Quick brainstorming (long)

[Eric Dunbar]

> that are often used _or_ USEFUL easily accessible. THAT should be the
> goal, not providing the user with so many features that they retreat
> into defaults because they are scared of breaking their computer or
> intimidated by what's possible (I had this experience myself with
> earlier versions of Linux... too many options, too little time or
> _incentive_ to learn them (I'm no ideologue)). And, that's also not
> the design philosophy that seems to be driving Ubuntu - K.I.S.S. (keep
> it simple stupid).

I just can't get it straight! KISS _is_ what drives Ubuntu, and they
look like they're going in the right direction (IMNSHO).

PS on a slightly different tangent... I think Ubuntu may rapidly
become the dominant Linux distro on PPC. Mac users (for the most part)
aren't drawn to Macintosh (the OVERWHELMING majority of PPC machines)
because it runs on a PPC made by IBM or Motorola, but because of the
tight integration of hardware, software, and the operating system.
Ubuntu looks like it may offer a 100% OSS analogue to the 70% (or is
it 30%? Can't rememer) OSS Mac OS X which keeps a lot of us Mac users
running Mac hardware (of course, for me it's also partially the fact
that Apple computers simply _look_ good (my PowerBook G3 black
computer doesn't look like your standard boxy, cheap-looking clone
laptop). By and large the clones are pretty unattractive, garish
computers, and, if you're going to have a computer on a desk, I'd
rather it be able to function partially as a decoration than as an eye
sore).

Eric.