查看“Linux不是Windows/zh”的源代码

{{Translation}}
{{From|http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm}}
{{Translator|laborer  ekeng}}
{{Verifier|Leal}}
{{Languages|Linux不是Windows}}

<center class="">
<p><i>以下文章中，我将用一个词Linux来囊括GNU/Linux操作系统和各种FOSS（译注：自由和开源软件，Free / Open Source Software）项目，这样读起来会顺畅些。
</i>
</p>
<h1>[[image:tux.png]] != [[image:windows.png]]
<br>
(Linux不是Windows)</h1>
<p style="text-align: center;"><small>[http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2005/12/31/derived_works_aamp_translations Derived works]</small></p>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">

如果你在看此文,对于一个对Linux有太多疑问的Linux新手来说,这会是使你一步一步从Windows 转换到Linux.的机会.对于很多人这会产生很多问题,因此才有了这篇文章.
许多个别问题源于这个问题,所以本文细分为多方面的问题.</span></p>



<h3><b><span style="">问题 一: Linux跟 Windows根本不一样.</span></b></h3>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">


你会很惊讶这么多人有这样的抱怨,他们使用Linux,只是期望找到一个基本是 [http://www.reactos.com/  免费的,开源的Windows版本.] 很多时候,这都是那些过度热衷于Linux的使用者告诉他们的. 但是,这只是似是而非的希望.
</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">
人们尝试Linux的原因多种多样，但是普遍的原因归总起来就一条：他们希望linux会比windows更优秀。通常用以衡量（linux的）成功的标准是成本、选择权、性能和安全性。（当然）还有许多其它的（标准）。但是每一个尝试Linux的Windows用户都是（从这些方面考虑），因为他们希望Linux在这些方面胜过他们（从Windows）得到的。
</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">
这正是问题之所在。</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">从逻辑上来讲，不可能在保持一样东西完全等效的情况下而把它做得更好。一个完美的拷贝可能是等价的，但是它不可能有超越。所以当你尝试Linux而希望它能够做的更好，你无可避免的发现它会不同。太多的人都忽略了这么一个事实，并且把两个操作系统之间的不同看作是Linux的不足。</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">
说一个简单的例子，想一想驱动程序的升级吧：典型的情况下某人在windows下升级一个硬件的驱动，它需要去硬件制造商的网站下载新的驱动；然而在Linux下你（只是）需要升级你的内核。</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">
这意味着在Linux下一次下载和升级会给你提供（所有）你的机器适用的最新驱动程序，然而在Windows下你却不得不浏览多个网站并分别下载升级程序。这是一个完全不同的过程，不过当然这样也不坏。但是很多人却抱怨这一点，因为这不是他们习惯的方式。</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal">
还有，另一个你接触得更多的例子，想一想Firefox：开源软件的伟大成功故事中的一个。一个席卷全球的网络浏览器。它是通过模仿IE，那个“最流行的浏览器”而取得成功的吗？
</p>

<p class="MsoNormal">
不是的，它更加成功是因为它比IE <span style="font-style: italic;">更好</span> ， 它之所以 <span style="font-style: italic;">更好</span> 是因为它 <span style="font-style: italic;">不同</span>. 它有标签式浏览，实时书签，内建搜索条，PNG支持，adblock扩展，以及其他美妙的东西。 它能在底部显示一个<span style="font-style: italic;">"查找"</span>工具条，它能够查找你键入的内容并且以红色显示出相符的内容。 IE没有标签页浏览，没有RSS功能，搜索条仅仅能通过第三方扩展实现，它的查找对话框还得通过点击 <span style="font-style: italic;">"确认"</span>按钮开始查找，而且还要点击<span style="font-style: italic;">"确认"</span>才能清除<span style="font-style: italic;">"未发现" </span>错误提示。这是一个清楚的无可置疑的证明，它证明了一个开源应用程序通过“不同”而做到了“更好”，靠“更好”而取得了成功。如果FF是一个IE的克隆，它将会消逝得微不足道。如果Linux是一个Windows的克隆，同样的事情也会发生在Linux身上。<span style="">
</span></p>

<p><span style="">
那么解决问题一的方案：记住Linux中那些相对你的习惯来说熟悉的和相同的部分，Linux <span style="font-weight: bold;">不是</span> 新版的 &amp; 改进版的（windows）。 欢迎来到这个什么都不一样的地方，因为只有这里它才有机会变得杰出。</span></p>

<h3><span style=""></span><span style=""><b>问题二 : Linux和Windows <span style="font-style: italic;">太</span>不一样了</b></span></h3>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">
接下来的一个问题是当人们能够预期Linux的不同时，却发现有一些差异实在是太激进以至超过了他们的喜好程度。也许最典型的例子就是可供linux用户的选择实在是太多了。一个初用的Windows用户有一个经典或XP风格的桌面，并且已经安装有一个写字板程序，Internet  Explorer浏览器，Outlook Express程序，然而一个初用Linux的用户却有上百种发行版可以选择，于是就有Gnome或者KDE或者Fluxbox或者什么的桌面，Vi或者emacs或者kate什么的文字处理软件，Konqueror或者Opera或者Firefox或者Mozilla浏览器，如此等等不一而足。</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">
windows用户不曾为了得到和运行（一个OS）而作出过如此丰富的选择， <i>"有必要有那么多种选项吗?"</i> 这样的恼火帖子很常见。</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Linux<i><span style="">真的</span></i><span style="">和Windows有那么大的区别吗？不管怎么说，它们都是操作系统。它们都做同样的工作：操作你的计算机，让你有个东西运行你的应用程序，自然它们多少都有些共通的地方吧？ </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">让我们从这个角度看问题：出门看看路上行驶的各种不同的车辆。所有的车辆不管是什么样的设计多少都有同样的目的：从路上把你由A处运到B处。注意它们有不同的设计。</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">但是你会想，汽车之间的差异非常小：它们都有方向盘，脚踏板，变速杆，手闸，车窗和车门，油箱……如果你能够开这部车，你就能开任何一部车！</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">确实如此。但是你没看见过有些人不开汽车，取而代之他们骑摩托车？</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">从一个版本的windows切换到另一个版本就像从一辆汽车换到另外一辆汽车。Win95到Win98，老实说我说不出什么区别。Win98到WinXp，区别比较大但是也没有什么真正的重大区别。</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">但是从windows切换到Linux就象从开汽车切换到骑摩托车。他们都是<b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">操作系统/道路车辆</b><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">.</span> 他们可能都使用同样的 <b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">硬件/道路</b><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">.</span> 他们可能都 <b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">提供一个运行应用程序的环境/把你从A处运到B处</b><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">.</span>但是他们从本质上使用不同的方法达到这样的目的。</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);"><span style="">Windows/汽车</span></b><span style="">对于<b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">病毒/小偷</b>并不安全，除非你<b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">安装反病毒软件/锁上车门</b><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">. </span><b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Linux/摩托车</b>却没有<b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">病毒/车门</b>,所以即使你没有<b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">安装反病毒软件/锁车门</b><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">.</span></span></p>也非常安全。

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Or look
at it the
other way round:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);"><span style="">Linux/cars</span></b><span style="">
were designed from the ground up for
multiple <b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">users/passengers</b><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">. </span><b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Windows/motorbikes</b>
were designed for
one <b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">user/passenger</b>.
Every <b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Windows
user/motorbike driver</b><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">
</span>is used
to being in full control of his <b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">computer/vehicle</b>

at
all times. A <b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Linux
user/car passenger</b> is used to only being in control of his <b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">computer/vehicle</b>
when <b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">logged in as
root/sitting in the driver's seat</b>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Two
different
approaches to fulfilling the same goal. They differ in fundamental
ways. They
have different strengths and weaknesses: A car is the clear winner at
transporting a family &amp; a lot of cargo from A to B: More seats
&amp; more
storage space. A motorbike is the clear winner at getting one person
from A to B:
Less affected by congestion and uses less fuel.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">There are
many
things that <b>don't</b> change when you switch between
cars and motorbikes:
You still have to put petrol in the tank, you still have to drive on
the same
roads, you still have to obey the traffic lights and Stop signs, you
still have
to indicate before turning, you still have to obey the same speed
limits.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">But there
are also many
things that <b>do</b> change: Car drivers don't have to
wear crash helmets,
motorbike drivers don't have to put on a seatbelt. Car drivers have to
turn the
steering wheel to get around a corner, motorbike drivers have to lean
over. Car
drivers accelerate by pushing a foot-pedal, motorbike drivers
accelerate by
twisting a hand control.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">A
motorbike driver
who tries to corner a car by leaning over is going to run into problems
very
quickly. And Windows users who try to use <b>their</b>
existing skills and
habits generally also find themselves having many issues. In fact,
Windows
"Power Users" frequently have <i>more</i> problems with
Linux than
people with little or no computer experience, for this very reason.
Typically,
the most vehement <i>"Linux is not ready for the desktop yet"</i>
arguments come from ingrained Windows users who reason that if <b>they</b>

couldn't make the switch, a less-experienced user has no chance. But
this is
the exact opposite of the truth.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">So, to
avoid problem
#2: Don't assume that being a knowledgeable Windows user means you're a
knowledgeable Linux user: When you first start with Linux, you are a
novice.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""></span></p>

<h3><b><span style="">Problem #3: Culture shock</span></b><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></h3>
<h3><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subproblem #3a: There <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> a culture</span><b><span style=""></span></b><span style=""></span></h3>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Windows
users are
more or less in a customer-supplier relationship: They pay for
software, for
warranties, for support, and so on. They expect software to have a
certain
level of usability. They are therefore used to having rights with their
software: They have paid for technical support and have every right to
demand
that they receive it. They are also used to dealing with entities
rather than
people: Their contracts are with a company, not with a person.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Linux
users are in
more of a community. They don't have to buy the software, they don't
have to
pay for technical support. They download software for free &amp;
use Instant
Messaging and web-based forums to get help. They deal with people, not
corporations.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">A Windows
user will
not endear himself by bringing his habitual&nbsp;attitudes over to
Linux, to
put it mildly.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">The
biggest cause of
friction tends to be in the online interactions: A "3a" user new to
Linux asks
for help with a problem he's having. When he doesn't get that help at
what he
considers an acceptable rate, he starts complaining and demanding more
help.
Because that's what he's used to doing with paid-for tech support.
The
problem&nbsp;is
that this <i>isn't</i> paid-for support. This is a bunch
of volunteers who are
willing to help people with problems out of the goodness of their
hearts. The
new user has no right to demand anything from them, any more than
somebody
collecting for charity can demand larger donations from contributors.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">In much
the same way, a
Windows user is used to using commercial software. Companies don't
release
software until it's reliable, functional, and user-friendly enough. So
this is
what a Windows user tends to expect from software: It starts at version
1.0.&nbsp;Linux
software,
however, tends to get released almost as soon as it's written: It
starts at
version 0.1. This way, people who really need the functionality can get
it
ASAP; interested developers can get involved in helping improve the
code; and
the community as a whole stays aware of what's going on.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">If a "3a"
user runs
into trouble with Linux, he'll complain: The software hasn't met his
standards,
and he thinks he has a right to expect that standard. His mood won't be
improved when he gets sarcastic replies like <i>"I'd demand a
refund if I
were you"</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">So, to
avoid problem
#3a: Simply remember that you haven't paid the developer who wrote the
software
or the people online who provide the tech support. They don't owe you
anything.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""></span><b><span style=""></span></b></p>

3.其他问题:这是一种文化

  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">WINDOWS用户或多或少的处在一种消费者和提供者的关系,他们花钱买软件,获得授权,得到支持等等.他们希望软件能够有明确的可用性.因此他们习惯得到使用软件的权利,他们花钱去得到技术上的支持以及他们需要的权利,他们也得到了.他们也经常要与一些实体打交道:例如他们与一家公司签一份合同，而不是个人.
     
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">LINUX用户有着更多的一致性.他们不需要花钱去买软件,不需要为得到技术上的支持而耗费财力.他们免费下载软件,并且利用快速通信和到论坛去寻求帮助.他们和个人打交道,而不是公司.

   <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">一个Windows的用户如果只是把他的观点带到Linux中,那么他是不会喜欢上Linux的.要慢慢的改变观点. 

   <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">引起矛盾的最大原因是在在线交流方面:一个刚刚用Linux的3a用户在遇到问题时寻求帮助,当他没有得到他可以接受的答案的时候，他便开始抱怨并且想要得到更多的帮助.因为这正是他以前用付费的来获得帮助的方式.问题就是这不是付费提供帮助的系统.而是很多热心人发自内心的帮助其他人解决问题的系统.一个新的用户没有任何权利去向这些热心人索要帮助,这就如同一个想要得到施舍的人,还要求从捐赠者那里获得更多的捐赠品一样.

  <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">相同的，一个Windows用户习惯了使用商业软件. 这些软件在没有做到足够的可靠性,功能性和对用户友好的截面前,公司是不会开放代码的.这正是Windows用户期待Linux下的软件的原因,从Linux1.0版本的软件开始,用户就希望尽快得到开放的代码.这样,真正需要这些的人就会很快的得到它,并且这也使开发者会在提高代码这方面感兴趣,因此整个团体就会知道接下来要做什么了.

   <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">如果一个3a用户在使用Linux时遇到了困难,他会抱怨:这个软件没能满足我的需求.并且他认为他有权利得到这样的满足.他的情绪将会有所改进,如果他等到这样的带有讽刺性的回答:如果我是你,我要求退款!

 <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">所以,对于3a用户,为了避免这些问题,应做到:只要记住,你并没有付给那些软件开发者或者在线帮你提供技术指导的人任何钱.他们并不欠你任何东西.

<h3><b><span style="">Subproblem #3b: New vs. Old</span></b><span style=""></span></h3>

<p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;Linux pretty
much started out life as a
hacker's hobby. It grew as it attracted more hobbyist hackers. It was
quite some time before anybody but a geek stood a chance of getting a
useable Linux installation working easily. Linux started out&nbsp;<span style="font-style: italic;">"By geeks, for geeks."</span>
And even today, the majority of established Linux users are
self-confessed geeks.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And that's a pretty good
thing: If you've got
a problem with hardware or software, having a large number of geeks
available to work on the solution is a definite plus.&nbsp;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But Linux has grown up
quite a bit since its
early days. There are distros that almost anybody can install, even
distros that live on CDs and detect all your hardware for you without <span style="font-style: italic;">any</span>
intervention. It's become attractive to non-hobbyist users who are just
interested in it because it's virus-free and cheap to upgrade. It's not
uncommon for
there to be friction
between the two camps. It's important to bear in mind, however, that
there's no real malice on either side: It's lack of understanding that
causes the problems.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firstly, you get the
hard-core geeks who
still assume that everybody using Linux is a fellow geek. This means
they expect a high level of knowledge, and often leads to accusations
of arrogance,
elitism, and rudeness. And in truth, sometimes that's what it is. But
quite often, it's not:&nbsp;It's elitist to say&nbsp;<span style="font-style: italic;">"Everybody ought to know this"</span>.
It's not elitist to say&nbsp;<span style="font-style: italic;">"Everybody
knows this"</span> - quite the opposite.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="MsoNormal">Secondly,&nbsp;you get
the new users who're trying to make the switch after a lifetime of
using commercial OSes. These users are used to software that anybody
can sit down &amp; use, out-of-the-box.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The issues arise
because&nbsp;group 1 is made up of people who enjoy being able to
tear their OS apart and rebuild it the way they like it, while group 2
tends to be indifferent to the way the OS works, so long as it <span style="font-style: italic;">does</span> work.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A parallel situation that
can emphasize the problems is Lego. Picture the following:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">New: <span style="font-style: italic;">I wanted a new toy car, and
everybody's raving about how great Lego cars can be. So I bought some
Lego, but when I got home, I just had a load of bricks and cogs and
stuff in the box. Where's my car??</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Old: <span style="font-style: italic;">You have to build the car out of
the bricks. That's the whole point of Lego.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal">New: <span style="font-style: italic;">What?? I don't know how to build
a car. I'm not a mechanic. How am I supposed to know how to put it all
together??</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Old: <span style="font-style: italic;">There's a leaflet that came in
the box. It tells you exactly how to put the bricks together to get a
toy car. You don't need to know how, you just need to follow the
instructions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">New: <span style="font-style: italic;">Okay, I found the instructions.
It's going to take me hours! Why can't they just sell it as a toy car,
instead of making you have to build it??</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Old: <span style="font-style: italic;">Because not everybody wants to
make a toy car with Lego. It can be made into anything we like. That's
the whole point.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">New: <span style="font-style: italic;">I still don't see why they can't
supply it as a car so people who want a car have got one, and other
people can take it apart if they want to. Anyway, I finally got it put
together, but some bits come off occasionally. What do I do about this?
Can I glue it?</span></p>
Old: <span style="font-style: italic;">It's Lego. It's
designed to come apart. That's the whole point.</span>

<p class="MsoNormal">New: <span style="font-style: italic;">But I don't <span style="font-weight: bold;">want</span> it to come
apart. I just want a toy car!</span></p>
Old: <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Then why on Earth did you buy a
box of Lego??</span></span>
<p class="MsoNormal">It's clear to just about anybody that
Lego is not really aimed at
people who just want a toy car. You don't get conversations like the
above in real life. The whole point of Lego
is that you have fun building it and you can make anything you like
with it. If
you've no interest in building anything, Lego's not for you. This is
quite obvious.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As far as the long-time Linux user is
concerned, the same holds true for Linux: It's an open-source,
fully-customizeable set of software. That's the whole point. If you
don't want to hack the components a bit, why bother to use it?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But there's been a lot of effort
lately to make Linux more suitable for the non-hackers, a situation
that's not a million miles away from selling pre-assembled Lego kits,
in order to make it appeal to a wider audience. Hence you get
conversations that aren't far away from the ones above:
Newcomers&nbsp;complain about the existence of what the established
users consider to be fundamental features, and resent having the read a
manual to get something working. &nbsp;But complaining that there
are too many distros; or that software has too
many configuration options; or that it doesn't work perfectly
out-of-the-box; is like complaining that Lego can be made into too many
models, and not liking the fact that it can be broken down into bricks
and built into&nbsp;many other things.</p>

<p class="MsoNormal">So, to avoid problem #3b: Just
remember that what Linux seems to be now is <span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span>
what Linux was in the past. The largest and most necessary part of the
Linux community, the hackers and the developers, like Linux <span style="font-weight: bold;">because</span> they can fit
it together the way they like; they don't like it in <span style="font-weight: bold;">spite</span> of having to
do all the assembly before they can use it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<h3><span style="font-weight: bold;">Problem #4: Designed for the designer</span></h3>

<p class="MsoNormal">In the car industry, you'll very
rarely find that
the person who designed the engine also designed the car interior: It
calls for totally different skills. Nobody wants an engine that only <span style="font-style: italic;">looks</span> like it can
go fast, and nobody wants an interior that works superbly but is
cramped and ugly. And
in the same way, in the software industry, the user interface (UI) is
not usually created by the people who wrote the software.</p>

<p class="MsoNormal">In the Linux world, however, this is
not so much
the case: Projects frequently start out as one man's toy. He does
everything himself, and therefore the interface has no need of any kind
of <span style="font-style: italic;">"user friendly"</span>
features:
The user knows everything there is to know about the software, he
doesn't need help. Vi is a good example of software deliberately
created for a user who already knows how it works: It's not unheard of
for new users to reboot their computers because they couldn't figure
out
how else to get out of vi.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, there is an important
difference between
a FOSS programmer and most commercial software writers: The software a
FOSS programmer creates is software that he intends to use. So whilst
the end result might not be as 'comfortable' for the novice user, they
can draw some comfort in knowing that the software is designed by
somebody who knows what the end-users needs are: He too is an end-user.
This is very different from commercial software writers, who are making
software for <span style="font-style: italic;">other
people</span> to use: They are <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> knowledgeable
end-users.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So whilst vi has an interface that is
hideously
unfriendly to new users, it is still in use today because it is such a
superb interface once you know how it works. Firefox was created by
people who regularly browse the Web. The Gimp was built by people who
use it to manipulate graphics files. And so on.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So Linux interfaces are frequently a
bit of a
minefield for the novice: Despite its popularity, vi should never be
considered by a new user who just wants to quickly make a few changes
to a file. And if you're using software early in its lifecycle,
a&nbsp;polished, user-friendly interface is something you're likely
to
find only in the <span style="font-style: italic;">"ToDo"</span>

list: Functionality comes first. Nobody designs
a killer interface and then tries to add functionality bit by bit. They
create functionality, and then improve the interface bit by bit.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So to avoid #4 issues: Look for
software that's
specifically aimed at being easy for new users to use, or accept that
some software that has a steeper learning curve than you're used to. To
complain that vi isn't friendly enough for new users is to be laughed
at for missing the point.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>

<h3>Problem #5: The myth of "user-friendly"</h3>

<p>This is a big one. It's a very big term in the computing
world,
"user-friendly". It's even the name of a particularly good webcomic.
But it's a bad term.</p>
<p>The basic concept is good: That software be designed with the
needs
of the user in mind. But it's always addressed as a single concept,
which it isn't.&nbsp;</p>
If you spend your entire life processing text files, your ideal
software will be fast and powerful, enabling you to do the maximum
amount of work for the minimum amount of effort. Simple keyboard
shortcuts and mouseless operation will be of vital importance.<br>
<p>But if you very rarely edit text files, and you just want to
write
an occasional letter, the last thing you want is to struggle with
learning keyboard shortcuts. Well-organized menus and clear icons in
toolbars will be your ideal.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Clearly, software designed around the needs of the first user
will
not be suitable for the second, and vice versa. So how can any software
be called "user-friendly", if we all have different needs?</p>

<p>The simple answer: User-friendly is a misnomer, and one that
makes a complex situation seem simple.</p>
<p>What does "user-friendly" really mean? Well, in the context in
which it is used, "user friendly" software means <span style="font-style: italic;">"Software that can be used to a
reasonable level of competence by a user with no previous experience of
the&nbsp;software."</span> This has the unfortunate effect of
making lousy-but-familiar interfaces&nbsp;fall into the category of
"user-friendly".&nbsp;</p>
<p></p>
<h3>Subproblem #5a: Familiar is friendly</h3>
<p>So it is that in most "user-friendly" text editors &amp;
word
processors, you Cut and Paste by using Ctrl-X and Ctrl-V. Totally
unintuitive, but everybody's used to these combinations, so they count
as a "friendly" combination.</p>
<p>So when somebody comes to vi and finds that it's "d<span style="font-style: italic;"></span>" to cut, and "p"
to paste, it's not considered
friendly: It's
not what anybody is used to.</p>

<p>Is it superior? Well, actually, yes.&nbsp;</p>
<p>With the Ctrl-X approach, how do you cut a word from the
document you're currently in? <span style="font-style: italic;">(No
using the mouse!)</span></p>
From the start of the word, <span style="font-style: italic;">Ctrl-Shift-Right</span>
to select the word.&nbsp;<br>
Then <span style="font-style: italic;">Ctrl-X</span>
to cut it.
<p>The vi approach? <span style="font-style: italic;">dw</span>

deletes the word.</p>
<p>How about cutting <span style="font-weight: bold;">five</span>
words with a Ctrl-X application?</p>
From the start of the words, <span style="font-style: italic;">Ctrl-Shift-Right</span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">Ctrl-Shift-</span><span style="font-style: italic;">Right</span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">Ctrl-Shift-</span><span style="font-style: italic;">Right</span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">Ctrl-Shift-</span><span style="font-style: italic;">Right</span><br>

<span style="font-style: italic;">Ctrl-Shift-</span><span style="font-style: italic;">Right</span><br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">Ctrl-X</span>
<p>And with vi?</p>
<p><span style="font-style: italic;">d5w</span></p>
<p>The vi approach is far more versatile and actually
more&nbsp;intuitive: "X" and "V" are not obvious or memorable "Cut"
and "Paste" commands, whereas "dw" to <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">d</span>elete
a <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">w</span>ord,
and "p" to <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">p</span>ut
it back is perfectly straightforward. But "X" and "V" are what we all
know, so whilst vi is clearly superior, it's unfamiliar.
Ergo, it
is considered unfriendly. On no other basis, pure familiarity makes a
Windows-like interface seem friendly. And as we learned in problem #1,
Linux
is necessarily different to Windows. Inescapably, Linux always appears
less
"user-friendly" than Windows.&nbsp;</p>

<p>To avoid #5a problems, all you can really do is try and
remember
that <span style="font-style: italic;">"user-friendly"</span>
doesn't mean <span style="font-style: italic;">"What I'm
used to"</span>: Try doing things
your usual way, and if it doesn't work, try and work out what a total
novice would do.&nbsp;</p>
<p></p>
<h3>Subproblem #5b: Inefficient is friendly</h3>
<p>This is a sad but inescapable fact. Paradoxically, the harder
you
make it to access an application's functionality, the friendlier it can
seem to be.&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is because friendliness is added to an interface by using
simple, visible 'clues' - the more, the better. After all, if a
complete novice to computers is put in front of a WYSIWYG word
processor and asked to make a bit of text bold, which is more likely:</p>
<ul>
  <li>He'll guess that <span style="font-style: italic;">"Ctrl-B"</span>

is the usual standard&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
<ul>
  <li>He'll look for clues, and try clicking on the <span style="font-style: italic;">"Edit"</span> menu.
Unsuccessful, he'll try the next likely one along the row of menus: <span style="font-style: italic;">"Format"</span>. The new
menu has a <span style="font-style: italic;">"Font"</span>
option, which seems promising. And Hey! There's our <span style="font-style: italic;">"Bold"</span> option.
Success!</li>

</ul>
<p>Next time you do any processing, try doing every job via the
menus:
No shortcut keys, and no toolbar icons. Menus all the way. You'll find
you slow to a crawl, as every task suddenly demands a multitude of
keystrokes/mouseclicks.</p>
Making software "user-friendly" in this fashion is like putting
training wheels on a bicycle: It lets you get up &amp; running
immediately, without any skill or experience needed. It's <span style="font-style: italic;">perfect</span> for a
beginner. But nobody out there thinks that <span style="font-style: italic;">all</span> bicycles should
be sold
with
training wheels: If you were given such a bicycle today, I'll wager the
first
thing you'd do is remove them for being unnecessary encumbrances:
Once you know how to ride a bike, training wheels are unnecessary.
<p>And in the same way, a great deal of Linux software is
designed
without "training wheels" - it's designed for users who already have
some basic skills in place. After all, nobody's a permanent novice:
Ignorance is short-lived, and knowledge is forever. So the software is
designed with the majority in mind.&nbsp;</p>
<p>This might seem an excuse: After
all, MS Word has all the friendly menus, <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> it has toolbar
buttons,

<span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> it has
shortcut keys. . . Best of all worlds, surely?
Friendly&nbsp;<span style="font-weight: bold;">and</span>
efficient.</p>
<p>However, this has to be put into perspective: Firstly, the
practicalities: having menus and toolbars and shortcuts and all would
mean a lot of coding, and it's not like Linux developers all get paid
for their time.&nbsp;Secondly, it still doesn't really take into
account
serious&nbsp;power-users: Very few professional wordsmiths use MS
Word. Ever meet a coder who used MS Word? Compare that to how
many use emacs &amp; vi.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Why is this? Firstly, because some "friendly"
behaviour rules out efficient behaviour: See the "Cut&amp;Copy"
example
above. And secondly, because most of Word's functionality is buried in
menus that you <span style="font-style: italic;">have</span>

to use:
Only the most common functionality has those handy little buttons in
toolbars at the top. The less-used functions that are still vital for
serious users just take too long to access.</p>
<p>Something to bear in mind, however, is that "training wheels"
are
often available as "optional extras" for Linux software: They might not
be obvious, but frequently they're available.</p>
<p>Take mplayer. You use it to play a video file by typing <span style="font-style: italic;">mplayer filename</span>
in a terminal. You fastforward &amp; rewind using the arrow keys
and
the PageUp &amp; PageDown keys. This is not overly "user-friendly".
However, if you instead type <span style="font-style: italic;">gmplayer
filename</span>, you'll get the graphical frontend, with all its
nice, friendly , familiar buttons.</p>
<p>Take ripping a CD to MP3 (or Ogg): Using the command-line, you
need
to use cdparanoia to rip the files to disc. Then you need
an&nbsp;encoder. . . It's a hassle, even if you know exactly how to
use the
packages <span style="font-style: italic;">(imho)</span>.
So download

&amp; install something like Grip. This is an easy-to-use graphical
frontend that uses cdparanoia and encoders behind-the-scenes to make it
really easy to rip CDs, and even has CDDB support to name the files
automatically for you.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The same goes for ripping DVDs: The number of options to pass
to
transcode is a bit of a nightmare. But using dvd::rip to talk to
transcode for you makes the whole thing a simple, GUI-based process
which anybody can do.</p>
<p>So to avoid #5b issues: Remember that "training wheels" tend
to
be&nbsp;bolt-on extras in Linux, rather than being automatically
supplied with the main product. And sometimes, "training wheels" just
can't be part of the design.</p>
<p></p>
<h3>Problem #6: Imitation vs. Convergence</h3>
<p>An argument people often make when they find that Linux isn't
the Windows clone they wanted is to insist that this is what Linux has
been (or <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span>
have been) attempting to be since it was created, and that people who
don't
recognise this and help to make Linux more Windows-like are in the
wrong. They draw on many arguments for this:</p>
<p style="font-style: italic;">Linux has gone from
Command-Line- to Graphics-based interfaces, a clear attempt to copy
Windows</p>

<p>Nice theory, but false: The original X windowing system was
released in 1984, as the successor to the W windowing system ported to
Unix in 1983. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985. Windows didn't really
make it
big until version 3, released in 1990 - by which time, X windows had
for years been at the X11 stage we use today. Linux itself was only
started in 1991. So Linux didn't create a GUI to copy Windows: It
simply made use of a GUI that existed long before Windows.</p>
<p style="font-style: italic;">Windows 3 gave way to
Windows 95 - making a huge level of
changes to the UI that Microsoft has never equalled since. It had many
new &amp; innovative features: Drag &amp; drop functionality;
taskbars,
and so on. All of which have since been copied by Linux, of course.</p>
<p>Actually. . . no. All the above existed prior to Microsoft
making use
of them. NeXTSTeP in particular was a hugely advanced (for the time)
GUI, and it predated Win95 significantly - version 1 released in 1989,
and the final version in 1995. </p>
<p style="font-style: italic;">Okay, okay, so Microsoft
didn't think up the individual features that we think of as the Windows
Look-and-Feel. But it still created <strong>a</strong>
Look-and-Feel, and Linux has been trying to imitate that ever since.</p>
<p>To debunk this, one must discuss the concept of <em>convergent
evolution</em>.
This is where two completely different and independent systems evolve
over time to become very similar. It happens all the time in biology.
For example, sharks and dolphins. Both are (typically) fish-eating
marine organisms of about the same size. Both have dorsal fins,
pectoral fins, tail fins, and similar, streamlined shapes.</p>

<p>However,
sharks evolved from fish, while dolphins evolved from a land-based
quadrupedal mammal of some sort. The reason they have very similar
overall appearances is that they both evolved to be as efficient as
possible at living within a marine environment. At no stage did
pre-dolphins (the relative newcomers) look at sharks and think <em>"Wow,
look at those fins. They work really well. I'll try and evolve some
myself!"</em></p>
<p>Similarly,
it's perfectly true to look at early Linux desktops and see FVWM and
TWM and a lot of other simplistic GUIs. And then look at modern Linux
desktops, and see Gnome &amp; KDE with their taskbars and menus and
eye-candy. And yes, it's true to say that they're a lot more like
Windows than they used to be.</p>
<p>But then, so is Windows: Windows 3.0 had no taskbar that I
remember. And the Start menu? <span style="font-style: italic;">What</span>
Start menu?</p>
<p>Linux didn't have a desktop anything like modern Windows.
Microsoft didn't either. Now they both do. What does this tell us?</p>
<p>It
tells us that developers in both camps looked for ways of improving the
GUI, and because there are only a limited number of solutions to a
problem, they often used very similar methods. Similarity does not in
any way prove or imply imitation. Remembering that will help you avoid
straying into problem #6 territory.</p>
<p></p>

<h3>Problem #7: That FOSS thing.</h3>
<p>Oh, this causes problems. Not intrinsically: The software
being free and open-source is a wonderful and immensely important part
of the whole thing. But understanding just how different FOSS is from
proprietary software can be too big an adjustment for some people to
make.&nbsp;</p>
<p>I've already mentioned some instances of this: People thinking
they can demand technical support and the like. But it goes far beyond
that.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Microsoft's Mission Statement is <span style="font-style: italic;">"A computer on every desktop"</span>
- with the unspoken rider that each computer should be running Windows.
Microsoft and Apple both sell operating systems, and both do their
utmost to make sure their products get used by the largest number of
people: They're businesses, out to make money.</p>
<p>And then there is FOSS. Which, even today, is almost entirely
non-commercial.</p>
<p>Before you reach for your email client to tell me about Red
Hat, Suse, Linspire and all:&nbsp;Yes, I know they "sell" Linux. I
know they'd all love Linux to be
adopted universally, especially their own flavour of it. But don't
confuse the suppliers with the manufacturers. The
Linux kernel was not created by a company, and is not maintained by
people out to make a profit with it. The GNU tools were not created by
a company, and are not maintained by people out to make a profit with
them. The X11 windowing system. . . well, the most popular
implementation is xorg right now, and the <span style="font-style: italic;">".org"</span> part should
tell you
all you need to know. Desktop software: Well, you might be able to make
a case for KDE being commercial, since it's Qt-based. But Gnome,
Fluxbox, Enlightenment, etc. are all non-profit. There <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> people out to
sell Linux, but they are very much the minority.</p>

<p>Increasing the number of end-users of proprietary software
leads to a direct financial benefit to the company that makes it. This
is simply not the case for FOSS: There is no direct benefit to any FOSS
developer in increasing the userbase. Indirect benefits, yes: Personal
pride; an increased potential for finding bugs; more likelihood of
attracting new developers; possibly a chance of a good job offer; and
so on.&nbsp;</p>
<p>But Linus Torvalds doesn't make money from increased Linux
usage. Richard Stallman doesn't get money from increased GNU usage. All
those servers running OpenBSD and OpenSSH don't put a penny into the
OpenBSD project's pockets. And so we come to the biggest problem of all
when it comes to new users and Linux:</p>
<p>They find out they're not wanted.</p>
<p>New users come to Linux after spending their lives using an OS
where the end-user's needs are paramount, and <span style="font-style: italic;">"user friendly"</span>
and <span style="font-style: italic;">"customer focus"</span>
are considered veritable Holy Grails. And they
suddenly find themselves using an OS that still relies on 'man' files,
the
command-line,&nbsp;hand-edited configuration files, and Google. And
when they complain, they don't get coddled or promised better things:
They get bluntly shown the door.</p>
<p>That's an exaggeration, of course.
But it <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span>

how a lot of potential Linux converts perceived things when
they tried and failed to make the switch.&nbsp;</p>
<p>In an odd way, FOSS is actually a very selfish development
method:
People only work on what they want to work on, when they want to work
on it. Most people don't see any need to make Linux more attractive to
inexperienced end-users: It already does what&nbsp;<span style="font-style: italic;">they</span> want it to do,
why should they care if it doesn't work for other people?&nbsp;</p>
<p>FOSS has many parallels with the Internet itself: You don't
pay the
writer of <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">a
webpage/the
software</span> to download and <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">read/install</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);"> it. </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Ubiquitous
broadband/User-friendly interfaces</span> are of no great
interest to
somebody who already &nbsp;<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">has
broadband/knows how to use the software. Bloggers/developers</span>

don't need to have lots of <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">readers/users</span>
to justify <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">blogging/coding</span>.</span>
There <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span>
lots of people making lots of money off it, but it's not by
the old-fashioned <span style="font-style: italic;">"I
own this&nbsp;and you have to pay me if you want some of it"</span>
method that most businesses are so enamoured of; it's by providing
services like <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">tech-support/e-commerce</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">.</span>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Linux is not interested in market share. Linux does not have
customers. Linux does not have shareholders, or a responsibility to the
bottom line. Linux was not created to make money. Linux does not have
the goal of being the most popular and widespread OS on the planet.</p>
<p>All the Linux community wants is to create a really good,
fully-featured, free operating system. If that results in Linux
becoming a hugely popular OS, then that's great. If that results in
Linux having the most intuitive, user-friendly interface ever created,
then that's great. If that results in Linux becoming the basis of a
multi-billion dollar industry, then that's great.</p>
<p>It's <span style="font-weight: bold;">great</span>,
but it's not <span style="font-weight: bold;">the
point</span>. The point is to make Linux the best OS that the
community is capable of making. Not for other people: For
itself. The oh-so-common threats of&nbsp;<span style="font-style: italic;">"Linux will never take over the
desktop unless it does such-and-such"</span> are simply
irrelevant: The Linux community isn't <span style="font-style: italic;">trying</span> to take over
the desktop. They really don't care if it gets good enough to make it
onto&nbsp;<span style="font-style: italic;">your</span>

desktop, so long as it stays good enough to remain on&nbsp;<span style="font-style: italic;">theirs.</span> The
highly-vocal MS-haters, pro-Linux zealots, and money-making FOSS
purveyors might be loud, but they're still minorities.</p>
<p>That's what the Linux community wants: an OS that can be
installed by whoever really wants it. So if you're
considering switching to Linux, first ask yourself what <span style="font-weight: bold;">you</span> really want.</p>
<p>If you want an OS that doesn't chauffeur you around, but hands
you the keys, puts you in the driver's seat, <span style="font-style: italic;">and expects you to know what to
do</span>: Get Linux. You'll have to devote some time to learning
how to use it, but once you've done so, you'll have an OS that you can
make sit up and dance. </p>
<p>If you really just want Windows without the malware and
security issues: Read up on good security practices; install a good
firewall, malware-detector,&nbsp;and anti-virus; replace IE with a
more secure browser; and keep yourself up-to-date with security
updates. There are people out there <span style="font-style: italic;">(myself included)</span>

who've used Windows since 3.1 days right through to XP without ever
being infected with a virus or malware: you can do it too. Don't get
Linux: It will fail miserably at being what you want it to be.</p>
<p>If you really want the security and performance of a
Unix-based OS but with a customer-focussed attitude and an
world-renowned interface: Buy an Apple Mac. OS X is great. But don't
get Linux: It will not do what you want it to do.</p>
<p>It's not just about <span style="font-style: italic;">"Why
should I want Linux?"</span>. It's also about <span style="font-style: italic;">"Why should Linux want me?"</span></p>
</div>
</center>