Mac OS X v. Linux

[Eric Dunbar]

On 6/27/05, Charles Mauch <cmauch at gmail.com> wrote:
> This one time, in band camp, Eric Dunbar said:
> 
> Before I jump into this conversation, I just wanted to say I only joined
> this list yesterday.  I've been a GNU/Linux user for near 10 years now
> though.  So forgive me if I make assumptions or answer something that's
> already been covered.

You're forgiven. I happily play devil's advocate, especially when
people have heads dug in sand.

> It
> appears to me that you really don't have a desire to learn, explore, or
> simply find out if a different "text editing paradigm" is indeed more
> useful.

I have no NEED to learn a complex text editing paradigm, nor do 95% of
people (number pulled out of my derriere as syn. for overwhelming).

A small fraction of them would be helped if they *could* do more
advanced work but, even for that small portion of the 95%ers, a
slightly advanced gedit (with grep for e.g., hypothetically called
geditgrep) would do. They already have ALL the skills needed to use
geditgrep if they know how to use MS Word, Photoshop (YES, Photoshop
has transferrable skills that are directly relevant to gedit),
FireFox, etc.

All they need to do is figure out the interface for the search and
replace portion of grep, for e.g.

With the CLUI editors you don't have those transferrable skills,
UNLESS you already have CLUI skills ;-). There's no consistent
cut-copy-paste short cut, save dialogue, open dialogue, etc. which
matches FireFox (for e.g.).

> gedit, or nano/pico (whatever) is great for some people.  But the people who
> use these tools are in large the same people who use their computers to play
> tribes, write mom emails, and basicly sit there like a bump on a log arguing
> on the internet.

These are the overwhelming majority of users. And, even for the few
who could benefit from grep there is a great waste of time and effort
if they learn how to use CLUI editors. It' better to provide a WELL
THOUGHT OUT GUI editor. Originally my point was that Text Wrangler (a
closed source, free text editor for OS X) was better than anything I'd
seen to date as coming out of FLOSS (to point out that FLOSS is not
the be-all-and-end-all of quality free software).

I'll be *happy* to see GEdit evolve (preferably into a separate app...
keep GEdit SIMPLE) into something which offers more than a plain
vanilla text editor, but without the learning curve associated
emacs/vi/vim/etc. which don't have skills that are OR SHOULD be
transferrable.

In the end, it's what you can DO with the tool that's important. Grep
is a stunning tool but its power is generally difficult to access.
emacs may allow you to do a lot but you have to learn a lot of emac
specific commands. If you could do grep in GEdit you could focus on
learning grep rather than fighting with a user interface that's 20
years old, for e.g.

That said, for some people a full CLUI works well. I often dive into a
terminal session rather than fiddle with GEdit or other such tools b/c
for some operations the CLUI is more efficient. But, then again, I've
been playing with computers since I was knee high to a grasshopper so
I'm familiar with the way programmers think.

> > Part of my reason for making that statement is to wake the Linux
> > fan(atics) up to the fact that FLOSS is not the be-all-and-end-all of
> > software. It's a tool. If MS makes the best tool possible are you not
> > going to use it simply because you can't see the code. If you don't
> > and it would give you an advantage, you're a fool.
> 
> Your missing something here.  I can't speak for others who use Free
> Software, but I choose to use only Free Software because it provides me with
> some rather romantic notions on how we (as computer users and developers)
> interact with the world in which we live.

That's fine. At least you're not deluding yourself into thinking that
you necessarily have the best solution *because* it is FLOSS. You
appear to like to take it all apart and put it back together so for
you it is a good solution. However, for most people this is NOT a
consideration and it inhibits the use of tools.

In time FLOSS will become more accessible to non-experts (and, the
bulk of Linux users *ARE* experienced computer users (and, you cannot
count "I set my mom up with Ubuntu and she loves it" because these
'inexperienced' computer users have a geek behind them)).

And, I really hope that FLOSS does become more accessible. As I've
stated before and elsewhere, FLOSS really offers a unique opportunity
for humanity. Not in its ability to create profound, earth shattering
software, which it *won't* and *hasn't* (virtually everything that
FLOSS has done of note has been copied). But, it will do two related
things: (1) open up computing to the millions (perhaps billions) who
at present cannot AFFORD software (in developing nations); and, (2)
will allow people/organisations/businesses to standardise on a piece
of software and be confident that they will be able to use that
software on current and future hardware (provided they have the skill
to upgrade/fix the software).

Ubuntu is a good step in that direction, but even Ubuntu is not
explicitly focussed on making FLOSS accessible, yet (though, a loose
interpretation of the charter does suggest that this is part of
Ubuntu's goals). However, perhaps FLOSS is not mature enough yet for
such an ambitious project. There are many good programs available
under FLOSS, but, for the most part they are NOT ready for prime time
use. Even OO.org, the flag ship suite is too unstable to point to as a
"mission critical" app :-( (I must say that with Word 2002 and Excel
2002 I haven't lose ONE minute of work in 6 months of use under XP...
yes, they've crashed (I do put Excel through a lot ;-) but no data was
lost).

> software community, and one of the reasons I choose to use ONLY free
> software is because I believe one of the better ways to lead is by example.

That's a good reason to use software, if only to show that it can be done.

> All of those are perfectly valid reasons for using Ubuntu (or any piece of
> Free Software).  Just don't expect to convince me to convert to OS/X on any
> of my machines because it's got neat widget x, or new gizmo y.

No need to "convert" you to OS X (PS it's not OS/X). OS X is Linux's
big brother. It's the show case of what *can* be done with Linux, if
only there was some will to abandon the Windows paradigm.

For a group of OSes that capture a lot of Windows escapees there's far
too much Windowsification of the interfaces. GNOME/KDE designers
haven't done their homework when it comes to examining good GUI design
and GNOME (or KDE) is exactly the place to do it!

As long as the GUI solutions WORK, people will accept them. I don't
think being a Windows clone (which is what Linux really feels like
nowadays) is necessarily a selling feature. I certainly don't think
that being a Mac OS X clone would be any better a solution (although,
it would be more usable for most people)). It's a real shame that
GNOME hasn't taken the lead and incorporated the best from Mac OS (X),
BeOS, Windows and the best usability research available.

In some ways it would be too much to expect a hodge podge of
developers to look to usability as the holy grail of computing, but
that's what it is. Companies have an incentive to make software better
in order to sell more units or differentiate themselves from the
competition, and this is where closed software is more successful than
open software. I guess it's like patents and invention. Patents
encourage investment of R&D to generate new ideas and, when they
expire other copy.

Eric.