Grandma factor

I've been reading around different stories about how we're not making our systems enough "grandma"-proof (that is to be "easily" used by grandmas. Sorry grandpas, you're probably not too appealing for the cause).

In fact, I've written something like that myself some time ago. That doesn't mean I've changed my mind about that essay, I just adopted an attitude.

What I am thinking now, when considering things said in that article, is that designing a system for an "average" computer user is becoming less relevant. I do think that usability must go as one of the first and foremost important features, but nevertheless, making our systems oversimplified (Gnome anyone?) is a totally wrong thing to do.

(Regarding my Gnome remark, I just saying rather large opinion that I hear around. I use Gnome myself, and it is sufficient enough for me. But also is a Xfce and MacOS X, and in some degree Windows and KDE. I just want to say, that in some projects, craving for simplicity overshadows main goals of the projects - and that is to deliver functionality. And Gnome's "simplicity" was the factor that turned Linus Tourvalds to KDE)

In fast technology race, the functionality can be beaten by usability. But usability means "convenient use", not "simple". Any system that simplifies on expense of other important aspects, is destined to fail.

All I want is that technically oriented crowd would differentiate between the so-called "average" user and everyone else. My wife (wife to be in a short while) uses a computer without significant problems. She just doesn't like how some things are done (such as MSN Live upgrade forced up on her. She liked it the way it was, and she doesn't like to be forced to do anything, as we all don't).

In the world I live in, there's almost everyone knows how to handle a computer. For better or for worse. And you know what? My dad is a grandpa now, and he can handle complicated computer tasks very well. Do you know how? I'll tell you how.

Because he's a grown intelligent person, that can take his time to learn a new thing. Just like he did once when remote controls for everything began to appear.

What I'm trying to say, is that we should probably stop using a "grandma" factor as a major "usability" measure. Many computer users are not that illiterate anymore. Almost all newly grads for last 10 years (who lead many businesses today) are comfortable with computers. Many college students grew up with one.

So, I think there's a need for yet another level of usability. A community needs to find another type of a person that will test a usability of a product.

It should be an advanced computer user, who are not afraid to try new things, who understands what a new product is and what is usability and how can it be assessed.

Try me for that.

Licensing issues

I've read the article from Jem Matzan, about how latest ramblings around licensing issues prove that reality will prevail the idealizm.

And you know what? I agree.

I always choose to use an open source software when I have the choice. I do it both idealistically (because I can easily connect to developers and users community, and get help and assistance), and because of technical merit (I find often that open source software is much better than many commercial ones), and definitely because of the cost (just bandwidth to download stuff) and mostly because I don't want to get into licensing debate with larger bodies.

I just use computing as tools. Think of it as when you buy a hammer, it comes with sort of a license agreement that only allows you to use it with specific type of nails. Sure, noone will really check what exactly for and how exactly are you going to use it, but license is there nevertheless.

I think such thing would be extremely stupid and worthless, but I'm not the one who decides. I just want my hammer as something heavy and convenient, and I do want to hit something else with it sometimes.

So it is for me with computers and software. My choice of open source software is a choice that assures me, that I can do anything I want or need with tools I get.

Now, what is the problem Jem describing here? The problem, as FreeBSD Foundation President put it, is that many think that what Free Software Foundation thinks is the right thing regarding the licensing. I disagree with their approach.

In a free world, as they would like it to be, anyone entitled to a free software, exactly as I am. But sometimes, for my own personal advantage, I would not like to open source to my product. Someone doesn't like that? Either close your code too, or shut up. It is a free world after all, I can do whatever I want. Many GPL proponents seems to care to their freedom only.

With all those additional open-source licenses, the only one more thing you get is the one thing that you're trying to avoid - DRM. The curse word in digital world, meaning that every single bit is restricted, and you can use the bit I created only under my own conditions, and if you don't comply, I'll sue you to death. But it's all ones and zeros, folks. Nothing more.

That's why I side with Linus on licensing issue (he was never bothered by commercialization of Linux, and in fact I think he's even happy about it).

I like the most the BSD license.

Free for all and for all purposes. Just don't forget to mention who created it.

The best ever.

-A.

Google Linux

I just read a column in Inquirer about meetup in Googleplex. There are people from Linux Foundation and FSF, which meet up in goal to discuss the latest Microsoft ramblings about licensing problems in Linux:

Following Microsoft's inking of agreements with Linux hawkers, offering to shield them from lawsuits over the 235 patents it reckons versions of Linux infringe, a gathering of open sorcerers is assembling at Google HQ to debate what is to be done.

According to Reuters report, which helpfully details what a Linux geek is wearing these days (T-shirts and jeans), organizer of the "Collaboration Summit", Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation, told the amassed geeks: "Guys: Be seekers of truth, not finders of contradiction."

Maybe something will come of it, but typically, like the Left in politics, there may be too much squabbling over what society should look like after the revolution that the revolution will be eternally postponed.

I actually agree to this. Its much easier to discuss than get things done. But then, I like this comment:

Google Linux anyone?

Funny isn't it? Not that Google needs such a thing, but I think that while everyone is talking Ubuntu would do the trick and take it all.

-A

Technorati : Gentoo, Linux, Ubuntu

Comparing Windows to Linux

I've just read a community blog on ZDnet, suggesting to stage a face-to-face run of Windows Server installation with Linux installation on the same hardware.

By getting (supposedly) much better results on Linux side, it claims then that Microsoft's claims about "stolen" intellectual property in Linux or other open source projects will be pointless. After all, using the same technology should provide the same results, isn't it?

I just so disagree with this. Understanding that there's so much more to operating system than couple hundred specific technological ideas making me think that implementing the suggested demonstration will not show any effect.

Besides, I probably could understand the reasoning if the difference would become tenfold, but if its consistently about 10% in average? And if Linux system will come worse in some scenarios? It doesn't mean anything at all. Yes, Linux developers may have used (unknowingly of course) some technique "patented" by Microsoft (all the value and meaning of patenting is beyond the scope here), and they even could've implemented it the same way, but then something else in Windows or Linux can cause for one of the systems work slower or faster than the other - and it will have nothing to do with this specific technological issue (patent?).

I just side Linus Tourvalds on this: just let Microsoft show the IP problems, and they will be fixed. If you don't want to show anything, I have nothing to fear about - how do I know you're not bluffing?

Knowing Microsoft I know for sure they bluff a lot.

Technorati : Gentoo, Linux, Ubuntu, linux, technology, windows

Choosing a platform for work.

After meeting a friend yesterday and talking a bit about technology with him, and after reading a review today, I had an idea.

I recently understood that most of my "computer"-related work is either already done or can be moved to be totally online. Such a thing would lead me to one of the following (or combination of them):

1. I'm totally online. I never loose my data because I have it online all the time. The only moment when its not there is that split of a second I loose my wireless connection and my data not uploaded yet. I can do my work (or entertainment) anywhere, anytime.
2. I'm totally "dead" without internet connection. My powerful computer has no use for me. I can't access anything. I can't do anything. I'm so addicted to being online, that I have problems figuring out what are computers for. Although my movies and music are local and with me, I have no wish to "consume" them - after all, I can't access my email (don't tell me its unrelated! It is. I am not addicted).
   

Then I've thought about it even more.

We have an internet connection nowadays everywhere. I walk around my neighborhood and I catch easily 10 open WiFi spots. Many can check their email with 3G mobile phones, or even use them to connect to the "real" Internet. Many of those phones are good enough for Internet by themselves. WiMax us promised to come in couple of years give or take. So we have connectivity problem solved. That, probably, also solves me the "problem" with an Internet addiction usage. This means, I can work virtually everywhere anytime.

Now, what bothers me at this point, is the computer itself. I mainly use browser and email. I use simple editor for documents/blog writing. I use simple photo management application. I use somewhat more advanced pictures editing application. I use multimedia players.

These all are hardly resource intensive tasks. But my computer starts to crawl when I open more than 2 apps at a time. Besides, when I'm thinking about installing applications and maintaining the computer, I wonder: why should I invest so much time in it?

So, I know what I want. I want a TV-like usability computer - something that just works. I want a "work" appliance. I want an appliance which is lite, small, convenient, has a long battery life, and fast and responsive. I want to know what it does and how it does it. I want to be able to customize it. I want my computing everywhere with me.

Just like an OLPC with a larger screen and battery life.

-A.

Technorati : Gentoo, Linux, OLPC, Ubuntu, apple, technology, windows

Responsive computing required!

Hey all. Thanks for spelling me out the obvious by commenting on my previous post - using swap out of memory is useless.

But I still want my computer to be faster and swap less. I know that today's userspace apps suck and use much unnecessary computer resources, but all I want for my computer is to be responsive!

I remember in DOS days, with much slower computers I didn't have to wait for it. Computers perform tasks much faster that people, so I want to use this tool and I want it to be usable. I don't want to wait for it to do something it "thinks" it needs to. I want it to respond in half of a second to any of my actions.

Is that too much to ask for?
Is it possible to be easily done? Without the suggestion to buy more hardware? If so, how?

-A.

Technorati : Linux, Ubuntu, technology, windows

Gentoo week and other stuff

Man, it have been a boring week. Besides a Bugday which took place last Saturday (and still have to check out the results of that), there's almost nothing.

The only thing thing that I've noticed on forums is kinda twofold: one user considered moving from Gentoo to Ubuntu, and wanted convincing to stay, and other wanted to try Gentoo while he's using Ubuntu and wanted points to help him out.

This actually caused me thinking. The question here, of course, is more general, and I would say it like this:

• How does one picks the most appropriate distro for himself/herself and what can we do to make that Gentoo?

Now, this issue is not so simple. While I could understand ones' choice of Linux over Windows or MacOS (and don't start with me on GNU, its semantics for me). But how would one choose a distribution?

On one of the forum threads, someone said "when you choose a distribution, you are choosing the way of thinking, the philosophy and an approach". This is the most accurate characterization I heard about "what I get if I choose {your favorite distro here}?".

So, in a nutshell, one chooses a distro by a most suitable way of doing things on a computer, not according to applications list. I don't care for how long my computer boot, because I have uptime of months, and I reboot it once in a long while. So will it take 20 seconds or a minute, doesn't matter to me.

But if I create a Media Center, I would like it to turn on instantly, and I do turn it off all the time. See, the purpose is an important thing, but the way of doing it is much more important.

Does my mom care what OS her TV runs (or if at all)? Does my dad care for his cell phone OS? Of course not. They want a predefined set of tasks, but these tasks should perform flawlessly.

If I want distribution, with predefined set of tasks, I want them be performed flawlessly. In the end, in screenshots you'll see a standard X with standard window manager with custom theme and icons. How does this provide a mindset of a distro? How would I know whether we're good for each other?

I see many users complain that Gentoo is not Fedora, Ubuntu or Suse. I suppose that after a move to these distros they complain how Fedora, Ubuntu or Suse is not Gentoo. We like to complain.

My friend started his second grad year, started using Red Hat in uni, because thats what they have. According his main complains, its like he's complaining that Linux is not Windows (he doesn't say that directly, he says something like "why don't I have {...} in Linux as I did in Windows. It was so simple!!").

So, why would a person leave Gentoo for other distro or other distro for Gentoo? 2 reasons:

• He/she did something (or, although more rarely, something internal happened in distro structure) which broke his system and he/she either couldn't recover it or it took a lot of effort; and
  
• The perceived mindset of other distro (or Gentoo) seems to be more suitable to this users' mindset at the moment, so user believes that other distro is "better" because it would allow to do things the way he/she can't at the moment with the distro he/she uses.
  

So can we do anything withing Gentoo to help that? Meaning, keeping more existing users and luring more of a new ones?

I believe so. There are many things that can be done, but the main thing I believe would be creating an easy ways around Gentoo. These would include, some but not limited to:

• Easier processes for installing and maintaining. (we're close but it's not perfect)
• Better documentation (either more fun, interactive and comprehensive)
• Better change notification
• Better feedback and support.
• Better accessibility of developers to users and better interaction within community.

I can't say how exactly to do these, I'm trying to figure things each at a time. But as a part of user-user community relations, and part of users-developers relations, all ideas that are out there should be checked (and that's partially what userreps are there for), and in the end I believe we would have the best distro.

The best for out mindset that is.

Feel free to throw more ideas for making it better.