Kakao Stats and Sub-teams...

Soldato
OP
Joined
18 Jan 2005
Posts
4,171
Location
Northants
SiriusB said:
The command line is an absolutely integral part of Linux and there is no way anyone could successfully map all the possible commands to buttons. Even if they did it would take years and probably wouldn't work properly. Anything that can be done in the GUI can be done at the command line. It isn't hard to learn either.

Besides, even in Windows a lot of people use the command line. No where near as powerful as that of Linux but it gets used a fair bit.

The only thing that needs doing is making installing software easier for normal people as that can be a pain. However Ubuntu 7 has made things a tad easier as it tells you what packages might be missing if you try to run something that requires it. It even tells you the full command to put in :o

Along with better Wifi support it also has better graphics support so less fiddling about. And the whole OS is generally more refined, secure, up to date etc etc etc. So basically get it installed!
As long as Linux has primary functions requiring users to use a command line it will be confined to that 0.1% of the userbase who are enthusiasts who are prepared to use a command line.
Normal users do not and will not use a command line, ever, end of.

I want to see linux wipe out windows, but it will not do that as long as any of its primary functions require a command line.
Yes, a command line is useful, but for enthusiasts only. There are hundreds of distros with command lines, all of them in fact. All we need is one without it and it'll take off.

Next time you do any processing, try doing every job via the menus: No shortcut keys, and no toolbar icons. Menus all the way. You'll find you slow to a crawl, as every task suddenly demands a multitude of keystrokes/mouseclicks.
So the 99.9% of potential linux users should be barred from using it so that 0.1% can do their processing?

Making software "user-friendly" in this fashion is like putting training wheels on a bicycle: It lets you get up & running immediately, without any skill or experience needed. It's perfect for a beginner. But nobody out there thinks that all bicycles should be sold with training wheels: If you were given such a bicycle today, I'll wager the first thing you'd do is remove them for being unnecessary encumbrances: Once you know how to ride a bike, training wheels are unnecessary.
How many people could learn to ride a bike without training wheels? If there were two types of bike, one with training wheels which could be removed later (windows) and one without training wheels (linux), which would be most popular?
The one with training wheels, because only a tiny minority if people could learn to ride a bike without them.


And in the same way, a great deal of Linux software is designed without "training wheels" - it's designed for users who already have some basic skills in place. After all, nobody's a permanent novice: Ignorance is short-lived, and knowledge is forever. So the software is designed with the majority in mind.
What planet is the author of that on?

They have a fundamental problem. They do not realise that 99.9% of users (ie 'the majority') will never ever use a command line, full stop. They won't learn it you give them a manual, they won't learn it if you give them a half assed gui to try and break them into it. If windows and osx had never existed, pcs wouldn't exist either. The only computers around would be in specialist scientific labs.

Normal human beings do not use command lines, in the same way that the earth is not flat. Its a simple and fundamental fact, you cannot change it.

As long as linux requires the use of a command line to operate any of its major functions it will remain confined to the 0.1% of users who are enthusiasts, and as long as the developers think they can force mainstream users to use a command line linux has a very very very bleak future. :(
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Dec 2005
Posts
14,443
Location
Manchester
If you read the whole essay you will realise that linux developers don't WANT to overtake Windows, they don't WANT to make it easy for new people and they are happy with Linux the way it is, and if they are not - they change it for themselves.

Linux was never intended for the average person and it will be a very long time before it comes close to Windows' ease of use for the non-initiated.

To be honest it takes very little time to learn what you need to get Ubuntu up and running and once you learn it it stays with you. Take my SMP guide for example, most of the commands are pretty much the same just the context changes [ie what files are being mainpulated and where].

Like the essay says Linux was originally made by geeks for geeks and they don't get paid so don't expect any of them to care one jot about what people want :D

If you hate Linux this much, run the WinSMP client! [I will be adding a WinSMP client section to my guide now I have a little experience with it].

Hope that didn't come off as being angry or hostile, it wasn't :D
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2003
Posts
10,916
Location
London
I would argue that customisability and control, primarily via the command line, is the main virtue of Linux. What's the point relegating the command line to the backwaters in order to attract more people from Windows? Without the command line, you'd end up with something resembling a more secure version of Windows which could do less.
 
Man of Honour
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2005
Posts
8,721
Location
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Joe42 said:
They have a fundamental problem. They do not realise that 99.9% of users (ie 'the majority') will never ever use a command line, full stop. They won't learn it you give them a manual, they won't learn it if you give them a half assed gui to try and break them into it. If windows and osx had never existed, pcs wouldn't exist either. The only computers around would be in specialist scientific labs.
I see what you're saying and it's certainly a valid argument but this bit has some serious flaws. OS X on the desktop didn't exist March 2001. It replaced the classic Mac OS, which lacked a terminal wholesale, as a fully multitasking Unix-like OS. One of its main virtues is that it has a full Bash terminal emulator built right in. In order to accomplish a great many "advanced-user" style changes to the OS you need to open up the terminal and pass a few commands. There's nothing wrong with this, IMO.

PCs existed for about 5 years before Windows. X Windows, Linux's main GUI system, predates the first version of Linux by 7 years.

Perhaps we should let get back on topic and we continue our discussion in the Linux or Windows forum. :)
 
Associate
Joined
9 Jul 2004
Posts
1,132
Location
Folding for OcUK
I think having sub teams is a brilliant idea.

It would definatly improve the morale of people who can't match the output of us 'Mental' folk. Also it would create more competition at this end of the table.
Not that your not good competition Bigstan. It just gets a bit boring when theres only two of us up there. Although Growse is getting close ppd wise.

We should have maybe two or three pre decided team names and then anyone who doesnt want to be in one of those can make there own one.

I can understand what your saying Joe about it being a mess of teams, but I think if we try to force people to just those teams, it could backfire and put a downer on a good idea.
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
27 Apr 2004
Posts
107,330
Location
In bed with your sister
Whitestar said:
I think having sub teams is a brilliant idea.

It would definatly improve the morale of people who can't match the output of us 'Mental' folk. Also it would create more competition at this end of the table.
Not that your not good competition Bigstan. It just gets a bit boring when theres only two of us up there. Although Growse is getting close ppd wise.

I agree with you entirely. Whilst our little tussle at the top with Growse always nipping at our heels is reasonably satisfying, it would be nice to have more competition at the top end. If no single user has access to the hardware to do it, then subteams is definitely the way to go.

I think it should be left up to individuals to form teams amongst themselves rather than having any sort of set format for teams.

I have no problem with being knocked off the top spot - either by WhiteLigerstarzero, Growse (or even Sculptor, if he gets himself back into full production) or by a subteam. At the end of the day, if it helps keep people interested in the project then it's got to be good for the team and the science.

Stan :)
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Dec 2005
Posts
14,443
Location
Manchester
I wonder if I am now classed as a mental? I know the stats don't show it yet but my PPD on the last 5 WUs has been over 2K. 2.5K in the case of the 1760 pointers :D

I am also half-tempted to upgrade my brother's PC to a C2D :p
 
Associate
Joined
17 May 2006
Posts
1,189
Location
Manchester, UK
Bigstan said:
I think it should be left up to individuals to form teams amongst themselves rather than having any sort of set format for teams.

This is how I feel as well. I was thinking a while back of proposing a sub-team for anyone who is folding with one single core machine. It will be interesting to see what ideas people come up with for teams. I wouldn't be surprised if there is stuff like a London sub-team etc..
 
Back
Top Bottom