RE: [SLE] Why does it always have to be a massive ordeal?
So, I see similar things all the time, people want the computer to be along the same lines as a TV, Radio, VCR (and someone mentioned a=is you vcr clock blinking at midnight? b=is your vcr clock showing the correct time: if answer "a" a computer is probably not something they should use - get a email appliance). They just want to point, click, and go.
So, what's wrong with that? Nothing really. But, Does "any" windows box you've ever seen come with over 1800 different programs?
Look a little closer. Remember, that if you are comparing Windows and Linux, then you compare apples to apples by comparing functionality to functionality. So, in Windoze you have a few dozen BIG programs that provide tons of functionality (Linux people always say "bloat"), but in Linux, everything is supposed to be "modular" and single- purpose tools... so it takes dozens or hundreds of the little tools to make the functional equivalent of one Windoze program. So, that takes care of a large percentage of your "1800 different programs". At least, it does when a Windows user is reading your (actually SuSE's) claim. Now look again. WITHIN one of those big, bloated Windoze programs, you have dozens or hundreds of functions, but most/all of them work together -- because there are not dozens of alternate versions of each function, only the ones that the developers chose, they are all integrated and tested together, until they work... together. Sure, you can assemble a collection of dozens of Linux apps to make the same functionality, but then you *as the end user!!* need to configure each and every one, and then resolve the dependency spirals when half of them are mutually exclusive with the other half (by virtue of library/compiler versions, QT versions, and versions of other software that wasn't even on the horizon until you tried to install a couple of 10K applets that suddenly need GIMP in order to run... oh, but did we mention that one little app needs new GIMP and the other needs old GIMP?... and that you can't run both on one system? But, this is NOT a rant against the Linux way of doing things.... nope... that's just the way it is. This is the continuation of many people's rants against the Linux distro way of CLAIMING things. When you live in the Windoze world, you can certainly encounter problems (though far less than a few years ago, if you are reasonably careful about security), but you can expect that "INSTALL" means "CONFIGURE". If a program *does* need additional configuration, then when you try to run it, it not only **tells** you that it still needs to be configured, it walks you through the necessary steps. Then, you come over to the Linux world and see "Easy to Install", "Installs in seconds" on the boxes, and even if you bothered to look for fine- print, you would not find the fine-print that *should* say: "Sure it's easy to install. But that just means it will be on your hard disk... not that it will be working. Then, you can count on days/weeks/months of struggle with configuration, to make stuff work." I'm not a sales guy, but I know that one of the golden rules for people who want to sell a product or service more than once, is: "Always under-promise and over-deliver" Never the opposite. Relying on a large segment of your audience to mis-interpret your claims because of different background and different terminology expectations does not get you (i.e., SuSE... not you personally) off the hook. /kevin
participants (1)
-
KMcLauchlan@chrysalis-its.com