Maybe he should be following his own advice

Maybe PCPro should try quoting in context.

"Ooo, how can we make this non-story into a good headline?"

He’s right. Software developers need to find out how people use their software, and adapt it to their needs in future editions.

Am I the only one who thought they meant John?


As to the article, as rustybucket says it bares no connection to the daft headline.

I wondered what John Shuttleworth was doing in a tech debate? Then I remember the South African one. Linux developers have just as much right to say what they want as anyone here. If they need feedback then they also need to listen.

The linux interface and whole user experience has to be simpler for the average person to be able to use. No command line stuff or terminal to fix things. It needs to be as Windows like as possible for the average user to switch.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there

AFA I'm concerned, the developer's job is to make the software that the customer wants. The developer's opinions should be restricted to how to make it work.

ATM, the OSS ecosystem is littered with examples of software that was written to satisfy the requirements of the developer. That's okay if the developer isn't interested in widespread uptake. However, if that software is to gain traction the developer must disconnect emotionally and learn to craft the software that others will want to use.

The situation at present is rather like the old joke:

Tourist: Can you tell me how to get to Leeds?
Yorkshire farmer: Well, if I were you, I wouldn't start from here!

You must always make your product with reference to where your recipient is, not from where you want them to be. Life would be so much easier if everybody was at home in the CLI; for many, however, the CLI is completely obtuse and indecipherable and as such a deal-breaker.

IMO, if I have to use the help files to accomplish basic operations, or if those basic operations can't be done with the mouse in 4 clicks or fewer then the software is crap.

its about time someone stated the blindly obvious …

Yes but I think that I stated the bleeding obvious last year on the Dennis forums re Linux going more mainstream. Though it would be better coming from someone with clout in the linux community.

If the apps are solely for the developer then they can do what they want as to usability. They are the only ones who use it. Though for apps on general release then they do need to consider usability very much more.

I’d add that on the Dennis forums, I posted a lengthy post about what was wrong with Linux, following my intial experiences installing Ubuntu on Parallels on my Mac. In short (and to reflect others here):

• The Terminal should NOT be the first port of call to fix a problem - I remember having to tell Linux the kind of keyboard I have, and screen dimensions I wanted to use. I had to use the Terminal to do this. Hint: when did you last use a Terminal type app on a Mac or a Windows machine to set basic (or even fairly complex) things up? If you typed “never” I bet you are with a good 99% o the computer using population.

• Help and Support - needs to be handled by people who don’t assume that if you have to ask, you are too stupid to use the system. Basically, see what Microsoft and Apple are doing support + help wise, and do the same.

It’s not consumer friendly, and it HAS to be to even want to compete with Apple and Micrsoft.

The Terminal is usually my first port of call because it offers unrivalled tinkering options. The GUI in any OS is severely limited by comparison.

The more technical options are often only available at the command line. As a technical person, I have a Windows CMD shortcut on the quick-launch bar just to save me that extra click.

However, my Mum has no need to go there. I'm pretty sure she wouldn't need it under Ububtu or OS X either. She doesn't want to tinker; she just wants to work.



What century was that in? I've never needed to use a terminal window to do anything my Mum would want to do on any OS in the last decade

Ubuntu Linux. Around two years ago. Don’t forget I had to wade through several forums full of Linux-geek “attitude” before I found the answers I needed to solve the problems. Problems which should not have existed from the start.

That should not be the case. There would be a huge demand for a simple GUI that with a simple options list actually processed scripts that made changes via terminal without the user even seeing. Making the whole process more useable is the objective. If this boosts linux usage then all linux users gain. Eventually more commercial packages and games will be made for linux and that will encourage more users. With more users it increases the employment opportunities for linux specialists.

But this is exactly the same in OS X and Windows. The common configuration tasks are on the GUI. Those that most people don't need or use are dumped on the command line. If you added all of the configuration options for OS X into the system preferences pain, you'd have to scroll it on a 1920x1200 display!

Tools which the average users don't need, or shouldn't play with, if they don't know what they are doing, are relegated to a place where they are unlikely to f**k up their machine. The administrators and people who know what they are doing will research how to use those options and configure them - this is often advanced networking features, group policies etc. which the average user just doesn't need to know about.









Those are probably the tools I use the most on OS X and Windows when tracking down problems. Apple provide Network Utility to make this a little easier, but all the advanced options listed above are missing from the utility, but the average user might be able to cope with Network Utility, but start talking about sub nets and interfaces and address families and they will give you a blank stare, so there wasn't much point putting the options in the GUI.