RE: Don't overlook Simplicity.

["Roger Vaughn" <rvaughn pobox com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: brtaylor@inreach.com [mailto:brtaylor@inreach.com]
>
> In message
> <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906171356000.21592-100000@sunrise.windsofstorm.n
> et>,
>  Nathan Clemons writes:
> cc:  gnome-list@gnome.org, recipient list not shown: ;
> > Since when did you purchase GNOME?
> >
> > Sorry, just had to ask that.
>
> Read my statement again. What I would have said explicitly was I make no
> demands on free software, however I demand both from software I purchase.
>
> > There comes a time when you, in the course of writing an application,
> > have to decide if it is an important feature or excess bloat. Making
> > things for the average DAU can very quickly lead to bloat.
>
> I don't believe we were speaking of feature vs bloat.
>
> > It's a fine line that you have to tread, but the fact remains: power or
> > simplicity? In the end, one must come over the other. Maybe not in this
> > version or the next, but eventually there always comes the decision.
>
> I still maintain you can have both ease of use and power.
>

I fully agree.  It is possible to have both.  The infernal paper clip
example keeps popping up - is *that* ease of use?  No.  That's dumbing down
the interface.  It doesn't make Windoze one *whit* easier to use.

Simple is not the same as simplistic.  And ease of use does not imply
feature bloat.  (In fact, feature bloat usually means difficult to use!)

Designing powerful, simple applications is difficult, I will grant that.
And every one of our power corporations is wimping out on the challenge.
Their concern is the bottom line, not making things easy for their users.
Nor do they care to spend the money to do development the right way.  (I'm a
contractor - you should see the projects I have to work on...)  Anyone out
there have to configure Windoze on a regular basis?  It isn't easy.  Windoze
fails *both* the ease of use and power tests.  We have to set the standard
here, folks.  We need to keep the professionalism in programming.

And let's not kid ourselves, folks, if we want to compare, GNOME is still
far from stable.  I will even go out on a limb to say (and I really hate to
say this, believe me) that Windoze is still more stable than GNOME.  Shoot,
Wanda still kills my sessions.

I have spent many years supporting user networks, and now support a lot of
developers.  I can tell you that I would much rather support them in Linux
than in Windoze.  At least it's a sane, configurable, stable OS.  I would
love to see greater corporate acceptance of Linux.  But to do that, we do
need easy to use tools.  And GNOME seems to me to be a great place to start.

rog