MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-11-01 |
| FROM | Ray Connolly
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] observations
|
The Point Not Taken
By Timothy R. Butler
Editor-in-Chief, Open for Business
November 01, 2002, 00:00:38 EST
No matter how often it has been said, it seems that many GNU/Linux and
Macintosh users refuse to see the obvious. The response to a recent article
of mine demonstrated this statement as well as any other example I can think
of. What is so obvious? That while speciality software and functionality is
nice, it isn't going to make or break adoption of an operating system.
It all started at the beginning of this month, when I published the article
Mac OS X: An Apple a Day keeps the Penguins Away?, which clearly noted that
in every area, GNU/Linux was nearly as good, as good, or even better than
Mac OS X for the average user. I was not surprised that my mail box was
flooded with dissenting opinions, particularly from Mac users, however
something did surprise me - the supposed reasons I was being given for Mac
OS X being better than GNU/Linux did not even make sense in the context of
my article.
I expected to be told about how easy it was to use Mac OS X, or how much
better the software was. Instead, the majority of "reasons" I was given were
focused on specialty applications such as Photoshop and Final Cut. One
person asked me something to the effect of "tell me where I can get Quark
Xpress for Linux."
That's a fair enough question - if I were covering desktop publishing, but I
was not. This shows a major lack of understanding on a very crucial topic -
the typical user. I'm sure to the person who asked me that, he felt this was
a serious lacking in Linux that made Mac OS X greatly superior. That's a big
problem for those in decision making roles, as it is very hard to make sense
of what system is ready for the average user when many people don't even
understand who the average user is.
Another case worth highlighting is that of eyecandy. I'm on a number of
discussion lists in the community, and recently one of them had a big
discussion on whether GNOME (one of GNU/Linux's desktops) was going to
surpass KDE's visual appeal because the former was going to support scalable
vector graphics (SVG) for widgets (things like scrollbars and buttons). It
was basically suggested that this "advantage" might cost KDE users. Now,
without commenting on which desktop is really nicer looking, I might note
that only power users and graphic artists probably even know what SVG is
anyway (it's a format similar to Windows Metafiles in that you can resize
the graphics without loss of quality, in case you were wondering). Perhaps
you could make some really great looking themes with this format, but the
point is, you can make some really great styles without it too.
Moreover, even if it would make a big difference, the average user has shown
he really does not care about "eyecandy" anyway. If John Q. Public did care
that much about visual appeal or Quark Xpress, Apple computers would be
being bought up en masse, as Microsoft Windows isn't exactly what one
considers "beautiful," nor is it known as the desktop publisher's paradise.
Since Microsoft's position has never really been threatened much by either
of these features, I think we can safely assume Mr. Public doesn't loose too
much sleep over his lack of publishing abilities.
Okay, so I've said the user does not necessarily want Quark Xpress, and I've
also stated that he doesn't want amazing eyecandy. What is it that he does
want? It's simple really - usability and the ability to do simple tasks
(e-mail, web browsing, letter writing, and so forth). This is all stuff that
the GNU/Linux desktop is ready and waiting to offer, in fact, for simple
tasks, Linux has a big advantage over the Macintosh. You can take your
existing PC, and within an hour, have a system fully loaded with everything
you need - not what Bob in marketing decided you should have (like Windows)
or what seems "flat out cool" (like Mac OS), but rather what you need to
make your computer a productive environment.
Perhaps GNU/Linux isn't the prettiest thing you've ever seen. Okay, I'll
agree with that. However, it is much nicer looking than Windows (for example
KDE 3.1 offers an original look, transparent menus, drop shadows, etc.), and
it is usable. In fact, if you are coming from a Windows background, Linux is
arranged in a much more natural manor than the Mac interface is. Even though
it looks a bit different than Windows, it works pretty much the same, thus
providing a sizably lower learning curve than Mac OS.
Another touchy point was office suites. While many people wrote in to sing
to me the merits of Office v.X for Mac OS X, they ignored the fact that it
really doesn't matter how good it is. Using GNU/Linux and CrossOver Office
(which is included in Xandros Desktop, and soon, SuSE's new Office Desktop),
you can run Office 2000, the same version you already know and everyone else
is using, again eliminating costly retraining needs. If, you don't need
Office, you can also take advantage of the extremely robust OpenOffice.org
suite, which just happens to be included in every major distribution. To
stave off the inevitable e-mails, yes, I know OpenOffice.org is available
for Mac OS X, but it isn't a stable release yet - and it sticks out like a
sore thumb in that environment. Why switch to Mac OS X to use an unstable
office suite that doesn't work like the rest of the environment, when you
can get a stable version for Linux that works just like other Linux
applications.
In the end, the point is not whether or not Mac OS X can serve a particular
"speciality" community best (such as publishing), but rather if it can serve
the average user best. So far, no one has been able to argue that this is
the case, and for good reason - the average user is unlikely to need any
features that Mac OS X has that GNU/Linux does not.
And if that's the case, why choose a proprietary - and expensive - system
over one that is Free as in both freedom and price?
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
