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 380541
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by marcp on Tue 25th Aug 2009 16:05 UTC
Member since:

Unfortunately: for most of the casual users "user-friendly" means in fact "idiot-proof". They expect it to be candy-sweet, glowing thing which is also able to guess their expectations.

I have quite opposite definition of user friendliness:
It's a straightforward *simplicity*.
You can built a candy-sweet interface, but - unless it's built on top of the rock-solid, clear and well-structured base system - you get nowhere.
Personaly I prefer to use more straightforward approach of "user-friendliness". I prefer simple, yet highly specialized system structures able to build that rock-solid base. Clear configuration files, directories, simple tools, and that : "you get only what you need and nothing you don't need". That means I prefer to build OS from the *blocks*. I don't like to get the whole bunch of crap I won't be using anyway.
That's the user-friendliness I know, If you ask me.

Reply Score: 1