Roger said:
This method inserts a graphical user interface between the user and the
configuration files, and that makes linux more user friendly, like most
windows programs already are.
I'm in two minds about this. GUIs that act as a buffer between with
configuration files and the user are present in Red Hat (I don't use Red
Hat, though), and they seem to be of a somewhat vexed issue -
configuration files are often mangled, and hand-coded values are often
scrapped.
There's that old joke about what would OSs be if they were airlines:
http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/computing/os-airlines.html
Here's the one about Unix Airline:
Each passenger brings a piece of the airplane and a box of tools to the
airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing constantly about what kind
of plane they want to build and how to put it together. Eventually, they
build several different aircraft, but give them all the same name. Some
passengers actually reach their destinations.All passengers believe they
got there.
That joke epitomises perhaps the greatest strengths, and greatest
weaknesses, about UNIX. Lots of parts put together to form something
very useful - still, you have to assemble the parts yourself.
For every configuration file, a user GUI which explains and presents
the options.
Or a more general config file editor which has the information needed
to setup many config files.
As the number of linux users increases there will be a much stronger
need for hardware makers to write drivers for their hardware.
My hope is that they'll be some kind of tipping point for Linux, when
hardware vendors realise that there really is money to be made in Linux,
and that it's profitable for them to make a real crack at the drivers
issue. My worry is that manufacturers are more concerned with secrecy
than with usability. They seem to prefer to release binary drivers, when
sources would be better. What would be useful would be open hardware
standards that manufacturers would adhere to. A modem would be "just a
modem", a monitor would be "just a monitor". But manufacturers don't see
it this way, they see their hardware as special, needing secret
protection. It kind-of reminds me of the early days of engineering,
where something as simple as screws were not standardised. Each
manufacturer had screws whose threads were of different pitch, and
suchlike. Complete nightmare.
I think that computers still need much time to mature. I think it's when
we can no longer squeeze any more power out of the chips that we'll
start to see things settle down. We should hopefully see things designed
better, rather than with more gee-wiz features.
The need for better user interfaces also becomes a reason to advance
linux, from the nerd level where the few users like to do things in
complicated ways, to show off, to the general user level, when
grandmothers and all kinds of people want better (easier) user
interfaces.
Usability is something that appears to be cropping up more and more in
Linux circles; and not all are happy with the direction it is taking.
Sun, for example, are trying to put together the next generation user
interface, but they seem to think animated buttons, 3-dimensions, and
semi-transparent windows is the way to go. I, for one, think they are
missing the point. Eye-candy is not usability.
I'm not sure what the key to usability is. Maybe UNIX needs more
"policies" - which should help standardisation and integration. Maybe a
Benevolent Dictator For Life (Mark Shuttleworth of Ubuntu is a prime
candidate here) would be useful. Still, I know it's likely to be a
controversial issue. As soon as you say that UNIX needs to set policies,
you'll have a crowd of people who state that it's UNIX's strength that
it doesn't set policies.
It will be interesting to see how computers shape up over the next
twenty years.
