Creating an extra kb handler for a shortcut is a little less complicated than changing X, Gnome, RPM, and what have you to behave like windows for the sake of that platform's users.

I can make a keyboard accelerator for a linux program in about 5 seconds. If you're not a developer that should give you an idea of how difficult it is to route ctrl+d to a bookmarking function.

The changes you are describing are by no means in the same world of triviality as the example you described to support the idea.

The clipboard could be improved. You got a point there.

As for spatial nautilus. I don't like it, I turn it off. That doesn't mean that everybody doesn't like it.
gconf-editor -> apps -> nautilus -> preferences -> always_use_browser
That's not too bad for those that absolutely can't stand spatial browsing.

If Mozilla were to make it's own distribution, they could simply change the default configuration for nautilus in it's binary RPM for nautilus.

/etc/gconf/schemas/apps_nautilus_preferences.schemas

/schemas/apps/nautilus/preferences/always_use_browser
/apps/nautilus/preferences/always_use_browser
nautilus
bool
false

Enables the classic Nautilus behavior, where all windows are browsers

If set to true, then all Nautilus windows will be browser windows. This is how
Nautilus used to behave before version 2.6, and some people prefer this behavior.

Almost every gnome/gconf setting is now XML, so it's very easy to edit.
If you at Mozilla made your own distribution, you could easily configure it however you wish.

In my own distribution, I will have spatial browsing disabled by default by having it turned off in the XML in the /etc/gconf/schemas/apps_nautilus_preferences.schemas when the RPM installs it for the first time

I wouldn't hold your breath for other people to make YOUR "dream linux" distribution, because frankly, it's not going to happen. Use or misuse the resources at Mozilla and make a distro to your liking. That's my 86 cents worth on the matter.

I'm starting mine off of an LFS distro, and building it up from there, with an installer and RPM builder. I'm looking to make a system that will auto-fetch sources from the author's site or sourceforge and autobuild all the RPMs for the distro on a regular basis, automatically. (eventually)

At any rate good luck with the real people distro. In order for it to work, "real people" are going to have to code it. Those real people have no motivation as of right now to follow your guides. I think Mozilla should just make one that they like. They have the people for sure. And the base code is free.

The xml from /etc/gconf/schemas/apps_nautilus_preferences.schemas actually reads like this, your blog stripped it out

<schema>
<key>/schemas/apps/nautilus/preferences/always_use_browser</key>
<applyto>/apps/nautilus/preferences/always_use_browser</applyto>
<owner>nautilus</owner>
<type>bool</type>
<default>false</default>
<locale name="C">
<short>Enables the classic Nautilus behavior, where all windows are browsers</short>
<long>
If set to true, then all Nautilus windows will be browser windows. This is how
Nautilus used to behave before version 2.6, and some people prefer this behavior.
</long>
</locale>

Beer, we are talking about Regular Users here. So you expect they to manually edit config files?

Dear Asa, Thank you for all the hard work, vision, and guts you (and others) have put into a great browser and now, at long last, forward thinking about desktop alternatives to the Redmond behomoth..Keep up the good work- I'm an interested fan about to take the plunge with Xandros..Thanx again, steve

Ming,

no, from the "start" menu, to give you some kind of anchor....

On fedora core it would be

Applications->System Tools->Configuration Editor
gconf-editor -> apps -> nautilus -> preferences -> always_use_browser

On SuSE9.3 it's
Applications->System->Configuration->GNOME Confiration Editor
gconf-editor -> apps -> nautilus -> preferences -> always_use_browser

Let's now inspect the FC4 nautilus package

[beer@localhost Desktop]$ wget http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/4/i386/os/Fedora/RPMS/nautilus-2.10.0-4.i386.rpm
--02:47:52-- http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/4/i386/os/Fedora/RPMS/nautilus-2.10.0-4.i386.rpm
=> `nautilus-2.10.0-4.i386.rpm'
Resolving download.fedora.redhat.com... 66.187.224.20
Connecting to download.fedora.redhat.com[66.187.224.20]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 3,892,072 [application/x-rpm]

100%[====================================>] 3,892,072 586.36K/s ETA 00:00

02:47:59 (562.66 KB/s) - `nautilus-2.10.0-4.i386.rpm' saved [3,892,072/3,892,072]

[beer@localhost Desktop]$ rpm2cpio nautilus-2.10.0-4.i386.rpm > nautilus.cpio
[beer@localhost Desktop]$ cpio -t < nautilus.cpio | grep /etc
./etc/gconf/schemas/apps_nautilus_preferences.schemas
21883 blocks
[beer@localhost Desktop]$

So we can see that the /etc configuration file in the RPM is actually shipped by the distro, and could be changed as are alot of settings with certain distros' binary packages.

If you made X distro, you could simply set the always_use_browser to true in the settings before you rpmbuilt it.
That is the nice thing about open source.

Asa and pretty much anybody else can not mandate that Fedora Core Packagers and other distros do this. It's simply at their discretion, as is everything else in their distro. In essence, Linux gives you the power to be your own "Microsoft" and dictate what happens on your distribution.

I think that's a good thing, Asa may not.

Beer: 95% of the world out there will never touch a configuration setting. Consider those Kryptonite to the common people's Superman. Being a power user, I LOVE config menus -- almost everyone else either hates them, doesn't understand them, doesn't know they exist, or doesn't care. Regardless of whether a preference CAN be changed, it must be made "the right way" by default. That means figure out what the right way is and do it.

Now, I happen to believe that a properly implemented spatial file browser is far easier to use and more discoverable than a non-spatial one -- plus it's easier for those converting from older Mac OSes, not that that's the point of this. But debating which way the browser should be is different than saying "it's configurable, so people can do what they want", which is either stupid or naive when talking about what should be done to attract Regular People. Regular People don't even know the difference between left-clicking and right-clicking (I should know, I help them with support enough) and you want them to go several menus deep and configure some option? They could never find it, let alone know what it means or whether they want it on or not.

So, to the last part of your argument, that no one can mandate what distros set. That's right. And so consider Asa's comments to be directed at the hypothetical distro that WANTS TO ATTTRACT REGULAR PEOPLE. Distros like Linspire seem to have tried to do this in the past. Distros like, say, Gentoo (my choice) or Slackware have not (AFAIK). I think it's undeniable that:
(a) no distro has "gotten it right" yet as far as attracting Regular People
(b) not all of them try
(c) the fact that there are thousands of distros, and Regular People neither know what any of them are nor care, means that it's difficult for Regular People to know what to use even if they wanted to use "Linux" AND there was a friendly distro. The only way to solve this, after making such a distro, is if either
(c1) Walmart and every other Regular People Store on Earth packages that distro, so that's what people hear about and know or
(c2) Most of the other distros just kill themselves, die, or go underground, which amounts to the same thing.

The upshot is that getting Linux "ready for the desktop" is a massive undertaking, and the best chances of success come from plans that aren't 100% compatible with the current goals and values of many Linux users. Anarchy may be lots of fun, but it won't get your group mass acceptance, so it's very silly of anyone to talk about Linux being "[almost] ready for the desktop" when these issues are not addressed. It's perfectly valid to say, "if mass acceptance means giving up the way I like doing things, I'm not for it" -- look at the die-hard Seamonkey users who prefer it over Firefox, which has undeniably gained much more acceptance. But it would be as ridiculous to say "I like my way of doing things and I want mass acceptance too" as it would be to have said, "well Seamonkey has a pref for that, so regular people can use it" back in the pre-Firefox days (or now, for that matter).

what's the point then?
Why not just have these people use Windows?

You know why linux gets funding right?
It's the hub of HP, IBM, Sun, and other big name IT companies' corporate solutions for business. That's who funds linux. Those are the guys that have the big million dollar displays at linux world. I've been there and seen them.

Lindows had nothing and Xandros was minimal.

Linux drives corporate solutions, not the desktop. These companies are much more willing to improve SAN, LDAP, the kernel, a non-vendor lockin cross compatible managed VM, IE, Mono, and other business solutions.

As a desktop, SuSE, or Redhat may not be the prettiest with Gnome, though X extensions for compositing are SLOWLY changing that.

Those that put money behind linux are not banking that Joe Dump is going to go to Circuit City and make them millions buying SuSE or Redhat linux in the box.
Why do you think they fund all these projects, when they're given to the public for free?

It's because they are the backbone of their corporate systems that they sell.

If you want linux to be like windows or mac, a Desktop marvel that's very pretty to look at and easy for illiterates to use(pardon le francais), you're going to have to get people to start financing it, like they do Windows with their dollars. Most people are not willing to do that.

I buy store boxed linux and have for years and pay fees to clubs, GNU spin offs ect..., but that's me. Most people will ONLY use linux if it's free.

The money drives EVERYTHING. Not Asa's comments. The money behind linux dictates that it should be the bland corporate solution it is. The piece of clay they can mold into whatever to fit a corporate customer's IT problem, and have a decent repretoire of upkept packages so the thing isn't bare like some BSD's and Unix.

FOSS isn't about money, and I'm aware of that. But it's clear that the most interesting advancements in Linux are going where the money is. Individual people are not going to finance linux like they do Windows, and even if they did, they would be financing X many different companies that may not all share the technology, especially if they are financially driven by theirs being paid for instead of the competitor.

Some intersting things to think about, considering that a "super" desktop linux probably could have been made years ago had there been the payoff.

Why not just have these people use Windows? Because there are things that can be done better than Windows, but we don't have the source. Why make Firefox friendly to IE users -- why not just make people use IE? Because we can do better than IE. But no one will care if it's not friendly.

Making Linux workable for Regular People isn't about taking over the corporate world -- although I think you undersell the value of a usable, non-offputting UI in that world too (IT managers can sell a changeover to Linux a lot easier if it's not going to cost $100 million to retrain all the employees to use an OS they can't figure out). I'll use Firefox as an example again -- lots of businesses have infrastructure built around IE and ActiveX. Making Firefox user-friendly doesn't change that and doesn't get Firefox in the door at businesses -- that can be done later, if at all. Maybe just getting the home user, getting 10% or 20% instead of 1% marketshare, is a good enough starting goal. Linux has an advantage in that, as you say, there's tons of funding for corporate-important issues already -- so making it user-friendly is an added bonus, and doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

If you're arguing that no one has bothered making the desktop user-friendly because they won't do it without money and no one's bothered to put up the money, then that strikes me as a much more accurate and relevant comment than the earlier arguments I was making. I think that may be true. But if so, I think it's a bit beside the point of what Asa's comments were about -- he intended to address the technical limitations of Linux in terms of Regular People usage, while you're addressing the practical logistics of why no one's fixed the technical bits. Obviously to fix them both items would need to be addressed -- either people would have to pony up money for user friendliness, or generous hackers would have to do it for free, and either way, they'd have to figure out what needed to be done, and execute. Asa is trying to give his vision of the answer to the second part of this question -- "what needs to be done". Whether anyone can or will do it, even if he is correct, is another matter entirely.

I do happen to think there are companies willing to pay money to make a user-friendly desktop that gets money from Regular People. I cited Linspire as one example. I don't know what their current business model is but I thought that was their goal, at least. I guess you've dismissed them, and maybe that's fair, although if your sole basis is "having nothing at Linux World" -- Linux World is arguably irrelevant to Regular People, so if your goal is wooing them and you have little cash, it's probably better spent elsewhere. My company makes a lot of Linux-compatible stuff too, but we really could care less about the vendors or attendees of Linux World. It's not our market. So we don't exhibit there. Heck, Apple doesn't even exhibit at some of the Mac festivals.

Are there enough companies willing to pay enough money to get a layman-usable Linux desktop? I don't know. Maybe there haven't been before, maybe there aren't yet. But the market, even exluding business, seems big enough that if there aren't some yet, there probably will be at some point. And at that point we can return to the question: "and what needs to be DONE?" And that brings us back once again to Asa's suggestions.

Ubuntu breezy (releasing in October) has gone back to browser mode for nautilus. The point about reverse order OK and Cancel is nothing, no-one complains about that on the Mac anymore.

Clipboards: unless you know about the middle-click selection buffer, you'll never even know there are two clipboards - it's just not discoverable, just like middle-click to open tabs isn't.

"either people would have to pony up money for user friendliness, or generous hackers would have to do it for free, and either way, they'd have to figure out what needed to be done, and execute."

Alot of open source software is made by those hackers, and alot of it, perhaps even most of it comes from people that made something for THEMSELVES, and shared it with others. Of course developers like that are not command line shy, nor are they regular users.

Somebody that's going to hack something out for free to and share it is much more likely to make it for their own usability. I am extremely guilty here, and so are alot of FOSS projects. Why? If I'm not getting paid for FOSS, why should I make it anything less than perfect for myself, and not Joe Blow user from windows?

In the corporate world, the sharing of open technologies works well, because the customers are oblivious to the features as long as the solution is there, and there's plenty to go around.

In the home user world, if a company boasts X feature, and company Y takes that feature and puts it into their distro and fragments it, then gains on the company X's R&D, that's suicide for business.

Couple that with the fact that Joe Blow, home user will most likely not "pony up" for desktop linux development. When you get on that plane, it's all gimme, gimme, gimme, ....isn't good enough, feature request, while they contribute absolutely zero, in development, and or money.

While this is perfectly acceptable by GPL and FOSS and open source, that you can use without contributing anything, it also means that those that make distros, are going to make them first and formost for their internal needs. Both on the corporate level, and on the garage-hacker level.

"Joe Blow, home user will most likely not "pony up" for desktop linux development. When you get on that plane, it's all gimme, gimme, gimme, ....isn't good enough, feature request"

I think you're confusing the computer-literate-but-lazy who download Linux right now, or who get projects off Sourceforge, or whatever, with the real Joe Blow. The real Joe Blow is quite accustomed to paying money for his operating system, is actually threatened by free software ("if it's free it can't be that good") and doesn't know where to submit feature requests anyway.

"those that make distros, are going to make them first and formost for their internal needs"

True unless the entire point of your commercial-or-free distro is to attract Regular People. In which case it's still sort of true, as the "needs" are "work with Regular People", and you're trying to meet those needs.

In any case I still think you're missing the point of Asa's discussion entirely. He wants to talk about the technical problems that put off Regular People who use Linux. You want to talk about the business reasons why there will never be a Linux distro that doesn't suffer from those problems. Meh. Fine topics both, but different topics.

I agree with Peter Kasting. Beer, you seem to be missing the point.

"Couple that with the fact that Joe Blow, home user will most likely not "pony up" for desktop linux development. When you get on that plane, it's all gimme, gimme, gimme, ....isn't good enough, feature request, while they contribute absolutely zero, in development, and or money."

Can you use that point against Firefox? No. Im well aware that a desktop linux would be a much bigger project but the same principles still apply.

Mark

Just as a note, the spatial behavior is tunable from the Nautilus UI (so you don't have to hunt through GConf) in at least some versions of GNOME. See http://www.fedorafaq.org/#nautilus-spatial for details.

Asa, I think you have made many good points on this four part series although I don't necessary agree with all the points and conclutions. The series has been much more constructive than the original blog writing. It is dialogs like the series that offer possibility for advancing things.

I have suggestion: Would you consider writing part 5 in which you would tell us what you think is okay in Linux and what is better in Linux than in Windows for regular people?

Asko, sure. I plan at least a couple more posts on this thread so I can include more on why I think Regular People _should_ find their way to Linux (if it will only make the path less scary.)

- A

Asa,

Your intentions are good about making the Windows users comfortable with Linux, by making some of the features in Linux similar to Windows. But I think that will put all the innovations in the drain.

** It would be better to say that the Linux experience should be better than the Windows experience, to migrate people from Windows to Linux.

I bought a Windows PC at home and I taught my mom how to send me mails when I am away, but she finds it difficult to use some other features like using the IM.

** It's not that Windows is ultimate OS and everyone should follow it. I say that the computer experience should be for the common people than simply following Windows.

Praveen

Asa, thanks again for this series.

I'm a Regular User, who *wants* to use Linux because I am tired of the intrusiveness of the Folks From Redmond, and can't afford the Mac.

Some have commented that folks like me who are not willing to climb what I have found to be a very steep learning curve have no business using Linux.

Poppycock.

The *promise* of Linux (what I was sold on anyway) is that it is a free operating system that just works. Anyone can obtain and install it... and thus be rid of a proprietary operating system.

Sure, I will learn things like understanding the "new" OK/Cancel dialog, and yes I do NOT want it to "be Windows" or "be the Mac". But until it is just plain *easy* to install the software *I* want, as opposed to waiting for my "distro" to decide it is OK and then package it for me, installing it on my own is way too hard to figure out.

Example: As a Regular User, I have wanted to install Deer Park on the Linux side but have been unable to do so because I do not understand the command-line from the monitor (even though I have attempted to follow the instructions on the web page word for word, line for line, many many times). I have been most happy with Deer Park on the Windows side - it is stable for me - but most important to me is the auto-update feature. I would not have to download a new version of Deer Park when it is released, hence I would not have to hassle with re-installing software again and again.

[ ASIDE: Someone did mention an "Auto installer" at http://www.autopackage.org/index.html but it does not appear to work with Mandrake 10.2 basic. ]

That to me is the biggest pain with Linux, and the main reason that I do not use it full time. To say that I have no business using it because I can not figure out what many more-technical folks feel is a "simple" procedure misses the point: I should not have to figure that out if the promise of Linux is a free operating system that can replace Windows, or the Mac.

So thanks again Asa, for getting these thoughts out.

Sincerely,

Lawrence
Ithaca, NY

I have to admit, I kind of like having a confusing second clipboard. It's pretty much impossible for a regular user to get tripped up by it, but it makes quick text select/paste operations trivial. Once you get proficient with it, you save yourself two chorded keystrokes for every cut/paste - that's a lot of typing.

What really needs to be done is for the X clipboard specification to be *fully* specified, cleaned up and any applications that don't conform to it should be fixed.

My only wish for the selection clipboard would be for an easy way to clear the target that I'm pasting into, since hiliting the target and hitting delete also messes with your current selection. URL bars in Firefox and the like are the biggest pain with this clipboard. I suppose this could be a fatal flaw, however...

> Other more serious examples of unnecessary divergence from the Windows desktop with little (or no) benefit to Regular People include the Gnome change to what they called "spacial Nautilus"

I'd just like to add an additional note here - there's a pretty big difference between making Linux easier to use for new users and making Linux easier to use for intermediate to advanced Windows users.

I've found that for users new to computing, spacial nautilus is far more intuitive that the folder hierarchy tree. It's tough for newbies to understand the concept of a directory - most of the time they just drop everything in a single directory, then learn about a directories when this directory becomes too big! I think it's good to start them off with spacial, then graduate them to a tree view once they've become advanced enough.

Whether you feel "at home" with spatial Nautilus depends on what you're used to. If you ever used a Mac before OS X, you'll already be familiar with a spatial file manager, and Nautilus won't be that unusual to you.

Also, most "regular people" I've shown it to had no problem getting it, either; as the above comment points out, many "regular people" never get hierarchical directory structures when they have to browse, but spatial file management helps them with that. Like Matt, I've found a lot of people who were new to computing did better with spatial views than with a Windows-style file browser.

And since the two clipboards don't interfere with one another, what's the problem with keeping the feature for advanced users? Regular People all learned Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V and that's going to work for them.

You claim that you don't want Linux to be a Windows clone, but that's certainly the way it sounds. The motivation for most of your suggested changes is "that's the way Windows does it." Given a choice between

1. Keeping backwards compatibility and current behaviour of applications used by a reasonably large userbase.

2. Making a number of compatibility-breaking changes, in some cases changing things that have been around for decades, in some vague hope of attracting users of another operating system.

you're telling the Linux developers to go for the second option. I find this attitude offensive and misguided.

Incidentally, what was it that you said about Mozilla not breaking compatibility? http://www.infodrom.org/~joey/log/?200507300606

Johan, we faced the same decision with Mozilla; did we keep backawards compatibility and current beahavior to satisfy our then reasonably large userbase, or did we make a number of compatibility-breaking changes, in some cases changing things that had been around for nearly a decade, in some vague hope of attracting users of another web browser. Guess what, when we moved away from the focus on existing users (numbering in the low millions) to focusing on potential users, we skyrocketed in popularity and in less than a year earned Firefox many, many tens of millions of new users. I'm suggesting that Linux might do well by focusing on a potential audience of many hundreds of millions of users rather than the existing audience of millions of users.

On the supporting Firefox issue, if Debian is incapable or unwilling to do the simple work to grab our latest Firefox stable source tarball and build and package it up for their users, then Debian users should get it directly from Mozilla or find a distro that's more capable. Debian cannot distribute something called Firefox that is not built from the official source tarballs. They are not allowed to add random patches at their discretion and still call it Firefox. That would be a violation of our Trademark policy. They'd be free to do that and call it something else, but they can't make changes to our release sources and still call it Firefox.

- A

Nicely put article Asa! Having been using Windows for 7+ years, and using various Mac's at college for 2 years, I've also become increasingly intrigued at trying out Linux. Firefox has been a large factor, simply because it for me is re-defining open source, and showing at little to no cost, it can come up trumps in many if not all respects.

I'm on of the few Windows users whom have become increasingly interested in Linux off my own back.

Now, first thing to notice with this, is why have I and many others found ourselves being intrigued in Linux, and spent hours looking into it? That is one fundamental problem, that there is very little basic factual knowledge put out there in a clear way for the market, and basic users? There's to my knowledge, not even a decent, well known, user friendly main site, clearly summarising the differences and benefits of different builds of Linux. That is first and foremost whats making the Linux change a complex thing, it is just a nitemare getting a decent understanding of Linux and it's builds.

Firefox is succeeding in winnnig over novice users because all info, support, downloads, and more is available in one, neat place, mozilla.org. and really it covers just about every query a user has. Average Joe user turns up there from seeing a FF button, or having been recommended. Within minutes he can get the basics of how it works, what it looks like, how to set it up, etc, so 9/10 average Joe user has that info and comfort, and thinks, lets give it a go, no harm.

With Linux, this is far from true, like Asa points out, even if Average Joe has decided to look into Linux, which is a godsent opportunity not to be missed. I've browsed many linux sites, some do this to an extent, but nowhere near well enough, and right now even linux.org is down, unless I've missed something there.

There is no real such effective central place for Linux, to educate the most basic facts and differences, benefits of different Linux builds over Windows. Most general Windows type users (also perhaps OS x) if lucky look into Linux and consider it, only because of the myth that is, Linux. What is it, where does it live, what does it do. These are all questions many more computer users should know the answer to, and at least should be able to find the answer to, neatly on the net, but it is not the case. Linux seems to be scattered all over the net, making it completely un user friendly, and that is one of the main first selling points to educate and win users over.

If an IE user fedup with IE decides to look into alternatives, within minutes he can find mozilla.org with all he needs to know on Firefox, explaining it's benefits, and win win situation.

If a Windows user annoyed by the prospect of paying 200 pounds for an OS upgrade, decides to give 5 minutes to look into Linux and consider it, can he go to a Linux homepage, get all the info, resources, download types, screen shots, FAQ's, everything he needs to be educated, comfortable, and decisive in going forwards? No.

It's taken hours of surfing from myself, and I still don't know which version may suite me, and it simply isn't good enough people respond by saying it depends on what you want, personal taste etc.

So I have to try 5 versions, over a week, spending hours on each? I don't have to do such a ridiculous time wasteing excercise on Windows, why should I bother for Linux? I find a verion of Linux and a site for it that has most of the info, FAQ's etc there, it's a good progression/alternative to Windows, and it damn well costs (Linspire, formally Lindows). That's not a good start, and is damn well annoying for average Joe user to come across, wanting a free, good, stable, easy to install and use OS, that is not Windows.

This is one of the largest downfalls imo, and add's so much to the myth, and complexity that is Linux, that users cannot swallow even in manageable bits, and Linux has not really helped that, with endless of builds popping up and scattering all over the web, its just adds complexity. It's a lengthy fight finding the right version of Linux, finding out how to download it, install it, set it up, use it.

Imagine if bits of information, screen shots, feature lists, versions, FAQ's were dotted around the internet, for Firefox. It would be almost as damaging in terms of awareness and usage. It would be unclear, in-efficient, scattered content under several roof's, some official, some not.

This for me is a very serious factor to Linux not being used, educated, and spread as much as it could and should be.

http://www.infodrom.org/~joey/log/?200507300606

"As a result, trying to support such software in a stable Debian release that usually lasts more than one year can be indefinitely difficult and time consuming. It would require to grok the entire codebase and to be able to understand the impact of all problems and all patch hunks."

LOL, they don't trust Mozilla, so they have to manually filediff every new release to check what's been changed, because there are no patches released.

They can't simply compile and "trust it". That's a first in my experience. I mean Mozilla is certainly "credible" if you will as a software supplier. But I guess if you have to be that paranoid, you have to be that paranoid.

The huge problem with fragmenting FOSS packages is that as soon as you fragment it and call it something else, you now OWN that package and must support it indefinately with your own patches, and upgrades. IE, impossible, pain, not worth it.

That's another reason Asa's complaints will never be resolved. In order to change these things in X, Gnome, what have you application, you'd have to forcably change the sources and recompile as your own version. Now you have fragmented the software release into your own version.

You now have to support your own version of X, ala Sun Lookingglass, you have to support your own version of Gnome and related packages, called "something else" presumably, and you have a HUGE fragmentation mess, that is only going to collapse in a short time unless you have the resources of a huge company like Microsoft.

Novell was superwise to hire away some of these project leaders, because now they have some say over the directions of the projects. Only a huge company like Novell, IBM or even Redhat can do something like that.
If you don't have monetary pull to fund or not fund projects, it won't work.
They know that.

The money is a crucial factor, and Asa ignored that aspect. You can't talk about reforming desktop linux unless you also talk about who's going to pay for it.
Hackers and FOSS project teams in general, I don't believe are going to read Asa's comments, and sit there and go hmmmm.... Why don't I just tweak g_whatever_app so it's a kinder gentler UI for windows users. They simply don't care. Most of the time a new application will arise out of a NEED to do something, and not out of a marketing idea.

If you're going to make this Real People desktop linux, to match vista, and supe up X composition, and a new tree of X and a whole bunch of super hot features, then call your VC friends and get some financial backing and close off a branch of linux development to handle it, otherwise it's not going to work. A "call to arms" for people to be more windows friendly is not going to bode well amongst FOSS linux developers.

Asa: "
On the supporting Firefox issue, if Debian is incapable or unwilling to do the simple work to grab our latest Firefox stable source tarball and build and package it up for their users..."

Problem is that it is a STABLE release, and MoFo's maintenance/ security relases are NOT. There are too many (more than 0!) big regressions, and other breaking changes to simply build the new release.

Debian don't want to distribute a broken firefox 1.05 that kills the user extensions or a broken suite where folder changing doesn't work. so they cannot just grab the newest and greatest build and TRUST it works.History has shown it doesn't.

Henrik, debian doesn't have the right to use our trademark unless they're complying with our trademark guidelines. They can ship any of our code however they like with or without any of our patches but they cannot do that and call it Firefox. Firefox is a Mozilla Foundation trademark and represents a specific product produced by the Mozilla Foundation. Creating new products from our source code is allowed under the terms of the tri-license (MPL/GPL/LGPL) but that does not grant any rights to use our Trademark on the resulting product.

If debain wants to create its own product that does not correlate with Mozilla Foundation releases of Mozilla Firefox, they're free to do so, but they are not free to call that thing "Firefox".

- A

Today "FireFox", tommorow, "isnot"

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

The next day, dynamic smilies and emoticons

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39210396,00.htm

The week later, all of webster's english dictionary.

It's a slippery slope. OK, Free Open source is about sharing and community, remember RMS. I'm done fanning the flames now.

Asa: "debian doesn't have the right to use our trademark,,,"

You failed to address Mozilla's issue. Namely that *any* distributer cannot hand out a new version of mozilla firefox (even ones built by MoFo), and trust it does not break anything.

Some organiozations simply need that level of confidence and you cannot provide that.

Asa, the more you write, the more you convince me that I am right.

I think sentences such as "We need a competitive desktop marketplace and Linux could be a player in that market" are very telling.

Like Eric S Raymond says, people who get involved with OSS do it to "scratch an itch" - they're usually not interested in "being a player in a market". If their aim is producing high-quality software that works for them, why should they care if it's used by one million or a hundred million people? Why should they spend their spare time ripping out features and changing things around for the sake of windows users? In my mind, that's like opining that Ferrari should add a softer suspension, standard tires and a roof to their Formula 1 cars, because more "ordinary people" would buy them.

As for the Debian issue, I was quite surprised to hear that Mozilla doesn't release backported security patches for Firefox. Importing a completely new version of a large piece of software into a stable release would cause all sorts of problems, I really thought you wouldn't seriously suggest such a thing and then go on to say that even if Debian took the time to break out the security patches they couldn't call the resulting product Firefox.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the Mozilla Foundation doesn't understand the OSS/FSS community. Maybe you should just stick to Windows.

Johan, maybe if Ferrari did that then people would get (see: be able to use) these lesser formula one cars. I for one would want one.

I think you did a great job on writing these articles. Most of the commentors disagree with you, but I think you adressed some main points and I guess you've got more experience in what is a clone, what is similar but still advanced over other software.
To be more specific - you've proved it! Out-of-the-box Firefox is similar to IE, but it's not a clone. And it's highly customizeable and able to include nearly any feature.
Since the current Linux users would know anyway how to change back the behaviour via a "hidden pref" it wouldn't be that hard to change the default even without making it a pref. It's not that it'll be un-undoable after it was changed.

To the trademark issue: Uhm nice, trademarks and patents are the same, really. It's jsut the name that is copyrighted and not the method. You state that mozilla is stupid because it has registered Firefox as a trademark. Well, imagine someone else would have done this due the increasing success of Firefox and sued the Foundation. Others are fine with the guidlines of the use of the trademark, I don't see the problem here, really.

To register a patent or trademark to keep it free is one thing, though in conflict with the principles of FSF, and free open source,

But to openly threaten action upon violation by a distro that would want to include a patched version of your FOSS title in a weblog ??

I spent about a year posting on Microsoft's channel9, and I've violated many of their patents and trademarks to spread FOSS and the message that people should try linux, and even THEY don't pull those kinds of punches on Free NPO style projects.

At least not yet....

This was my retort to their get the facts campaign which ruined alot of RPM sites like pbone.net and other linux faq sites with their misleading, martin taylor style "get the facts" google ads.

msdn.org

That maybe a trademark, I dunno. I just wanted to get back at them because I was sick of seeing ads on my favorite linux sites that read, Mandrake News, GNU News, Redhat News, then when I'd click on them it would take me to a site full of biased white papers telling me how linux sucks.

I thought it was the least I could do.

The site has actually been up for a long while now, and I haven't gotten any grief over it.

I found that Asa's message towards Debian had a threatening tone to it. And that's not in the spirit of Free Open Source at all.

Well, Asa stated very clearly that there's a difference between the name and the software. While the source's open the trademark is closed and belongs to the Foundation - which includes all rights. And that is that publishing a software under their name that's not an original release.
I can udnerstand that they don't like any "abuse" because if you allow one, why don't you allow another and why is this forbidden but this is still ok? I guess you know what I mean.

[beer@localhost ~]$ wget http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/4/SRPMS/firefox-1.0.6-1.1.fc4.src.rpm
--22:24:28-- http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/4/SRPMS/firefox-1.0.6-1.1.fc4.src.rpm
=> `firefox-1.0.6-1.1.fc4.src.rpm'
Resolving download.fedora.redhat.com... 66.187.224.20
Connecting to download.fedora.redhat.com[66.187.224.20]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 39,869,785 [application/x-rpm]

100%[====================================>] 39,869,785 427.79K/s ETA 00:00

22:25:37 (563.01 KB/s) - `firefox-1.0.6-1.1.fc4.src.rpm' saved [39,869,785/39,869,785]

[beer@localhost ~]$ rpm -qpl firefox-1.0.6-1.1.fc4.src.rpm find-external-requires
firefox-0.7.3-default-plugin-less-annoying.patch
firefox-0.7.3-freetype-compile.patch
firefox-0.7.3-psfonts.patch
firefox-1.0-candidate-window.patch
firefox-1.0-download-to-desktop.patch
firefox-1.0-g-application-name.patch
firefox-1.0-gcc4-compile.patch
firefox-1.0-gfxshared_s.patch
firefox-1.0-gtk-system-colors.patch
firefox-1.0-imgloader-comarray.patch
firefox-1.0-locales-no-searchplugins.patch
firefox-1.0-locales.tar.bz2
firefox-1.0-nss-system-nspr.patch
firefox-1.0-pango-bidi-justify.patch
firefox-1.0-pango-direction.patch
firefox-1.0-pango-rounding.patch
firefox-1.0-pango-selection.patch
firefox-1.0-pango-space-width.patch
firefox-1.0-prdtoa.patch
firefox-1.0-recv-fortify.patch
firefox-1.0-remote-intern-atoms.patch
firefox-1.0-uriloader.patch
firefox-1.0-useragent.patch
firefox-1.0.6-source.tar.bz2
firefox-PR1-default-applications.patch
firefox-PR1-gtk-file-chooser-morefixes.patch
firefox-PR1-pkgconfig.patch
firefox-PR1-software-update.patch
firefox-PR1-stack-direction.patch
firefox-RC1-stock-icons-be.patch
firefox-RC1-stock-icons-fe.patch
firefox-RC1-stock-icons-gnomestripe.patch
firefox-gnomestripe-0.1-livemarks.patch
firefox-gnomestripe-0.1.tar.gz
firefox-rebuild-databases.pl.in
firefox-redhat-default-bookmarks.html
firefox-redhat-default-prefs.js
firefox-redhat-homepage.patch
firefox-xremote-client.sh.in
firefox.1
firefox.desktop
firefox.png
firefox.sh.in
firefox.spec
firefox.xpm
mozconfig-firefox
mozilla-1.7.3-pango-render.patch
[beer@localhost ~]$

What happens now Asa, are you going to shut down Redhat Linux and Fedora Core?

They're applying patches to the sources in their SRPM, before compiling it, essentially breaking the "trademark" you so explained people couldn't.

I really can't believe you used FC4 for all this time and didn't notice that the home page and bookmarks amongst other noticable things had been changed from the original sources.
I would have thought that would have hit you immediately that the original sources were patched before they compiled and rpmbuilt the RPM.

BTW, SuSE does the same thing, so Novell will have to feel the burn as well.

Such tight restrictions on the use of the Firefox trademark seems like such a shame to me. They are not using the trademark to make money now are they?

I have to agree with your points about the Linux desktop, being something I've written about before.

One really painful thing for me: I'm a programmer and designer, I've made my own Windows .fon files. Now I want to switch to Fedora or Ubuntu, but I've been unable to convert these fonts or install them. It shouldn't be like this, I should be able to install the fonts just like I do others: Copy and Paste.

"I've made my own Windows .fon files"

true type fonts are drag & drop
http://www.fedorafaq.org/#windowsfonts

You can use a tool called fnt2bdf that's freely downloadable with the wine package to convert your .fon's

http://www.winehq.com/site/docs/wine-user/config-fonts-main

Now how do I get my linux fonts to work properly on windows?
I guess windows is just a hard and incompatible operating system for zealots and ubergeeks....

Beer, no good.

The converter isn't in any of the latest builds and I've no way of downgrading Wine to one that does. Perhaps you feel like converting them for me? If you have the converter that is :)

I actually have a bdf to fon converter for Windows :)

You could compile it out of the tools in the cvs, but here,
http://www.lookingglass3d.com/fnt2bdf.tar.gz

[beer@localhost Desktop]$ locate fnt2bdf
/usr/lib/transgaming_cedega/winex/bin/fnt2bdf
/home/beer/.point2play/.winex_ver/winex-4.3.2/winex/bin/fnt2bdf
[beer@localhost Desktop]$

I also support transgaming and WineX, though I probably shouldn't with the less than exemplary .msi games installer and general games support.

Off on a meaningless rant/tangent:

Half Life 2 runs though, and that's pretty good, so does GTA. Still, there's no need to encourage these devs to use DirectX instead of OpenGL.

DirectX sucks rocks. OpenGL will have advanced pixel shading support in the 2.0 spec, and that should be the end of the DirectX argument.

I'm sick of these game makers just blowing off the linux version of their games. I think they are morons. I am using the Torque engine. And I prefer Loki games.

Thanks for that Beer :)

no problem Wolf,

And here's some uplifting news to go with that from groklaw.net

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050729190708887

Remember that halloween letter with the 100 million from microsoft to SCO for the "licenses"?

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html

yeah, I think we'll be seeing the underpinnings of that transaction in the "discovery" phase.

"The next biggest news is Novell is bringing Microsoft and Sun Microsystems into the picture. It looks like we will eventually find out what role they played, if any. Novell tells us that it began an audit of SCO's activities in July of 2003, which it was entitled to do under the contract, but SCO refused to turn over requested information regarding Sun Microsystems' and Microsoft's licenses or any others under the SCOsource program. "

And the article ends with this paragraph....

"And now we know Novell is a hero in this saga, and I am going out to buy the latest SUSE Linux this exact minute, even though I already have it. I hope you do too, even if you don't need it. Imagine if Novell had said yes. They accuse SCO of knowingly making public statements of ownership to the media and in SEC filings that were false regarding their purported ownership of the copyrights, and the document lists some of the worst examples. Yoo hoo, Red Hat. I believe you have some Lanham Act claims? I think you're going to enjoy this document."

I bought my boxed SuSE9.3, have you?

Novell/Linux 1, Microsoft 0 (-$100,000,000)

While slightly unrelated to Desktop Linux, I find that this is newsworthy for linux in general.

There's one more thing that needs to be done before Linux can conquer the desktop, and this is making the regular people AWARE of that hipothetical new "distro fo regular people", and make them able to find and install it.

Imagine you're such an RP. You've heard about this free OS but you don't personally know anyone who knows about linux. Where do you go? Google of course. Now google for "linux" or "install linux". You get one website that seems like the right place - linux.org, but there's no distro you can install from there, and the "download" page is actually a page full of text the RP will never bother to read. All the other results have strange names like "mandrake", "debian", or "gentoo" and you have no idea what they're about (you STILL don't know about distros). The one distro that might concievably fit a RP, Ubuntu, isn't even on the first page. You might try some web forum and ask for help. But you won't get one clear answer, you'll get dozens of conflicting recommendations for different distros. What do you do now? the obvious answer - give up, continue to use windows.

What Linux needs is a clear "default" distro, available for easy download and install from an easily found website like www.installinux.org, or even www.linux.org, if the powers that be (Linus?) give their support for such a thing.

Among all your great Linux articles in the series, this is probably the one of least significant for the success of Desktop Linux. I agree with many of your points and that at least the behavior of the Linux GUI should be similar to Windows. However, I also think that some of the differences in Linux adds to the excitement of using something different. For example, the "Start menu" placement on the top of the desktop gives you a nice Mac feeling, although the usefulness of a menu bar on top decreases when all windows have their own menus anyway. I don't think the alternative scroll-wheel clipboard would ever be a problem for Real People. The same goes for the OK/Cancel placement. My girlfriend is a true RP and she wouldn't even know the other clipboard exists. I've watched her while using computers and noticed that when a dialog pops up, she clicks on the right button regardless of whether she's using Windows or Linux. It's just for people like you and me with years of experience in Windows that the reversed placement can become an annoyance, but you adapt quite quickly.

What's discouraging though, is when the _behavior_ differs from Windows. For example, in Windows you can close a window by double-clicking on the icon in the left corner of the title bar. In Linux (Gnome), you can't. Another example is the ability to zoom in on text on various text controls in Windows using Ctrl+Scroll. That's not possible in Linux either, which is a shame because often you want to quickly increase the font size in e.g. Gaim. Fortunately, Firefox has this ability in Linux as well. Nautilus is one of the applications that needs most work. For example, in List View, which is the most useful view if you want to know more things about a file than its name, it isn't possible to select multiple files without using the keyboard. You can't, like you can in Windows Explorer, draw a square which will select all files within it. That's only possible in the Icon View. The ability do drag a file with the right mouse button in Explorer is also missing in Nautilus. Another Nautilus example that is confusing is that if you rename a file, it's immediately resorted and, sort of, disappears from your view. This makes it very hard to rename multiple files in a folder without loosing track of which ones are renamed.

I mentioned the top placement of the start menu in Gnome as a positive experience because of the Macintosh feeling. That said, I absolutely don't understand why Gnome is using two panels by default, especially not when vertical screen space is so important. It would have made more sense if applications had their menu in the top menu bar instead of in their own window. Right now, lots of vertical screen space is lost with no real benefit, and if you're using a laptop with a widescreen, it just gets ridiculous. I don't know the plans for Gnome 3 but I would hope they have a solution to this issue and that they perhaps would choose to either make more use of the top panel or merge the two panels into one.

Final words: You've said a lot of things I've been thinking and ranting about for years, but instead of just thinking about it, you took the time and effort to write these great articles. I hope that Linux (and especially Gnome) developers have paid attention to the interesting discussions here.

"What Linux needs is a clear "default" distro, available for easy download and install from an easily found website like www.installinux.org, or even www.linux.org, if the powers that be (Linus?) give their support for such a thing."

I couldn't disagree more. The diversity is what makes linux great.

"What's discouraging though, is when the _behavior_ differs from Windows. For example, in Windows you can close a window by double-clicking on the icon in the left corner of the title bar. In Linux (Gnome), you can't."

You're going to be very cross with Microsoft corporation my friend, that feature has been ....... removed in windows vista.

have a nice day.

Linux is way easier for mac users as well.

Not only can you get the chooser bar on the bottom with the gDesklets starterbar, but you can easily change the window configuration to look like mac

Applications->system->gconf-editor
apps->metacity->general->

action_double_click_titlebar -> toggle_shade
button_layout -> close,maximize,minimize:menu

Now you can go and change the themes to look like mac
http://art.gnome.org/themes/gtk2/

I use gnome-art, written in ruby, to manage my desktop themes
http://www.miketech.net/gnome-art/

Such freeware ruby applications do not exist on windows.

There are more mac like gnome themes here
http://www.gnome-look.org/

I list this stuff to show that with a little tweeking, you can essentially make linux look and act almost exactly like a mac. Windows doesn't have this level of tweakability and thus friendliness to the mac user.

Beer,
I don’t know exactly what Ruby does, but if it is a tool to change themes, then there is a wonderful PC tool called style XP which allows you to skin just about everything from the logon screen to the starbar and a host of other things...
http://www.tgtsoft.com/prod_sxp.php

If you want a program which lets you change the interface itself, there is a program called desktop X which allows for this very thing.
http://www.stardock.com/products/desktopx/

You’re a power user. Other people are not. There are benefits to Linux that transcend its under-the-hood capabilities, if only you had the eyes to see. But for someone like me to use it, a greater commitment to user-friendliness must be in evident. And you won’t get my family and friends until I tell them it’s ok to start up...

Beer, I hate to say this, but _you_ and your mind set are the reason Linux is unfriendly to people like me. And if you want Linux to be a serious competitor on the desktop, you need me and millions more like me...

"PC tool called style XP which allows you to skin just about everything from the logon screen to the starbar and a host of other things...
http://www.tgtsoft.com/prod_sxp.php"

This tool costs $20 per license M$$$$

"If you want a program which lets you change the interface itself, there is a program called desktop X which allows for this very thing.
http://www.stardock.com/products/desktopx/"

This tool costs $70 per license M$$$$

Gnome styles are simple XML files anybody who knows HTML/XML can edit with the equivalent of notepad.
http://developer.gnome.org/doc/tutorials/metacity/metacity-themes.html
All you have to have is GIMP to make images and gedit to make your own Gnome styles. Windows styles have to be signed, and require costly and complex programs to expose those features.

"And if you want Linux to be a serious competitor on the desktop, you need me and millions more like me..."

I don't care if nobody uses linux. I use it. I think it's the best major operating system in the world, and my fav's are SuSE and Fedora Core.
I am also doing LFS for fun/R&D.

Linux is a power system for power users, students and programmers. I dare to call it an elite system for elitists.

If somebody like MoFo wants to come along and make a super Joe Blow linux to cator to windows users, more power to them. I think they should put down the blogosphere and pick up the Emacs and get going on it.

Beer, you rock. Between you and Asa there is more awesome truth coming out here than any forum/blog/whatever I've been reading for years. I agree 100% with your opinion of the quality and state of GNU/Linux, and just as much with Asa on what it would take to make the OS palatable to the migrating user. I look at the Mozilla model of transferring data from previous browser/MUA and can just imagine how perfect that would be for a Windows escapee. Keep up the great commentary, guys.

I just got this on my KNewsTicker

http://www.gnome.org/~davyd/gnome-2-12/

Check this section out

"Clipboard Management

New clipboard management, based on the Freedesktop.org specification and tightly integrated with GNOME, allows for objects to persist in the clipboard longer than the lifetime of an application. This means that if you cut or copy an object and then exit that application, the item you put on the clipboard will remain until you replace it. The new clipboard manager is technically superior to existing implementations and integrates tightly with specially designed GTK+ APIs, allowing for a faster and more flexible clipboard implementation."

It appears they fixed it in the new gnome 2.12
I always hated that you'd copy something in gedit, then as soon as you close it, it would be wiped out of the clipboard on proc/gtk cleanup.

That was so annoying, and now it appears that they've fixed it. So I think that addresses some of the complaints about clipboard data lifespan that alot of people had a problem with.

The new gnome 2.12 also has a full GUI menu editor

"The panel will also include an integrated menu editor compliant with the Freedesktop.org menu specification. This menu editor is not yet fully featured, however offers most of the basic functionality for systems administrators wanting to lock down menu items. Using the Freedesktop.org menu specification allows the user to choose any menu editor he/she wants, and there are several excellent third-party menu editors currently being developed also."

So that takes care of that problem, having to use 3rd party menu editors and such.

Gnome's only getting better with every release. The new Gnome/XComposition integration stuff is HOT!

>"What's discouraging though, is when the _behavior_ differs from Windows. For example, in Windows you can close a window by double-clicking on the icon in the left corner of the title bar. In Linux (Gnome), you can't."

>You're going to be very cross with Microsoft corporation my friend, that feature has been ....... removed in windows vista.

Um, running Vista beta and it is still working. :-P

I am not a windows user, nor tester, but I read these reports from windows vista testers on another forum

######################

"- no more double click / close on any top left window corner (reminds me of worrying where to close - like on a Mac) * this was done because there is no icon there anymore - but you will notice this - "nope - go to other side of window to close" very soon after loading vista"

######################

"Re: Double clicking upper left to close:

I seem to have icons in the upper left of my windows, but yes they do behave weirdly. For me double clicking in the left corner or along the top of the icon does the default titlebar action (restore). Double clicking along the left side of the icon closes the window as does double clicking directly on the icon. And of course single clicking in the upper right corner of a maximized window doesn't close that window becuase there is now a space to the right of the close button "

So those beta testers may be lying, though I would have no way to really tell.
I stopped using windows a while ago.

You know the more articles like these that i read, give me even more reasons to just dump firefox as my browser of choice, i'm starting to have a dislike for mozilla and after reading the article and asa's microsoft like threatning, i feel that's a good reason to dislike mozilla.

Beer: Your comments are all true, however why do you bother? Seriously, i gave up defending linux, one of these stupid "linux is not ready for the desktop articles" pop up every month, i'm sick of them.

Oh and hey asa, guess what? I'm 17 years old and guess what operating system i use on my brand new pc? Linux. Why do i use linux? No not because i don't like windows, not because it's open source, not because it's free, but because it's different. Linux is different from windows, not harder to use. I've used PC's for two years, i got my first pc when i was 15 which came installed with windows xp which i used for a year then i wanted something "different" which is where i found linux.

If I can use linux as my main operating system, after only having 2 years expierence with computers i'm sure anyone can, it's just there not willing or they're using linux for the wrong reasons. asa continue to spread fud if you like but it's not doing firefox any favours. Oh and forcing linux to grow into something it's not is wrong in so many ways, let linux's growth come naturally.

A sensible, constructive article has been written here by Asa, agree with it or not, at least keep the debate constructive, and open minded.

Clearly a lot of people have a lot of passion and stubborn views on Linux, what it is, and what it could/should be - even though there's many versions out there.

Asa and others raise some very clear points for improvement in spreading a product he and most see as worthy of more success and usage.

Disagree if you like, but it's not plainly fud. To say let Linux's growth come naturally, is quite telling. How do you define that? Obviously with all products 99% of the producers and fans want to help it succeed, and be used, largely through bettering the product in ways many would benefit from the changes, and promote the product, as a good product people can benefit from.

Now is that natural growth, or not? Well yes of course it is being realistic.

Firefox is a great product. Mozilla didn't not make any changes in light of what many users, and many IE users may benefit from. That would have been stubborn and of no benefit.

They identified only the worthwhile area's to make changes, to be overally beneficial to most, and overall for all users. It was also not scattered all over the web, and not, not promoted much, and left to do what it will.

To do that obviously has a negative affect on the success and growth of any product.

Having the IE feature of ALT D to go to the URL bar, copied to Firefox, was not a major thing, it had little to know negative impact, and for the most part benefited only. Firefox was not being turned into IE, and it is not being suggested Linux be adapted into Windows, or into something completely different. This notion or anything like it, is ridiculous, it's like a little boy not letting a toy manufacturer change the next version of his toy, because he's stubborn and want's it to be like his last version, not changed at all, or at least not much, or in certain ways.

As products progress it is natural they progress in terms on changes, improvements, scrutinized, and adapted, over time. At the end of the day it's upto the devs to make what they wish, especially when it's free.

Nothing drastic's going to happen, changes are made to products all the time, it's a fact of life, and the whole fear and dis-missal of such discussions relating to that is ridiculous, not constructive, realistic to the debate at hand.

If I can use linux as my main operating system, after only having 2 years expierence with computers i'm sure anyone can

And how much of that two years did you spend on learning Linux, pray tell? Two hours a week? Five hours a day?

And how much time does a Wall Street stock broker have to learn a Brand New™ operating system? (without getting fired, that is) Or Aunt Tillie who just wants to use the Damn Thing without it yelling back at her?

Moving along,

I'd like to take this time to remind those who would listen to Eric S. Raymond's excellent essay entitled "The Luxury of Ignorance".
And also his subsequent follow-up book, "The Art of Unix Usability".

This is an Excellent Discussion™, let's keep it that way by keeping it all civilized-like and stuffs.

(I wonder if the Ubuntu project has gotten wind of your usability writings, Mr. Doltzer. I guess I'll have to google that...)

Very, very well said. Personally I think the clipboard handling _is_ a horrible deal breaker. I'm using Ubuntu almost fulltime, and its a very annoying thing in a great distro. But it is fixed in gnome 2.12 as far as I know.

You know the more articles like these that i read, give me even more reasons to just dump firefox as my browser of choice, i'm starting to have a dislike for mozilla and after reading the article and asa's microsoft like threatening, i feel that's a good reason to dislike mozilla.

Then do so and use IE/Opera/whatever, no one is going to care whether you use firefox or not. You think 'your threat' is going to make anyone care? Please... Hate Mozilla for all you want. You obviously never really cared about Mozilla's goals anyways since your ready to dump an excellent browser because of your political viewpoint (which is not very sound anyway - Asa has all the right to say whatever he wants).

Beer: Your comments are all true, however why do you bother? Seriously, i gave up defending linux, one of these stupid "linux is not ready for the desktop articles" pop up every month, i'm sick of them.

But Linux is not ready for your average users. You seem to not understand this part. If (if and only if) you want Joe user to use Linux you've got to make changes. Of course if you contribute to the development of various linux related project you can feel free do what you want. Make things complicated for the sake of being complicated. Ignore standards and try to fragment everything as much as possible. Its your right to do so, but you have to understand that this won't make joe average switch to linux never.

Oh and hey asa, guess what? I'm 17 years old and guess what operating system i use on my brand new pc? Linux. Why do i use linux? No not because i don't like windows, not because it's open source, not because it's free, but because it's different. Linux is different from windows, not harder to use.

You are not the regular person that asa was talking about. No one ever said its not usable by you. But its certainly not usable or even designed to easy to use for joe average. You fail to understand that most people don't really want change, they want things to be as familiar as possible with a few new useful additions.

Oh and forcing linux to grow into something it's not is wrong in so many ways, let linux's growth come naturally.

Yeah fine let it 'grow' (I think you mean develop. But there is no way your going to get joe average to use linux. And that can be a good thing. But if you do want Joe blow to use linux, then you MUST make changes.

If anything Asa has the right to talk about this. After all its Asa and other Mozillians who transfered Seamonkey (popular among a few geeks) into firefox (used by as much as 10% of the web). At the same time Seamonkey still exists and will be maintained by the few who enjoy using it. Asa was simply proposing his view on how to make linux popular among regular users. There is nothing wrong with that. After all isn't linux about freedom, including the freedom to be accessible to most of the population?