TCLUG Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [TCLUG:144] Microsoft invented the GUI! (was: Re: Meeting Minutes)



>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.

Well, my point was about Microsoft because Windows95, like it 
or not, is the predominant OS and environment that people know
and use today.  Neither Apple nor Microsoft invented the GUI.
From what I understand, it was the PARC people who did it first.
Out of frustration that their creations were not seeing light
of day, these people left PARC and went elsewhere (Apple,
etc) and took their experience with them.  But, all this is
immaterial to the point I was making.  Microsoft has the
market that would supply potential new users to Microsoft.


> 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/

Agreed about the focus of the original Linux community, which
was my point to begin with.  However, current Microsoft users,
who are the maority of the PC market today, don't share the
same values of the Linux community as described in your post.
Again, I was not considering Apple because all the discussion
and comparisons I hear have nothing to do with Apple.  It is
always Microsoft being the "other guy".  That is because Apple
simply does not have the presence that Microsoft does.

>More important than polish is cross-application consistency, a >concept
>completely lost on Windows and X Windows developers. What we call

I agree with this, but I was describing the way the Microsoft
user community sees it, not the way it should be.

>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...

This has been hashed over every time one of us in the Linux
community bashes Microsoft.  So, no argument from me.  However,
the Microsoft people, in general, seem to be unwilling to leave
their apps for unknown territory, crashes or not.  It is 
because of the reasons that you mention that it is worthwhile
for them to come over to Linux.  My point is that, without the
quality of GUI they are used to and the apps they need, they 
won't come over even if Linux is technically superior.
Apple has nowhere near the market penetration that Microsoft
has.  I won't argue that Apple did a better job technically.
But, Microsoft did their marketing and now Microsoft is what
people know.

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

Before the strong arm tactics (which I agree they are using),
they still outgrew everybody else.  They know how to market
even without the strong arm tactics.  It has never been true
that the technically superior product wins the market based
on technical superiority.  Marketing is a whole different
animal that produces counter-intuitive results from the
perspective of the technical person.


>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!)

Well then, in the end we agree.  I just chose to express it less
forcefully. :)

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

Again, my entire post was written from the viewpoint of the
Microsoft user.  When I was in college, I learned to look
at the user from his/her perspective.  The difficult part
is trying not to impose my own sense of reality on my
observations.  I did not want to get into an Apple vs
Microsoft discussion.  The content of my post was limited
to Microsoft users because that is the market today.  Music
is a major interest for me.  I have a large CD collection
because I can't find much quality music programming on the
radio at all.  I see very strong parallels between that
market and the software market.  Technical excellence does
not concern the buying public.  Availability and hype does.
Apple is certainly one of, but not the only technically
excellent piece of work to fall by the wayside.  Our current
concern (judging by all the discussion I have heard in Linux
circles) concerns Linux vs Microsoft and how to grow Linux'
popularity in the face of Microsoft's huge market presence.
It is that idea to which my post was directed.

My text:
> 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.

Your text:
>Exactly. Eric Raymond and I agree that software is a *service* market.

Again, we ultimately agree....

Amen