[CS-FSLUG] Still a "cult leader"

[Timothy Butler]

>
> I've always found it slower than Windows XP to be honest, and on my
> laptop with a 1.5 GHz celeron processor and 256 MB of ram it's just
> intolerable, the one time Windows runs circles around Linux. I'm

	I think part of that is that I've found *nix systems benefit from  
ram a lot more than Windows.

> particularly disappointed that they're investing in so much .net, the
> last thing Linux needs now is to make the same mistake as Microsoft:
> investing in slow interpreted languages that are more suited to
> servers than desktops and workstations. The benchmarks aren't honest,
> very fast hardware might generate benchmarks that show it catching up
> to C and C++, but as you go down to what is average hardware today the

	Average hardware today is what, 2.6 GHz Celeron/Pentium 4 or perhaps  
a 1.6-1.8 GHz Core Duo?  You can get something like the former at  
Dell, with a monitor, for $300 USD. That's as fast as anything I ever  
ran SUSE on...

	I'm not saying its fast, but I think average hardware shouldn't have  
too much trouble with it.

>> 	Ubuntu seems to me to be the best of the bunch at the moment,
>> offering a distro that follows GNOME's aesthetically pleasing simple
>> and clean ideology combined with the beauty of Debian. It also is the
>> closest in design, IMO, to Mac OS X, which is the goal *nix should
>> aim for, IMO.
>
> Tim, I apologize now for what I'm going to say, I don't think anyone
> who's fond of Gnome is going to like it.

	No problem, I'm happy to revisit this conversation. :-)

> "I personally just encourage people to switch to KDE.

	I disagree with Linus on this, and numerous other issues -- he's a  
smart guy, but his mission has never been to make Linux palatable to  
the average user.

> I've had plenty of opportunities to get acquainted with Gnome while
> keeping dad's computer going, and I've only gotten to find it more and
> more irritating in the way it "retards" the user interface. I think
> people pick Gnome for the same reason they would otherwise pick
> Windows over Linux, Gnome isn't better, it's just that they'll take
> what's easiest or most familiar over what is better. To be blunt: I
> think people are using Gnome because it caters to their unwillingness
> to actually learn how to use software, that detracts greatly from the
> software and it alienates power users.

	So why are people like me using it? Why do many Linux users seem to  
be switching to OS X, the inspiration for GNOME 2.x, and any going  
the other way seem to pick GNOME over KDE?

	I think the answer is not precisely what you think, although there  
is some truth to that. However, consider this: there are probably 1  
in 10 computer users who are power users. So, do you cater to the 1  
or to the other 9? I think the answer is clear. To cater to people  
like you and me is stupid because the majority of people aren't like  
you and me, and that's perfectly OK.

	Now, why did I switch to GNOME and then to OS X? When I was using  
KDE, I felt like KDE was using me. I had hours of customization time  
spent to get it to feel and work right. And even then not all was OK.  
KDE suffered badly from NIH -- not invented here -- syndrome. While  
GNOME worked with Mozilla, Sun/OpenOffice.org and others to create a  
healthy ecosystem of interworking products, KDE tried to rebuild  
everything. It was a noble goal, but it never made it because of an  
elitist attitude. Need properly working Word import _and_ export in  
KWord? Too bad, you shouldn't be using Word anyway (that was the  
sentiment a few years back).

	When it came to options, KDE felt that a GUI must allow one to  
control every aspect of the system, so it got dozens of control  
panels. It seems like every option has options, sometimes making it  
hard to find the options one really wants because they are mixed in  
with other stuff. Why not send the power users to the command line  
(where people like us are usually happiest anyway) for the really  
techie stuff and make it so the average user can configure his or her  
own wallpaper?

> I think calling Gnome retarded
> is accurate, the software is artificially held back to cater to people
> who would rather die a horrible death than read a manual or quick
> orientation guide.

	People don't read the manual on how to set their VCR clock (despite  
blinking "12:00" driving everyone nuts), so why do you expect  
different elsewhere? And, really, if we can make it easier, why not?

	When I switched to GNOME, I could do everything I did in KDE, but  
most of it required less steps.

	There's something to be said for the aesthetic element of computing.  
It's like cars. Without starting an OT flamewar, I'd say it is  
something like this: of imported cars in North America, we usually  
can choose Japanese/Korean or German. Now, the Japanese cars are  
cheaper, and have lots of bells and whistles, but they have bouncy,  
less connected rides. Japanese cars often follow the trends, using  
bold, but quickly aging styles. German manufacturers, on the other  
hand, to borrow the BMW slogan, make driving machines. They are fine  
tuned machines meant to do one thing really well: drive. They may not  
have as good of cup holders and they may not follow every design  
trend, but in doing so, they actually set the trend. They don't put  
gaudy trim on the inside, instead preferring quiet minimalism. The  
outsides don't have wild curves, but thoughtful simplicity. I  
recently saw Suzuki advertising one of their new cars as "German  
designed." People who really care about the "experience" of their car  
pay more for a Volkswagen than a comparable Toyota not because Toyota  
makes a piece of junk, or because Volkswagen has some kind of super  
special prestige name, but because a German car has an elegance to it  
the "trendy" Toyota does not.

	This is an issue of both form and function. GNOME appeals to the  
visual sense by having less clutter: not everything has to be shown,  
just the essentials. Clear the mind, see your work. I don't care  
about the lpt1, I just want my project to go to the printer already.  
It's all about focus: for those of us whose primary work is not to  
work on computers, we'd rather spend time doing something other than  
hearing about the intricacies of our computers.

> What bothers me the most about Gnome thought is that bero is making a
> convincing case that there is a lot of underhanded warfare going on,
> and I could easily believe it considering the current state of
> affairs. If you're interested in that you'd best contact him yourself,
> I don't want to misquote him. Let me know if you're interested in his
> e-mail address, I don't know if he'll talk about it though, committing
> to saying anything bad about Gnome tends to get people shunned these
> days, and he's got a whole Linux distribution riding on his
> reputation.

	Here's the thing: KDE has all kinds of warfare too. Remember: I was  
an insider. I use to talk every day to many of the KDE movers and  
shakers, was involved in committees related to KDE league and even,  
for a short time, hired by KDE. I've seen a lot of underhanded  
fighting. It happens in big projects.

> I'll be upfront right now and say that Gnome is destroying Linux as I
> know it, I believe Gnome is gradually destroying all the good design
> decisions and the power of Linux in order to make their own OS X
> clone, only simpler (ie: less powerful).

	The primary thing you have to decide is this: are you interested in  
a desktop that appeals to you or one that can actually succeed? KDE  
will never take over the market because it is too complicated. It is  
a much harder to configure and manage beast for the novice than any  
other desktop. It also is unable to appeal to companies because of  
Qt's licensing. GNOME, on the other hand, answers the call to  
simplicity that most people want.

	I'd like to see alternative OSes actually become mainstream.

	One more bit of food for thought:

	You say that GNOME is making an OS X clone, and that means less  
power. Consider:

	1.) While everyone else is talking about it, or trying to clone it,  
Mac OS X has the only kernel level I/O integrated search system  
available in a desktop OS. No indexing, everything is just available  
via Spotlight (yes, even from the commandline).

	2.) While KDE and GNOME have tried to create a photo organizing tool  
that mostly works around concepts such as folders (just like computer  
users think), Apple made a tool that works like a photographer  
thinks. iPhoto helps organize using metrics such as shutter speed,  
iso speed, lens, aperture, etc., that photographers care about. Plus  
it provides one or two click red eye reduction, exposure adjustment,  
etc.

	3.) While KDE, Microsoft and others chatter about widgets, Apple  
brought them mainstream with over 2,500 now available in a healthy  
ecosystem that people are using.

	4.) Now that others are trying to catch up with Spotlight, Apple is  
going to move forward with network spotlight searching. Unlike  
Google's alternative, it doesn't require revealing your data to a  
third party source.

	5.) Additionally, Leopard will offer the first truly user friendly  
backup solution, allowing a visually navigation back in time to a  
time before a piece of data was corrupted or deleted.

	And that just scratches the surface. The thing is, Mac OS X is  
extremely powerful, plus it has all of the elegance (and then some)  
of KDE's underlying framework. Nevertheless, it does things simply in  
ways people can understand without reading a help file.

	Unless you make stuff so easy that people don't need to reread about  
how to do stuff they knew how to do before, they aren't going to  
switch...

	-Tim


---
Timothy R. Butler | "Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher
tbutler at ofb.biz   | is bound in  his  way to  be a lover of myths  and
www.uninet.info   | poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in
timothybutler.us  | being big with wonder."
                                                      -- Thomas Aquinas