Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 20:48:25 -0400 From: "Thomas M. Sommers" <tms2@mail.ptd.net> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why encourage stupid people to use *BSD WAS:Re: IE Message-ID: <393855D9.F5F0E5F0@mail.ptd.net> References: <200006021842.LAA24897@usr09.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > I think the important thing is not to create false expectations (of ease > > > > and simplicity) in the minds of those who have never been exposed to a > > > > real operating system. > > > > > > I think the important thing is to create TRUE expectations of > > > ease of use and simplicity in the minds of those who have > > > never been exposed to FreeBSD. > > > > > > Of course that means changing the code to have those as > > > attributes. > > > > But can that be done without radically changing the nature of the OS? > > Who cares? I care, and I think a lot of others do, too. I don't want to see FreeBSD become a Windows clone. > The point is to have the most effective human-computer > interaction (HCI) possible. You assume that such a thing exists; it doesn't. What one person finds effective another will find a hindrance. > > Home users and small businesses have been accustomed to a > > single-user OS. Multi-user OSes are necessarily more complex > > and (in some ways) more limiting than single-user OSes. > > This is an implementation detail, and it is based on a false > premise: that what people are currently accustomed to is what > an average human, with no prior experience, would expect the > system to behave. No, it's based on the premise that home users and small-business users who move to FreeBSD will have experience with Windows, and will compare FreeBSD to Windows. The premise you mention is probably false, but it is also irrelevant, because the number of people who move to FreeBSD with no prior computer experience at all is very, very small, if not zero. > > People are not prepared for, and may not put up with, these > > complexities and limitations. > > Most of these complexities are artifacts of substantial design > flaws, which should be corrected, instead of glossed over as > "that's the way it works; it's better, trust me". Some are, but some are due to essential differences between the kinds of systems that FreeBSD and Windows are. These difference will remain unless you convert FreeBSD to a single-user system. > > For example, people will say: "What do you mean I have to login? > > I didn't have to do that with Windows." > > Windows 3.1, perhaps. 95 and 98, too. > Probably it should be called "unlocking", > not "logging in". Certainly, it should be possible to turn on > a FreeBSD box and just get a graphical desktop or shell prompt > with a particular users credentials as an active default. It's > the user's choice, not the OS designers. The "login problem" > is trivial to overcome. While such a capability might be acceptable to a home or small-business user, giving the user the capability to turn off security would be unacceptable in a larger installation. > > or "What do you mean I can't undelete a file? I could do that > > with Windows." > > Well, the inability to undo an "oops" is a moronic point about > FreeBSD. Humans have accidents; you must accomodate this fact > about humans, rather than trying to suppress it. You must > design systems which tolerate faults. That's what backups are for. > > This is not to say that FreeBSD can't be made simpler, but > > there is a limit, and that limit is more complex than Windows. > > I think you are confusing the complexity of the system with the > complexity of abstraction presented to the operator of the system. No, I'm just not expressing myself clearly enough. I was referring not to the internals, but to the face the system presents to the user. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?393855D9.F5F0E5F0>