The User Interface is Not the Problem

By Twivel

Don't misrepresent the problem

The most common criticism of GNU/Linux is directed to its lack of a decent User Interface. I find this criticism inaccurate and misleading. I think we tend to lump too much into the definition of a User Interface. Even with the strides made by KDE and gnome in the past two years, the nature of the complaint has remained unchanged since the beginning of time.

The current GNU/Linux user interfaces are perfectly acceptable for any end-user's needs. The complaints commonly directed at the User Interface are actually misplaced there, they should be directed at the configuration and administration tools for GNU/Linux.

Features of a User Interface

The "User Interface" should be taken literally. It is the interface used by the end user to access their applications. The best way to define a user interface is to list their features, so I'll list some of them here:

Features of a User Interface: Running Applications

Features of a User Interface: Data Management Features of a User Interface: Application Interfaces Fun features of a User Interface: Multimedia Most of the features above have been implemented within the current GNU/Linux user interfaces available. The criticism currently directed towards the user interface is more reasonably directed towards the system configuration side. Tasks as simple as adding a printer, scanner, cd burner, joystick, etc are often often much harder under GNU/Linux than they are under windows. But they are not User Interface tasks!

Now you're probably wondering why I am making this distinction, because this point it may seem like a petty difference. You have a valid point if you argue that in order to use a computer, these additional configuration tasks must be done.

GNU/Linux is ready for the Business Desktop.

Configuration of the computers in the work environment has became a non-issue. Companies typically hire a knowledgeable support staff to setup, configure and support the desktop computers. In this environment, users are typically required to use specific applications to do their job, they aren't required to know intricate details of the operating system itself. All they must know is how to find, run and use the applications required to do their job. In fact, the technical staff at companies not only prefer, but often require end users not to modify the PC configuration. Keeping control over the differences between hundreds or sometimes thousands of computers makes administrating them much easier. Because of this, GNU/Linux can be a perfect fit on the desktop for many companies that meet the above description, provided the applications are available.

Is GNU/Linux there for the home user market?

You start to run into the core problem of the GNU/Linux operating system when you try to market it to the masses. When I say masses, I mean the home users. These are the people like our family members who want to send email, use word processors, run those stupid email-attachments, and play every game under the sun.

These are the ones who we can't expect to cd into /usr/doc/HOWTO and figure out how to setup their scanner. We can't expect them to compile kernel modules, port applications, or even understand that the extension 'rpm' does not really refer to a streaming video/audio format. For adding hardware and installing software, they need a wizard that begins with setup.exe to be able to do something on their computer. It's the administrative interfaces that really need improvement, before our favorite OS can end up on their desktop.

Maybe thats not completely the case, start thinking about that non-technical family member with a computer. Did you get caller-id and an answering machine so you can actually have a weekend free from "family technical support" every once in a while?

If it's you always doing their computer configuration (internet access, adding devices, "scrubbing windows every 6 months to fix that *BSOD problem"), then it might be just the same as the business scenario listed above.

Conclusion: Is the User Interface ready for Prime Time? Yes!

I'd like to close by asking everyone to stop agreeing with the media when they complain about the lack of a decent user interface. By agreeing that GNU/Linux has a substandard User Interface, you are setting us back by about three years of development. This completely ignores the great strides made to create a consumer User Interface by KDE and Gnome. This also provides an inaccurate statement to businesses who might actually consider GNU/Linux for the desktop!
*BSOD = Blue Screen Of Death.