It would be VERY helpful if there were an option (via an F key or something)
that would describe briefly the process about to take place and what the
recovery might be in the event of error, such as how to reverse what you did.
This message could be optional to avoid annoying knowledgeable users. As it
is, I have similar icons and no clue what makes them different. Pictures are
not always worth more than a thousand words............................
On Tuesday 12 June 2001 11:34 pm, you wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 07:15:02PM -0400, leo wrote:
> > I'm almost sure I am going to be unpopular when I ask this question, but
> > WHY??????????????? does everyone want a remake of Windows? Does anybody
> > out there envision a desktop control system that isn't just a plain
> > command line but also is not a collection of little pictures and pop-up
> > windows? I honestly believe that over time, in order to keep adding all
> > the functions that people seem to demand, how can it not get all balled
> > up? I think the KISS principle is so appropriate in this context. OK,
> > go ahead, bash me.............leo.
>
> You can't even _simply_ admin a system from the command line either. The
> more packages/features, the more complex admin becomes. The solution has
> generally been to add levels and more broadly categorize things, the
> more complex the system becomes.
>
> Years ago, I did MIS/DP functions for several companies. At the time,
> Windows was in its infancy, so you did things at the DOS prompt.
> Universally, users were afraid of typing things at the prompt. "What
> happens if I misspell something?!" "What if I type it wrong?!" And
> learning all those arcane DOS commands meant that users actually had to
> _work_ and _learn_ and _remember_ things.
>
> Then along came Xerox PARC and the Xerox Star, then Apple, who ripped it
> off from them, and then Microsoft, who stole it from Apple and called it
> "Windows". All of a sudden, users just had to point and click. No arcane
> commands, etc. (In my opinion, it's no coincidence that at the same time
> this was happening, literacy levels had been dropping like a rock for
> years.)
>
> People like the colorful little pictures that you point to with the
> little rolly thing.
>
> And if you want to increase the influence of Linux on the desktop, you
> have to go after the vast majority of computer users out there, who run
> Windows. Corporations already know that retraining people is a nightmare
> and very expensive. So if you want to switch those desktop users over to
> Linux, the best way to do it is make their new home (Linux) as much like
> what they came from as possible.
>
> Look at it this way: housewives use laundry detergent by opening the box
> and pouring some out into the washer, sometimes maybe using a measuring
> cup. You come along with a new kind of detergent. And the way they have
> to use this stuff is different. They have to soak all their clothes in
> it before they put them on, and then just thow them in the washer when
> they're through wearing them. How many housewives will switch?
>
> I'm not arguing in favor of making Linux a Windows clone. I'm only
> saying that this is the marketing idea behind this, and it's not a bad
> one.
>
> Of course, Ed's idea of coming up with something "outside the box" is
> valid, _if_ someone can do it. But I haven't seen it yet.
>
> Me? I like the command line.
>
> Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:50:08 EDT