separate QA departments. :-)
>
> - Oliver
>
>
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
