首先，忘记关于并行端口的破解请You have no idea how much email I got about this.
To answer the most frequent question, no, I wouldn’t throw out a working, reliable laser printer just because it had a parallel port interface什么一世would do is spend $50-60 on something like这个so that I could just plug it into my network and be done with itBut hooking it up to one computer and then sharing it using software is perfectly reasonable.
Also, forget what I wrote about the Mozilla project being an example of an open source project that has produced some decent GUI software (Camino and Firefox) thanks to extensive corporate backingCamino和Firefox是好的应用程序，但是Matthew “MPT” Thomas points out why they aren’t good examplesof the point I was trying to make:
是的，Camino和Firefox是由Netscape程序员开始的But in the early days of both projects (then known as Chimera and mozilla/browser, respectively), those programmers (Mike Pinkerton对于奇美拉，本古德和布莱克罗斯对于mozilla /浏览器，和戴夫凯悦for both) were terrified that Netscape would shut them down.
- they’re not designed by Netscape’s incompetent designers (like the Mozilla suite, and especially Netscape 6/7, were),
- those primary developers have become fairly good at design as well as programming.
Unfortunately the developers of most other Free Software projects aren’t as good.
A bunch of people seem to think this argument is at least partly undermined by the fact that Mac OS X wraps a GUI around CUPS, the same underlying print architecture that gave Eric Raymond fits（例如，MPT提到了这一点。）
但我不认为这是一个矛盾For one thing, Mac OS X’s print architecture is a lot more than just a “wrapper” around CUPSBut even if I concede this point with regard to CUPS, it’d be an exception, not the norm.
Yes, Mac OS X is built with lots of open source software under the hoodBut point #1 doesn’t imply that the entire implementation needs to be written from scratchYes, Mac OS X contains a lot of open source software under the hood — but these components are used to implement Apple’s designs, not the other way around.
What seemed to tie a lot of knickers into knots — especially in the Slashdot crowd — was my assertion that “Unix nerds who care about usability are switching to Mac OS X in droves,” and that those who remain are “either cheapskates or free-software political zealots”.
I heard from Linux users who claim to be neither cheapskates nor political zealots, but who have no intention of switching to Mac OS X, under any circumstances, everThe reasons vary, but common ones include:
但具体原因并不重要It all boils down to the fact that most aspects of Mac OS X are not designed to be configurable or replacable; they are designed to be usable, and to fit in with the design of the rest of the system.
They’re also designed to work specifically with Apple’s own hardware — which many of these “I’m not a cheapskate but I don’t want to pay for Apple hardware” types refuse to recognize as a huge usability advantage for Mac OS X.
I didn’t say “Unix nerds” are switching to Mac OS X in droves; I said “Unix nerds关心可用性的人”People who want a Unix system that just works, so they can get on with their real work — those are the ones who are switchingAs opposed to Unix nerds whose interest is the computer itself, and who want to tinker with it at any and every level — i.eUnix nerds who do not care about usability.
Perhaps the biggest misconception is that I’m somehow “rooting against” desktop LinuxI really don’t see how anything I’ve written implies that, unless you subscribe to the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” school of thought.
无论如何，事实并非如此I’m not rooting against desktop Linux, nor have I ever claimed it can’t succeedWhat I am saying is:
那里有商业支持Companies like Novell and Red Hat (and others) are employing teams of open source developers, many of whom care very much about UI designBut the key word here is方向。
Good UI design will never be forged by community consensus. Bottom-up design won’t lead to a coherent and unified whole. Cf.John Siracusa关于桌面Linux的评论in his interview with Robb Beal:
Right now, the Linux community values “diversity” too highly to ever get a single, consistent GUI, let alone a good oneAt the same time, it holds on doggedly to its (often ancient) Unix-rooted traditions and conventionsFinally, it’s hard to get a really large group of Linux developers to do much of anything beyond a single “project.” A GUI is not a “project”It’s the whole OS from the user’s perspective, and it must be from the creators’ perspective too or it will fail.
I think Linux as an institution is allergic to a good, consistent GUI. Their priorities are reversedThey want to build a GUI on top of an OSIf they want to compete on the desktop, they should be building an OS to power their GUIOf course, they don’t have a GUI, which is problem number one.
They need to think of what they want the user experience to be, and then design a system that provides that experience期This is so basic that even Apple forgets it from time to timeIf you don’t know where you want to go, you’re never going to get there.
At Red Hat, we’re building the desktop team around a top-down design-first approach, driven by professional interaction designers. We’ll see how it works outIt will take some time before the first results are visible.
The key is that there’s never going to be a good desktop user interface for Linux that pleases the Linux nerds who don’t care about usabilityIf the reason you use Linux is that you value tweakability over usability, or if you get off on the fact that a normal person couldn’t sit down in front of your computer and figure out how to use it, you’re probably not going to like a system that doesn’t even有a replaceable “window manager”. Trying to create a cohesive GUI system that appeals to these guys is like trying to write music that appeals to the tone deaf.
The worst part is that if anyone succeeds at putting together a usable desktop for Linux, these anti-usability Linux advocates will piss all over it.
It’s not worth listening to the opinions of assholes; and but once you shut them off, they just get angrier.