Comments about Linux/Ubuntu from a former MS-programmer

[Eric Dunbar]

On 11/04/06, John <dingo at coco2.arach.net.au> wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 April 2006 01:55, John wrote:
> >
> >>It makes good sense to follow Windows UI until we have good reason
> >>not to. It seems to me that many of the differences are present
> >>just to be different, and that results in Linux being harder to
> >>learn than it needs to be, it results in shared applications (eg
> >>Mozilla*, OOo) being different from everything else etc.
> >
> > I contend that that viewpoint is unnecessarily broad in it's scope.
> > Just because Windows is prevalent doesn't mean that it's methods must
> > be cloned. If you want to tackle Windows head-on on it's own turf,
> > then following Windows style is probably a good idea. For a system
> > that is not trying to compete with Windows it is a bad idea.
>
> It is competing with Windows. Almost everyone here is a former or
> current Windows user.

> The more the differences, the more difficult the task of retraining the
> workforce, and the more difficult the task of retraining the workforce
> the list likely the organisations to make the move.
>
<snip>
>
> It is important that a Linux GUI be similar to Windows, good or bad,
> becase that makes it easier for prospective Linux users to learn how to
> use it when the do make the change.

Not really. A GUI is a GUI is a GUI. The productivity differences
between OSes are minor. Windows are windows. Menubars are menu bars.
Close buttons are close buttons. These are the items that count.

It is more important to have a sound GUI design than to copy Windows
since Windows has some _bad_ GUI design decisions (and, they've made
some good ones).

Something like the mode change on maximise is an example of a bad GUI
design that is counter productive and CAN be removed without causing a
Windows user distress.

> Remember the lesson of the keyboard. The qwerty keybard layout was
> designed to slow people down. For today's use it is the worst possible
> design.
>
> There have been efforts to produce a better keyboard inline with
> todays's needs, the Dvorak keyboard is quite a famous flop in this
> regard. I have no doubt that it's a better layout, but almost nobody
> wants to make the effort to retrain.

This is nothing more than an urban legend:

<http://reason.com/9606/Fe.QWERTY.shtml>

> People don't want the best possible design, they want the design that
> works best for them, and the design that works best for them is the one
> they already use, and the reason it works best for them is that, having
> used it for some time, they know how to use it.
>
> It's the same problem Apple must overcome.

Apple has to overcome $$$ barriers. They do sell a premium product and
always have. Some people are willing to pay the little bit extra, some
people aren't. Nowadays it's not a huge difference, but in the 1980s
in some segments of the business world the Mac GUI was sooo much more
productive than the DOS GUI -- for example, if you were doing _any_
graphics work, page layout, word processing or similar "high level"
tasks the Mac was definitely the more efficient way to go.

And, I do think people want the best design possible but there are
limits to how much they're willing to pay for them.

But, having foresight is a relatively rare phenomenon in society and
you'd have to have foresight to buy, for e.g., a Macintosh Plus in
1986 that would cost you $3000 when you could buy a clone for half the
price.

Yes, the clone might cost you $1500, but, when you factor in the
increased productivity of the Mac you'd recoup your costs in no time
-- let's say you cut 30% off the time needed to do tasks like editing
a book (vs. DOS), or, you were ABLE to do tasks that would otherwise
require paying specialised people (e.g. illustrations or laying out a
book). If you were paid $20/hr you'd save $6/hr and have that $1500
back in about 6.25 weeks (40 hr/week).

And, sometimes it's not worth paying extra for something better.... or
you can get into the notion of future discounting ($100,000 (or Euro
or...) saved in 25 years isn't worth even investing $1000 today)