I know I'm late jumping into this thread.
I also realize I am a lurker for the most part, but I felt I should
respond.
On 3/28/06, Eric S. Raymond <esr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Good thing the fourth: A combination of increased polish in various
distro components and significant upstream developments (one biggie
being OpenOffice 2.0) has, to my observation, inched FC across an
important functional threshold. My wife can use it with as little
pain as Windows now, rather than merely tolerating the crap because
she believes in what the Linux community is trying to do.
For some users this happened in the FC3/FC4 timeframe.
First, a relatively minor issue that is nevertheless quite annoying.
It's the Fedora distribution art, the images in Anaconda and the
Fedora-customized graphics in the admin tools and elsewhere. It has
never been much better than mediocre, and in FC5 it hits a new low
with backgrounds that look like a Teletubby hocked loogies into a
dish full of soap scum.
Constructive criticism would do more.
What kind of imagery would be better, considering the same goals and
parameters the designers were given ? Without _constructive_ criticism,
the comments seem like something from Simon Cowell.
And whose bright idea, I have to wonder, was
it to abandon the attractive and recognizable Fedora icon for
something that's...not a fedora?
The Fedora project does need to come out from the shadow of Red Hat.
Establishing a new visual identity is an important part of that.
Whether the new identity is hitting its goals is a different question,
but the change needed to happen.
And
original BlueCurve wasn't much to cheer about compared to the
decorative art on a Windows or (especially) a Mac -- acceptable, but
not a competitive plus,
Personally I have a negative reaction to the Windows XP interface
graphics, I think the FC5 interface at least as appealing. With the
different themes available. our users are happy they have a choice to
configure the interface, which a stock Windows install has less
latitude and is harder to find for our users.
That means high-quality art, art that makes people actually *want* to
look at the screen because it's a significant aesthetic experience.
Graphics are not art. Graphics are the prostitution of art concepts and
techniques to get a specific desired reaction for the benefit of the
party paying for the graphics.
Successful graphics need to have goals established and the success of
the graphics is measured against those goals. Many times looking
"pretty" is a low priority goal for graphics. "Pretty" graphics can be
a pleasant side benefit of successful graphics. When considering the
goals for graphics, it is possible for _one_ of those goals to be
visual appeal.
But the art problem pales compared to the issue that everyone has been
ducking, which is Fedora's support for DVDs and proprietary audio and
video and web-streaming formats and Java applets.
AVI. Quicktime. ASF. MPEG. DVD playback. Flash. Java. These are
*not optional* in 2006
Flash is available for x86 Linux with the same licensing terms for the
other OS's Adobe supports. That says Adobe treats Linux on equal
footing to other OS's, or what I could call a level playing field. Why
should Linux get special treatment ? A stock install of Windows does
not include Flash, although it may be bundled by an OEM hardware
manufacturer.
Sun's JRE is available for x86 with the same licensing as other OS's.
Again Linux is treated the same as other OS's, not as a special
stepchild. A stock install of Windows does not include a JRE, or if one
is included it is Microsoft's crusty old thing that is much worse than
the free stack provided with Fedora.
A stock install of Windows does not include DVD, MPEG2, or MPEG4
playback. These are provided by bundles of third party software the
hardware manufacturer includes on top of the OS. Remember, a WMV file
that uses a MPEG4 codec is not a standard MPEG4 file. A file that
adheres to the MPEG4 standard is not playable with WMP as shipped by
MS.
Even on commercial operating systems, video playback is a crapshoot. As
a graphics professional, determining the best digital video format to
use is a project-by-project set of trade-offs. I really don't expect it
to be any easier with Linux. Several of our clients now lean to Flash
video because a player exists for Linux in addition to the other big
two commercial OS's.
<rant>
If I was Michael Dell, I wouldn't be complaining about how many
different Linux distributions there are, I would be putting money into
developing applications that provide this "last mile" media
functionality to Linux, and providing an OS bundle that matches the
functionality provided by the Windows bundles they offer. It is needed,
and there is a business opportunity to provide an out-of-the-box
experience for Linux similar to Windows. It is my opinion that it is
the hardware manufacturer that is to provide the solution to that gap
<emphasis> as it does with other operating systems </emphasis> not the
OS vendor.
</rant>
To look at the media playback "deficiency" from _my_ perspective, I
consider the absence of media players to be an advantage.
Yes, an advantage.
For the same reasons I remove the games installed by default on
Windows, I do not want media players on company systems. I do not want
employee time wasted viewing streaming video or audio. I don't want
employees to watch the telly at work, and I don't want them consuming
other media via the computer in front of them at work either. It is an
unnecessary distraction. I also don't want the liability of digital
media files of unknown source residing on company systems. Those
problems are solved by removing or not providing media players.
In the home environment, that is different, however I don't care what
someone does in their own home. It is possible that Fedora is not
suitable for some home users who require media playback without their
hardware OEM providing it for them in a bundle, like what happens with
commercial OS's. It _is_ suitable in a business environment in its
present form _because_ this media functionality is not present.
Charles Dostale
System Admin - Silver Oaks Communications
http://www.silveroaks.com/
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
