Microsoft invented the GUI! (was: Re: Meeting Minutes)

[Christopher Reid Palmer <jaymz@acm.cs.umn.edu>]

On Thu, 7 May 1998, Tony Beltran wrote:

> When DOS was first getting off the ground, the simplest
> user interfaces were very acceptable, as was the command
> line interface.  However, Microsoft, despite how much we
> like to say otherwise, has set a standard of quality in
> appearance and features their software presents to the
> user

No, actually that was Apple. Windows95 is a sorry copy of the MacOS and
NeXT interfaces. Apple pushed the envelope, MS whipped out a cheesy
knock-off, and the marketing division brought us the lovely hegemony we
enjoy today.

> that (so far) has been unmatched in the Linux community.

Well, Linux is by and for hackers, who have their preferences and
traditions, which are totally different from those of mere (l)users. In
the interest of making Linux a possibility for people who (strangely)
don't enjoy recompiling their kernel every time a new 2.1.x comes out,
there are at least two groups working on distributions that are usable in
the Apple/Apple-copy manner:

www.seul.org/
independence.dunadan.com/

> We are talking about people who are used 
> to products like Microsoft Office.  Compare the look
> and feel of that product to Applixware.  Yes, Applixware
> works well.  But, it does not have that polished finish
> that gives the user confidence.  Nobody at the office is
> using Applixware.

More important than polish is cross-application consistency, a concept
completely lost on Windows and X Windows developers. What we call
"intuitiveness" is really consistency: "Hey, CONTROL+P worked for pasting
text in the other app, maybe it woks in this one, too!" Anyone who has
used TeraTerm and Netscape for MS Windows knows this is wrong. This is a
hump Linux developers are going to have to get over if Linux is to become
an end-user solution. Newsflash: users don't want maximally configurable
apps. They want simple apps that work right, right out of the box, and in
the same way as apps they are already familiar with. Applixware bombs
hilariously in this department.

> This is the same experience
> people in the Microsoft have had in the past with free-
> and shareware.  However, in recent years, freeware and
> shareware has risen dramatically in quality as the tools
> used to produce that software have improved.

Perhaps they've been reading Apple's *Human Interface Guidelines*...

> Therefore,
> on all fronts in the Microsoft world, the standard for
> features and look/feel are quite high.  Why should the
> Microsoft users accept less?

They already *are* accepting less. They have crashy, buggy desktop and
server OSes with bloated, inconsistent apps. Perhaps if we put out ads
with dancing Alpha people and smarmy GenX full-page ads in Wired...

> However,
> the scenerio of Microsoft vs Linux for superiority, user
> share, etc has played itself out over and over.  My first
> encounter with that scene was with the Z100 computer vs
> the PC.  There was the Amiga vs the rest of the world.
> There was the Mac vs the rest of the world.  In each
> case "the rest of the world" was really the PC running 
> DOS or Windows.  The Windows market produced the apps that
> real people who couldn't care less about the underlying
> computer needed to use on a daily basis.

No they didn't. They had strong-arm tactics against IS departments and
superior marketing for a laughably inferior product. 

> It is happening
> again.  However, this time there MAY be a difference.
> If enough people in the Linux community realize this and
> are willing to do something about it (e.g. produce the
> apps that real people need and present in them in a way
> that real people want them to be presented), Linux may
> have a real chance.

As it stands, Linux could nuke the NT niche. But as shit-ridden as it is,
Windows 95 is far superior to Linux for its target market. Linux needs a
complete interface overhaul and a pile of working, stable, and above-all
consistent apps. This isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, let's face
it -- unless the Linux community does an about-face and realizes the
hacker-elitist stance is costing it user- and mind-share. (That's right:
difficulty for users is actually a *liability*, not an asset!)

> This includes a smooth working and good looking GUI

...and consistent...

> and decent documentation.

What? The man pages aren't good enough for you? You must be a luser. >:P

> Most
> of us developers consider the project done when the
> software or hardware does what it is supposed to.  That
> isn't good enough when considering the general public.

Exactly. Eric Raymond and I agree that software is a *service* market.

_____________________________________________________________________________
Christopher Reid Palmer : jaymz@acm.cs.umn.edu : innerfire on IRC (EFNet)

Free Software Special Interest Group : acm.cs.umn.edu/~jaymz/sigfs/
Digital Media Center : www.umn.edu/dmc/