<<There's no ideal target audience. Those who want to learn/use linux can/do. Those who don't, or at least not yet, won't/don't. Marketing could help ALOT with those undecided (those getting a new computer, or still in diapers in reference to computing) people buying a Dell for 500 bones, and that's where the target exists. At Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway and similar places.
>>

That is probably right...as far as it goes. Lindows(may a trolley car be in their stomach with the conductor ringing the bell for all eternity)does seem to be gaining traction because of the low cost of the system offered mainly through Wal-Mart. Lycoris is offered as well, and IMHO it is a better offer than Lindows. However, because of (POS)Microtel I think more harm than benefit will result. Microtel is IMNSHO a piece of absolute crap. But then again, Microsoft had their initial success because they were(compared to the only other viable desktop system at the time, namely Apple)cheap.

Well, that's the whole point of standards, isn't it? To not have something default to the wrong location. If a shitload of packages depend on something being in /usr/bin, it had damn well better be in /usr/bin, or the package doesn't go into the distro. Plain and simple. It's one thing to code something for your own use, it's a whole different story to create an app that will cause annoyance to hundreds, if not thousands.

As for Zip files opening to the wrong location; they don't if you're simply using the Extraction Wizard. Or rather, it doesn't matter where they open to. If you decide to go with advanced mode, then it's assumed you have a Clue (tm). Windows, of course, does it rather badly, but then, Linux seems to imitate it, and do so while bungling up even more stuff. Look at the "Open File" dialogue in XMMS, for instance. It sucks in more ways than should be described here. It also has the distinct disadvantage of making more mistakes than Winamp did in the same dialogue.

Last, I don't see why the file architecture can't be presented to the user in a tutorial to start with. Do you know how hard it is to find a good description of what goes into what directory under Linux? If you know of one, please post the link, since I can still use that on occasion.

Then, it's just the matter of setting a default to hide the things the user shouldn't normally touch. The idea of regular vs. advanced mode isn't all that bad, y'know.

Just thinkin' about how that would've been done... Most likely two partitions and then it simply wipes one, correct?

One problem I encountered with that is that Win2K does NOT play nice with Linux. I tried, believe me. If it was the NT Loader in the MBR, then it didn't recognize Linux. If it was LILO, then Win2K collapsed in convulsions, screaming that it needed the NT Loader. Anyone ever get that config to dual-boot?

Re: Batch reply
 

There is no doubt in my mind that autoinsert is great for the 'ordinary' computer user. And there is an automounting thing (comes as part of Mandrake - I think it's a kernel patch) that works very nicely - it allows you to access the CD drive (or other removable media) as soon as you insert it. However, most CDs for Windows have an autorun feature that runs a program or opens up a browser (think cover CDs for comp. magazines). Now, you could write programs that work in this way for Linux, but since programs often depend upon certain libraries being present in specific locations, it would be a fairly complex task to do this - not all distros keep their libraries in the same places, and the versions have a tendency to change between machines. So, opening a browser to display a webpage on the CD would be a bit of a compromise. Since the browser should be aware of the system setup (such as library locations, etc), you could use the browser to launch other things. Just as an example, lets take Linux Format cover mounted CDs/DVDs: they have their main interactive part of the disc as a webpage, just like PCPlus do with their cover mounted CDs/DVDs. PCPlus's discs autorun under Windows. LXF, however, doesn't do that under Linux. Now, I'm not targetting Linux Format (I have recently subscribed, I think it's a great resource of information and programs, especially when you're on narrowband connection :( ), but I can I feel that they make good examples to use.

Enough ranting.

<<One problem I encountered with that is that Win2K does NOT play nice with Linux. I tried, believe me. If it was the NT Loader in the MBR, then it didn't recognize Linux. If it was LILO, then Win2K collapsed in convulsions, screaming that it needed the NT Loader. Anyone ever get that config to dual-boot?>>
Running Mandy 9.1 and Win2k with no problem with lilo. Win2k was upgrade from Win98se, so that may be eason I have not encountered problem.

Firstly, why is blackbox listed with mozilla. Blackbox is a wm. Secondly, that's called choice. I don't know, but the last time I checked most people wanted choice in things. This is because they can pick the better product, or at least the one that is best for them, instead of Bill Gates spoon-feeding them IE. Not only that but choice leads to competition, which in turn leads to better products being made by the developers. But really, we shouldn't be talking down microst so much, I mean, XP did come with a high-quality built in firewall.:rolleyes:

First, blackbox is listed with mozilla very deliberately. Why shouldn't the two have common aspects in their UI? Just because one is a browser and the other is a wm? So? You open windows, copy and paste, move objects, click on objects, etc. in both.

Next, the whole thing of choice. Are you telling me that when someone wants the functionality of a program they have the choice of multiple interfaces? There are many, MANY differences in the operation of mozilla vs. galeon, for example. Only a small part of those is in the interface. You want to talk to me about choice, give me the choice to choose the UI independently of the program. Then you can go ahead and include your preferred UI with it, and if I want to, I'll switch to that. Otherwise, I'll be happy as a clam with the interface *I* choose.

You have to differentiate between something that is better in what it does and something that is better in being more usable. Creating a separate interface for an app should be done on more grounds than "I like this one better."

Oh, man! This new car's gear stick is 15cm more to the left than my old car, and look, it's got a slightly different know on the top. I'll never be able to drive this thing!

Just the same as the above statement is a load of old cobblers, saying that people can't use other GUIs because they've learnt the Windows GUI is just plain rubbish! If that were the case, then why did Microsoft change the default interface for XP? Yeah, it is similar, but it is definitely different. Get used to it.

<edit>
Please note that the above is directed to whoever alluded to multiple choices in GUI being a bad thing. I have actually not been following this thread particularly closely, and I can't be bothered to read all the posts in it either, so whoever it was, you know who you are.
</edit>

That'd be me, I guess.

Hey, Thymox, ever drive outside of England? *That* is the difference a new UI makes.

Edit: The idea that UI is UI and all aspects of it are of the same importance is naive and simplistic. Yes, WinXP is different, but not in a lot of significant ways. And even with that, why don't you go around and see how many people have changed the UI back to the Win98 style? Why do you think Windows even included the option of reverting back? Not out of their sheer kindness, I assure you.

I know I hated the UI changes M$ made, and have returned most options to Win98 defaults. Not because I can't operate under the new one, but because there's more cognitive friction, which makes me less productive for utterly stupid reasons. I don't like it when someone else's stupidity affects my productivity. If you do, that's your own problem.

Actually, yes, I have. Driving a right-hand-drive car in Europe is actually not much hassle. The first couple of mile are the one you've gotta watch, but after that, you get into the swing of things. The steerting wheel still works the same, the gears are in the same place (as they would be since it's still the same damn car) so it is basically the same - you just have to look out of the other window.

Or did you mean driving a left-hand-drive car? In which case, yep, I've done that too. I actually started to learn to drive when I was about 12 (living in a rural area, there are plenty of places to go with you father for a quick spin around) in an old imported Subaru van - left hand drive one. I've also had the great pleasure of hiring cars in countries which drive on the right hand side. All in all, I can't see that it's really that much of a change. Certainly occasionally when I've hired lhd cars I will forget and hit my hand on the door trying to change gear, but you only do that a few times before the bruised remind you!

All in all, it really isn't that big a deal.

Hmm.. I'm falling behind or missing something, or just straight up not understanding the conversation.

If you guys are saying that having BlackBox and a browser (say Opera) as seperate entities all together is a bad thing, then I am going to have to disagree.

BlackBox is developed as a window manager (wm) which interacts with many other applications. However, blackbox isn't the ONLY one of it's kind. So the application developers (who are seperate people completely) develop independantly. They do it so they can inter-operate well with all wm/desktop environments (de).

This is where I think the choice debate comes in. Choice is VERY important.

However, if you do have the desire for lack of choice, you can always choose a KDE environment and only use KDE applications, these are made exactly as you'd like, to interopt VERY WELL with a single de.

Same goes for Galeon...

:)

Cool

Is that right? Thymox, may you never be in a situation where you have to react without thought (like a car accident) and reach for the wrong side. It might not be a big deal in day-to-day life, but there are coircumstances, and better examples than you driving, where this matters a hell of a lot more.

Most developers I've dealt with have the attitude "so it takes two seconds longer, who cares?"

Is that your view, perchance?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MasterC
If you guys are saying that having BlackBox and a browser (say Opera) as seperate entities all together is a bad thing, then I am going to have to disagree.[quote]

Nope. Definitely a good thing.

Just one question.

If I were to restrict myself to KDE and nothing else, would I lose functionality available only through apps optimised for, let's say, GNOME?
(by "optimised" I mean "not running under KDE no matter what")

No, but you would lose fancy borders and buttons that KDE will include...

Cool

Cool.
I concede, if this is (and will remain) the case, KDE is a perfectly valid choice. Probably best for new users. ('course, hoping that there are no other usability issues with KDE :)