[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
-> The end-users would like a *graphical* installation, with
-> fancy picture/graphics.
-> The future of the desktop is graphical, but for the present
-> Linux should not segregate.where it is not (yet) necessary.
The future of the desktop may indeed be graphical (in the very
broadest sense of the word). But I'm not convinced that this
means a gooey point-and-click.
Sure, people dislike the CLI. But let's not jump from
the frying pan into the fire. A high-overhead GUI is not
necessarily the answer.
I've watched many people using M$Windows and there's a very
interesting pattern. The vast majority of ordinary people
use Windows solely as a menu program. In fact I reckon that
90% of people regularly use less than half a dozen programs:
Email, browser, wordprocessor and games. That's about it.
And no, Aunt Martha is not using the computer in the kitchen
to do her recipes.
It seems to me that most users would be quite happy with
a simple menu on the screen, as long as it allows easy
selection of their usual programs. No mouse, no icons.
Selection by number or with the arrow keys. DOS has a
million of these menu programs (for obvious reasons);
some of them are quite fancy.
It seems to me that such a menu program could be used
to provide a standardized front end for an end-user Linux.
The initial menu could be preconfigured with the programs
in the default installation package, and any programs
subsequently added could be automatically inserted into
the menu as part of the installation routine.
"The installation of 'Spank me, big boy' is complete
-- do you want this item to appear in your menu?"
Such a menu would provide a measure of user-friendliness
without shutting out the low-end 3/486's. It is certainly
true that a mere menu will never rival Windows as an
executive toy, but who cares?