Ubuntu is under attack

[Eric Dunbar]

On 12/19/05, Mike Bird <mgb-ubuntu at yosemite.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 08:12, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> > Expecting "my KDE to have the full power and options the developers
> > gave it" runs counter to the goal of "a clear focus on the user and
> > usability".
>
> This blinkered vision is a fundamental misinterpretation of Ubuntu's
> stated goals.  Making Ubuntu Just Work out of the box means what it
> says, not "provide a bunch of eye candy and the software for
> a twenty kilo IPod".  It means in part that users don't have to lose
> a few months work before finding out that critical emails are being
> callously destroyed.

You conveniently missed or ignored my point of what I perceive as an
unstated goal of Ubuntu: "Just works" [for as many users, as
possible].

If "Just Works" means it just works for you, then you better be
willing to cough up the dough for a distro that will "just work" for
you. Otherwise, you (and I) have to accept that the focus will be on
meeting the needs of most users, or meeting the needs of the
developers. Not on meeting your or my needs!

> There are all kinds of legal liabilities
> there that Canonical isn't going to be able to disclaim, even for
> a free-as-in-beer product.

Doubtful. Computer manufacturers drop features all the time that are
"critical" for some users (and cause a huge ruckus, believing Their
Way (tm) is The Only Way (tm)).

> > What may be usable for you is what makes computers unusable or less
> > useful to the bulk of computer users -- DOS and other CLUIs were great
> > in the eyes of some (not-so-sane IMNSHO), yet DOS and all such CLUIs
> > required people to the be the tools of the computer, and not the other
> > way around where the computer itself was the tool.
>
> I've helped hundreds of newbies.  Some prefer starting things from
> menus.  Some prefer clicking through file folders.  Some prefer
> right clicking in the desktop and "Create New Foo".  When someone
> invents another great paradigm, there will be new users that prefer
> that mode too.  People are not all like you.  Why should they be?

They don't have to be.

That's the beauty of life. What software SHOULD be (and, is evolving
towards) is the best thing for as many people as possible. If that
happens to coincide with my needs. That's great for me. If they don't,
that's my tough luck. Then I'll either have to go spend money (e.g.
buy Mac OS X upgrade... which I'll do anyway for the foreseeable
future since I need and use both OSes), write my own thing, or simply
acknowledge that what I need doesn't exist.

> Software freedoms include zero cost, the freedom to edit and
> recompile, and freedom from religious bigots who insist that
> system emails be suppressed and that files can only be opened
> from Nautilus.

How about having some freedom from religious bigots who insist that
emails be incorporated at the expense of something else. It's nice to
have your cake and eat it too, but, unless you're the one paying for
the cake, it's hard to demand vanilla when everyone else wants
chocolate!

> > PS It would not be a Bad Thing (tm) to ask a GNOME user whether they
> > really want to browse outside of "~/" (let alone /usr). There's no
> > reason that a person using a computer as a tool should be going
> > outside of "~/" so it's probably good practice to caution them against
> > going there, unless they have a REASON to be there.
>
> Hmmm, as I write this an unsophisticated user walked into the room.
> (Hello my love.)  She's a teacher, journalist, and photographer.
> None of her class materials, articles or photographs are in her
> home folder.  Nor is the place where the digital camera's memory
> stick appears in the filesystem.  Why should the Thought Police dictate
> how she uses her computer?
>
> --Mike Bird

It's questionable whether it's WISE to have a user's files spread out
all over the file system. There's a reason admins lock down a computer
and keep users in ~/. There's little reason for most users to really
exit ~/.

As for where external devices appear in the file system -- that is one
exception which should be handled more cleanly than it does.

Plus, you're there to support her (assuming she is as unsophisticated
as you'd like to believe ;-) so it's "safer" to throw files
everywhere.

Eric.