> Linux (and other open-source OSes, obviously) is an environment in which users are able to exercise more freedom in their usage of their computers than virtually anywhere else.
While this is true, it's simply not a feature the average user wants at all. They just want it to be simple, and work.
> To suggest that users should use a static system or merely accept their updates in 6-month-increments is like suggesting that a carpenter should never consider the manufacture of his tools.
Most users aren't carpenters, they have no interest in crafting their own tools, they just want a decent looking coffee table that doesn't require them to hand build it.
> Stop treating users like children and engage them as equals.
They aren't equals, have you met most users? You're arguing from a programmers perspective, not a typical computer users.
That may be true, but isn't that what Ubuntu is trying to change?
Sure, as a dev/power user I might be annoyed with some of the changes they make here and there, but as a linux supporter, I'd be much more annoyed if they weren't actively trying to expand to a broader audience. Regardless of how they're going about it, I'm just glad they're actually doing something in that area.
And yet, this isn't orthogonal to still keeping it extensible, transparent and open for learning. Yes, most users might not want or need this. But there might be some who get drawn into it. Never block anyone from learning.
>Most users aren't carpenters, they have no interest in crafting their own tools, they just want a decent looking coffee table that doesn't require them to hand build it.
You misunderstood the analogy, I think. Everyone is a carpenter in some way. The OS isn't the table, it's the tool.
>They aren't equals, have you met most users?
Yet again, you misunderstood. "Equals" means to stop treating users like they are generally unable (and unwilling) to learn. Worse, Ubuntu/Unity (actively or passively) hinders people who are willing to learn.
I'm not saying you should force people to learn. I'm saying you should give them sane defaults, and the option to learn how to change them if they chose to do so (and ideally, with an easy and obvious way to restore the defaults).
> And yet, this isn't orthogonal to still keeping it extensible, transparent and open for learning.
They're related. Keeping those things isn't free or easy when most users don't care.
> Everyone is a carpenter in some way. The OS isn't the table, it's the tool.
This is how a programmer thinks; it is exactly tho opposite of what normal people think. Users don't see the os as a tool and have no interest at all in it. The os is the table to them, it launches their apps and that's all they have interest in. They don't want to understand it or tweak it or think of it as a tool.
> "Equals" means to stop treating users like they are generally unable (and unwilling) to learn
But they are generally unable and/or unwilling to learn. You leave me feeling you simply haven't interacted with many normal people. You're talking like most people think like a programmer; they don't.
> I'm not saying you should force people to learn. I'm saying you should give them sane defaults, and the option to learn how to change them if they chose to do so (and ideally, with an easy and obvious way to restore the defaults).
While this is true, it's simply not a feature the average user wants at all. They just want it to be simple, and work.
> To suggest that users should use a static system or merely accept their updates in 6-month-increments is like suggesting that a carpenter should never consider the manufacture of his tools.
Most users aren't carpenters, they have no interest in crafting their own tools, they just want a decent looking coffee table that doesn't require them to hand build it.
> Stop treating users like children and engage them as equals.
They aren't equals, have you met most users? You're arguing from a programmers perspective, not a typical computer users.