Linked by David Adams on Mon 24th Aug 2009 09:21 UTC
Linux A reader asks: Why is Linux still not as user friendly as the two other main OSes with all the people developing for Linux? Is it because it is mainly developed by geeks? My initial feeling when reading this question was that it was kind of a throwaway, kind of a slam in disguise as a genuine question. But the more I thought about it, the more intrigued I felt. There truly are a large amount of resources being dedicated to the development of Linux and its operating system halo (DEs, drivers, apps, etc). Some of these resources are from large companies (IBM, Red Hat, Novell). Why isn't Linux more user-friendly? Is this an inherent limitation with open source software?
Permalink for comment 380291
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: "Free software UI" article
by bm3719 on Mon 24th Aug 2009 15:26 UTC in reply to ""Free software UI" article"
bm3719
Member since:
2006-05-30


Preferences keep people from fixing real bugs. One of the more amusing functions in GNU Emacs is "menu-bar-enable-clipboard." Now that KDE is fixed, Emacs is basically the last remaining X application that insists on having cut and paste that doesn't work correctly. So they have this function "menu-bar-enable-clipboard" which basically means "please make my cut and paste work correctly." Why is this an option? I call this kind of preference the "unbreak my application please" button. Just fix the app and be done with it.


As someone who doesn't use KDE (or Gnome or other such GUIs), I would prefer Emacs didn't make any assumptions about the environment in which I prefer to manage the resources of my computer. I've got no problem with it presenting the option to integrate with them, but to turn it on by default? Emacs already provides a paradigm for killing and yanking text (a far superior one: the kill-ring), the fact that it ignores the gnome or kde clipboards should illustrate how silly it is for a DE to provide its own version of one.

Reply Parent Score: 3