I love Linux.
Having said that, there is one thing that really irritates me when it comes to nearly every distro with few exceptions: How they try to look like the operating system they are trying to compete against.
Seriously
I will give you an example: Remember how Windows had that nifty little Start button in the corner? Remember how every single desktop more or less copied it?
Now, remember when Windows Vista came out and they changed the Start menu? When that happened, every Linux distro went to a similar start menu. Linux Mint's tasty menu is a fantastic example of this. Why change it? Why not keep a Windows 2K or XP style menu?
Well, ok. I pick on Linux Mint a bit perhaps out of some naivety because I know Linux Mint was named the best distro recently. I also know all kinds of marketing reasons to do this but not one that actually pandered to my stubborn sense of not fixing what isn't broke.
Microsoft does this all the time and it drives me up the wall. What possible reason would you have to changing the menus in Microsoft Office? What added value did your customers get by going to the new menu system except having to hire people like me to figure it out?
Oh. That's it isn't it? Making money for those who support and train the end-users. Well, TA Microsoft.
But that still does not make it right nor does it explain why a simple and straightforward menu system in Linux had to be completely redone to the point is was so busy it made it more difficult to get around?
XFCE? Don't get me started. If I wanted something that looked like a MAC, I'd buy a MAC.
Though, I can't really fault them too much. After all, they are only doing what everyone else is.
So, as I get off my soapbox, I would issue this challenge to distros: If you are going to be different, be really different. Don't just try to do better what was a bad idea in the first place. If you want to be useful, simple is always better
Or, maybe I should just shut up or put up. Go make my own OS. Hmmmm.....
MR GB
Having said that, there is one thing that really irritates me when it comes to nearly every distro with few exceptions: How they try to look like the operating system they are trying to compete against.
Seriously
I will give you an example: Remember how Windows had that nifty little Start button in the corner? Remember how every single desktop more or less copied it?
Now, remember when Windows Vista came out and they changed the Start menu? When that happened, every Linux distro went to a similar start menu. Linux Mint's tasty menu is a fantastic example of this. Why change it? Why not keep a Windows 2K or XP style menu?
Well, ok. I pick on Linux Mint a bit perhaps out of some naivety because I know Linux Mint was named the best distro recently. I also know all kinds of marketing reasons to do this but not one that actually pandered to my stubborn sense of not fixing what isn't broke.
Microsoft does this all the time and it drives me up the wall. What possible reason would you have to changing the menus in Microsoft Office? What added value did your customers get by going to the new menu system except having to hire people like me to figure it out?
Oh. That's it isn't it? Making money for those who support and train the end-users. Well, TA Microsoft.
But that still does not make it right nor does it explain why a simple and straightforward menu system in Linux had to be completely redone to the point is was so busy it made it more difficult to get around?
XFCE? Don't get me started. If I wanted something that looked like a MAC, I'd buy a MAC.
Though, I can't really fault them too much. After all, they are only doing what everyone else is.
So, as I get off my soapbox, I would issue this challenge to distros: If you are going to be different, be really different. Don't just try to do better what was a bad idea in the first place. If you want to be useful, simple is always better
Or, maybe I should just shut up or put up. Go make my own OS. Hmmmm.....
MR GB
No comments:
Post a Comment