Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 24th Jun 2013 03:00 UTC
Linux I volunteer as tech support for a small organization. For years we relied on Ubuntu on our desktops, but the users didn't like it when Ubuntu switched to the Unity interface. This article tells about our search for a replacement and why we decided on Xfce running atop Linux Mint.
Thread beginning with comment 565420
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: restart isn't needed
by Laurence on Mon 24th Jun 2013 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE: restart isn't needed"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

As user friendly as it gets.

Of course it's not user friendly, it's a kernel variable! Changing such low level settings shouldn't be user friendly as they're very dangerous if you get them wrong and should only be adjusted by people who know what they're doing (or at the very least, understand the risks of tinkering with them).

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[3]: restart isn't needed
by orestes on Mon 24th Jun 2013 13:42 in reply to "RE[2]: restart isn't needed"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

In a sense it's very User Friendly. It does exactly what the user wants in a concise and direct way with a minimum of fuss.

The problem is somewhere along the lines "User Friendly" has also come to mean "designed so a mildly retarded field mouse could do it by randomly whacking the buttons enough times without ever knowing the manual existed". The people responsible for this school of thought need to be taken out back and thrashed soundly till they see the error of their ways.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[4]: restart isn't needed
by Brendan on Fri 28th Jun 2013 09:06 in reply to "RE[3]: restart isn't needed"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

In a sense it's very User Friendly. It does exactly what the user wants in a concise and direct way with a minimum of fuss.

The problem is somewhere along the lines "User Friendly" has also come to mean "designed so a mildly retarded field mouse could do it by randomly whacking the buttons enough times without ever knowing the manual existed". The people responsible for this school of thought need to be taken out back and thrashed soundly till they see the error of their ways.


I think that (in general) there's a difference in expectations. To me, "user friendly" means that it's designed to prevent the hassle of needing to know there's a manual and finding or learning/remembering the relevant piece/s of the manual for the "user" (in this case, the system's administrator).

You could even invent some sort of ratings scheme to measure "user friendly". For example:

* start with 100 points

* if the user has to do anything at all (e.g. system doesn't automatically find the optimum value for swappiness), subtract 50 points

* if the user needs to find/remember part of the manual (e.g. no help/information/advice built into the tool to change the setting), subtract 25 points

* if the user is able to set invalid settings (e.g. no range/value checking built into the tool to change settings, to prevent things like "vm.swappiness = yes" being entered), subtract 25 points

A score of 100 would be "as user friendly as possible"; while a score of 0 would be "the developers were too lazy to care about users".

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 2