> >     Users who can no invest the effort learn enough to use a

quoted text
> > simple interface do not deserve a reliable operating system. They

> > deserve windows, and they deserve pop up buttong in their browsers

> > that they click ok blindly for everything.

I couldn't agree more, people expect that they will have to take some

time to learn to ride a bike, operate a car, cook a new dish, and etc.

 But by god their computer better just work.  I started out "life" as

a pc tech at a large company, i can't tell you the number of times

i've heard "but i don't want to learn how to do it" or "i just can't

understand computers" or "I shouldn't have to learn how to do it, it

should be eaiser" and we weren't talking about developing a diff for

the kernel then rebuilding the entire base system from source, it was

typically something simple like changing the background color in a

power point presentation.
-Josh
On 14 Dec 2007 10:14:37 +0100, Artur Grabowski  wrote:

quoted text
> Mathieu Stumpf  writes:

>

> > >     I disagree.

> > >

> > >     A complex interface implies a lot of code. a lot of code

> > > leads to  unreliablity, either through bugs or detracting valuable

> > > developer time from more important things

> > >

> > >     A simple interface (well designed) imples less code, which leads

> > > to reliability.

> >

> > So, you mean a more intuitive software is necessary more complex? Can't

> > we make a simple but intuitive interface without a lot of code?

>

> Well? Can you? Try. Let us know how it went.

>

> > >     Users who can no invest the effort learn enough to use a

> > > simple interface do not deserve a reliable operating system. They

> > > deserve windows, and they deserve pop up buttong in their browsers

> > > that they click ok blindly for everything.

> > >

> > >     -Bob

> >

> > Do you apply this reasoning to anything in life or do you reserve this

> > kind of eugenics only to IT? :)

>

> It's reality.

>

> //art