On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 18:24 +0000, Oliver Kullmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:58:30PM -0500, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:01 -0500, Katheryne Draven wrote:
> > > On 1/23/11, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@...> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > I think we need to focus first on the parent directories (Office or
> > > Desktop Publishing, Tools, Utilities, etc etc) then work on the
> > > subdirectories. I think the apps should help us determine what
> > > subdirectories are needed. I urge the use of proper computer
> > > terminology, avoiding the use of "MS Terms". We should mean to
> > > education as well, after all knowledge is freedom (among other good
> > > things).
> > > 
> > > With regard to "mytools", it smacks too much as a homage to MS, with
> > > its "My this" and "My that", but in the end its not my decision. Its
> > > clearly something Trinity as a whole must make. I do urge against the
> > > use of MS terminology. I understand the belief that if its familiar,
> > > it will make the use more comfortable. That, however, has not been my
> > > eXPerience :). Users who leave windows for Linux cringe when they see
> > > references to it. They're finally free of their master, why would they
> > > wish to build a shrine to it? The use of MS terms, also reinforces the
> > > belief that Linux is just a second rate Windos wannabe.
> > > 
> > > OH BLAST! Where did this soapbox come from??!!
> > > 
> > <snip>
> > <grin> I'd be a little careful of the soap box, though.  I have little
> > respect for Microsoft practices but, as someone on the front lines of
> > Windows -> Linux conversions, familiarity is critically important.
> > People have businesses to run and could care less about educating
> > themselves (rightfully).  They just want to be able to drive the car
> > without knowing how it works.  So, where something is functional (folder
> > vs. directory) we might be able to make the case (frankly, folder is
> > probably more familiar to those who consider a directory structure
> > analogous to a filing cabinet while directory makes much more sense to
> > IT types) but, where it's simply a name, we could call it lampshade for
> > all I care but keeping things familiar remove possible stumbling blocks
> > to adoption. Office politics can be mighty powerful and if the opponents
> > are all crying, "it's all different and we don't have time to learn it,"
> > they can turn the tide on a conversion effort.  I vote for familiarity
> > even if it makes me cringe.  Thanks - John 
> >
> 
> I think the KDE 3 -> KDE 4 disaster has much to do with a kind of take-over
> by ms-centric thinking. Sure, hard to quantify, but with KDE 3 I always had the
> feeling it moves in principle into the right direction, while with KDE 4 this
> basic trust is completely lost (on a daily basic --- I have to use it under
> various circumstances). 
> 
> More concretely, names like "my ..." are infantil. Anything which is worth
> something is about doing the right thing, not about doing something to gain power
> (and "keepings things familiar etc." is basically that). Sure people can go
> for the power, but was that the starting point of Trinity (I hoped it would
> have something to do with the "right thing")?
> 
> If the argument is about what that "right thing" actually is, sure, that's not
> so easy, but just relating to the status quo and following it is just opportunism,
> which even pays out only for very few (the rest fights for the coins thrown into
> the pack).
> 
> My hope of Trinity would be that it would be a bit of a radical spearhead
> (at least radical in the sense of quality, and in the sense of not giving up
> on what KDE 3 achieved).
<snip>
I would like to politely disagree while admitting that many others on
the list may be better qualified than I to address this issue.  However,
my impression of why KDE4 has been such a problem has not been the MS
imitation but their prioritization of developer interests over user
interests - a neat new paradigm, a fun playground, but something that
should have been pursued as R&D while not abandoning the production
KDE3.  I think the understandable response from the KDE devs was they
don't have the time for both and their interested in development and not
production support - hence the importance of Trinity as a Desktop
Environment that focuses on production usability rather than fun and
novel paradigms.

I agree that "my . . " is infantile.  I don't like it at all and I feel
stupid using it.  However, if we impose our opinions of what computing
should be on end users, we risk driving into the same ditch as the KDE4
devs.  In some cases, we really do have to think for our users and make
decisions in spite of them.  But, where it is not critical, I would hope
we would sacrifice our "purism" which is technically correct and elegant
for what is more likely to make Trinity desktops face the least
resistance to adoption.

Again, I don't want to set off a war and am perfectly willing to defer.
Just wanted to share my opinion after dealing with lots of end users who
struggle during conversions and trying to remove as many obstacles for
them as possible even if it smacks of Microsoftisms.  Who knows, even
though we approach it from different directions, we may all look at the
end product and say, "that's just what I meant!" Thanks - John