On 24/08/07, Adam Jackson <<a href="mailto:ajackson@redhat.com">ajackson@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 19:15 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote: > Hi, > > It's all about picking default settings new users wish. Imagine a user > who is coming from Windows to Fedora, but he has no clue how linux > works. It would greatly help him if the linux behaved to some extent > similar to Windows - meaning applications look (themes), window's > buttons layout (in this case same), menu layout, keyboard shortcuts etc. > The same for users coming from Mac OS and for users used to Gnome and > switching to KDE and opposite way. The idea is that user selects what he > wants his desktop resemble, and then the usage of the desktop would be > more intuitive to him. Bzzt, logical fallacy. Read about the uncanny valley, then apply that lesson to your argument. Point for point emulation is not just technically infeasible, it's also a really really bad idea. </blockquote></div> I agree. As an aside, I found the uncanny valley article on wikipedia fascinating. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley</a> if you're interested. However much you skin over GNOME or KDE to make them look like inferior OS's with greater market penetration, it really is pretty pointless. This creates restrictions on UI design and people waste time developing like-for-like applications simply in order to mimic The Control Panel or My Network Places. System>Administration or Places>Network is faster and simpler and after is easily picked up. I have yet to introduce anyone to GNOME and they have failed to grasp the new layout - quite the reverse - the simplicity is often seen as a key benefit. Cheers Chris -- <a href="http://www.chruz.com">http://www.chruz.com</a>