Wait what? Are you saying that Gnome, KDE, and Xfce don't stand up to what OS X and Windows have to offer? You are entitled to your own opinion and it's a subjective topic but I would definitely not agree there.
> Configurability should not be paramount.
The lack of configuration does not offer anything to the end user. It's a good business strategy to lower costs whilst still guaranteeing a bug/quirk free product. It is however not a plus. Less is not more.
>Apple Computer is the existence proof. If the X-Windows partisans were right, then Steve Jobs pulled off the impossible.
It only proves that their strategies and products appeal to a small demographic of computer users. For it to prove what you are implying, every OS X and X11 user must actively choose one over the other. I'm sure most OS X users never ventured anywhere near X11. I for one despise WIMP, whether in traditional Windows format or in shiny white gray OS X format. Give me a simplistic window manager any day.
> The lack of configuration does not offer anything to the end user
Oh, it /absolutely/ does. It means that companies can train people -- remember, those pesky hundreds of millions of people who are not computer savvy -- to use applications and not see their investments go up in smoke when some neckbeard decides that shift-clicking the mouse just has to center it on the screen, or play rogue, or something.
The companies who have been successful at UI platforms -- mostly Apple and Microsoft -- have extensive guidelines on how applications should behave. People expect this behavior, and if it changes radically from release to release you hear a lot of complaints. (Windows 8 is going to be interesting to watch).
The X-windows applications I've had the misfortune to use in my career have without exception been inconsistent, poorly designed, very bad at error recovery, and just generally all misery. You might be able to reconfigure them; frankly, I just wanted to scream.
On the other hand I seldom use apps on Windows that piss me off. I don't know whether this is because these apps have more competition, or the platform guidelines are better, or the platforms themselves are better -- whatever the reason, I rest my case.
Configuration is the booby prize if the underlying platform is garbage.
Comments
Wait what? Are you saying that Gnome, KDE, and Xfce don't stand up to what OS X and Windows have to offer? You are entitled to your own opinion and it's a subjective topic but I would definitely not agree there.
> Configurability should not be paramount.
The lack of configuration does not offer anything to the end user. It's a good business strategy to lower costs whilst still guaranteeing a bug/quirk free product. It is however not a plus. Less is not more.
>Apple Computer is the existence proof. If the X-Windows partisans were right, then Steve Jobs pulled off the impossible.
It only proves that their strategies and products appeal to a small demographic of computer users. For it to prove what you are implying, every OS X and X11 user must actively choose one over the other. I'm sure most OS X users never ventured anywhere near X11. I for one despise WIMP, whether in traditional Windows format or in shiny white gray OS X format. Give me a simplistic window manager any day.
> The lack of configuration does not offer anything to the end user
Oh, it /absolutely/ does. It means that companies can train people -- remember, those pesky hundreds of millions of people who are not computer savvy -- to use applications and not see their investments go up in smoke when some neckbeard decides that shift-clicking the mouse just has to center it on the screen, or play rogue, or something.
The companies who have been successful at UI platforms -- mostly Apple and Microsoft -- have extensive guidelines on how applications should behave. People expect this behavior, and if it changes radically from release to release you hear a lot of complaints. (Windows 8 is going to be interesting to watch).
The X-windows applications I've had the misfortune to use in my career have without exception been inconsistent, poorly designed, very bad at error recovery, and just generally all misery. You might be able to reconfigure them; frankly, I just wanted to scream.
On the other hand I seldom use apps on Windows that piss me off. I don't know whether this is because these apps have more competition, or the platform guidelines are better, or the platforms themselves are better -- whatever the reason, I rest my case.
Configuration is the booby prize if the underlying platform is garbage.