Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
You can skip this if you don't want to read more. But it gives what I think is a good example from PC history about how this has bitten other vendors.
I don't accept that this is comparable. Someone 'joe-six-pack' buying a PC more than a decade ago to selecting an alternative Operating System.
We need to be realistic, *zero* non-technical users wake up in the morning and think "I'll try an alternative Operating System today".
If that is true, Linux will never reach the average PC user.
They do go buy PCs. If you even know what an "Operating System" is you are in a small minority and at least a PC Jockey.
Some move on, some don't...you don't have to be technical to want to try new technologies. Most continue in the same vein out of habit, but some who aren't technical are changing at any point in time.
And a few years later, they were in deep trouble, primarily because former repeat customers became non-customers, and led others away with them. Not just because of my experience, but because they began to get a reputation as just another vendor, and one who didn't get it, at that.
I do not accept the correlation of your experience to the failure of Gateway. Gateway failed for an entire assemblage of reasons, a number of which were related to corporate governance. For one, they spent an enormous amount of their capital trying to buy into the enterprise market [they purchased ALR among other companies] an effort with failed catastrophically. Their initial success can also be attributed to [at the time] minimal competition.
Your point that there were many causes is true, and I agree. But it doesn't negate the fact that that was one of the things that contributed to experienced users no longer recommending them. And if you squint just a little bit, and shade your eyes from the sunlight, you can almost see a parallel between your analysis of GW and some of the things that are taking place now. What other relevant vendor can you think of that is spending a lot of money to buy into the enterprise marketplace? (Although I hope they are smarter and more successful than GW.)
Aside from that this entire argument seems centered around the notion "[openSUSE] is a step backfrom where it was," which is the part I just don't see or accept.
I think there is a vocal minority of 'minimalists' who don't like the direction of the modern desktop, but they'd dislike other current distributions for the exact same reasons. They wouldn't like OS/X or Windows Vista/7. How about the idea that there is a group that may be less than 50%, but
Bad experiences with new features that can't be easily controlled and selected or deselected "on the fly" are a step backward, just as a crack in the wing of a new jet is a step backward, even if the electronics are superior to every other jet. that is significant, that feels that modern desktop features should be options, rather than forcibly included, and who believe that both minimal and futuristic configurations should be supportable and selectable? And as an aside, it seems funny to me that KDE4 seemed to try to go out of its way to not provide certain Windows-like features on the desktop, such as a taskbar equivalent and the ability to place icons on the desktop, features that were originally rejected but later added as a configurable overlay on the base vision of the developers? It seems to me that a certain vocal minority of devs seems to believe that they can and must provide a better high end graphics experience than Brand X and Brand $, but at that same time, they reject some of the common user-control features that those companies have adopted to meet the needs and desires of their customers?
Some of them see adding modern features as "emulating" those [despised] platforms [which it isn't]. No, that is a straw man argument -- many of us see them as just unwanted and unneeded bloatware, at least for certain usages. And hence should be easy to turn off, even if they do meet the needs of 51% or more of the users. I have no issues with their choices I just disagree that their wishes should hobble the experience and usability for everyone else.
So you think that providing an option to make a browser the default, and the ability to turn off the paperclip assistant just by clicking on it and selecting an option, have hobbled the experience and usablility of Firefox, IE and M$ Office for everyone else? You seem to carve the world up into those who agree with your position, and the "few" who disagree are the wrong-headed vocal minority who wish to harm the rest of the community because they won't try the new features and/or buy bigger HW. Do you really believe that everyone who doesn't want new features on by choice is simply a misguided individual who doesn't understand what is best for everyone else? No wonder you refuse to entertain any suggestion that these features could, and should, be selectable by users...that allowing them easy on-off would ruin the experience for everyone else. And I just don't see how this is any different than the examples I gave of browser and help options. You tell me why turning Beagle on and off, or turning KDE4 on and off, or any other new feature, needs to use a model that is different from the one I am advocating, similar to the way browser defaults are now handled? It is easy to keep knocking down suggestions for change, by characterizing them as being unnecessary, but you have failed to show why they would do any harm for anyone, and why they couldn't and shouldn't be provided, even if only a minority ends up using them? After all, I am not asking for features that would add weeks or months to development. Just a design philosophy that doesn't say that once installed, you can assume that the user has committed to using and keeping a feature. This is the issue I'd like to hear your opinions on...not how you think the user community is divided up, but why a simple toggle with the default being off, shouldn't be the standard for ALL features that are not truly essential to operation. Please explain to me why any user would be significantly harmed by this being the norm for new features. And while you are at it, explain to me why you feel that a request for easy on-off shouldn't be implemented if only 5 or 10% would use it, but would benefit from not using your new feature. Thanks. Dan Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain confidential or proprietary information to be conveyed solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or if you otherwise received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments, without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org