[gobolinux-users] A few uneasy questions...

[Jonas Karlsson]

2007/2/28, MLA-Gobo <mla-gobo at forrussia.org>:

I appreciate that you've taken the time to write such a long e-mail
and you have expressed alot of valid points and you have lifted our
weak spots.

> On Tuesday 27 February 2007 23:21, Jonas Karlsson wrote:
> > Once again I can't follow you. In what way do we lack in information
> > to the users of GoboLinux? Wich system development isn't presented? As
> > I said, this distro is for advanced users. They should be able to take
> > care of them self.
>     If I may insert my 2¢: this view (that Gobo is for advanced users) is
> exactly the problem.
> [... alot of valid points on the usability of linux systems...]

I agree. Even if I appreciate "hackability" over usability (I'm mostly
alone with that view) doesn't mean that we can't bulid a usable
system. And it doesn't matter that I deliberatly choose "hackability"
over usability when developing. Rather the other way around, as I
believe the system is for the users. This view might look strange
looking at what I've written earlier, but it's true - there's a
difference in what is and what is to become.

>     I installed 013 back in December, and was horrified to see how many
> obvious bugs cropped up within just an hour of installing it. I even started
> writing a (very) long email detailing all the problems I saw, but then I
> started going through the mail archive and realized that others were having
> the same problems, so I decided not to add to the noise.

As stated, 013 wasn't our best release, but that statement doesn't
justify the number of bugs and instability in the system. I know we
can do better. I know we _have_ to do better.

> I haven't booted
> into Gobo for over two months now, because there's no incentive. If the base
> was more stable, then it might be worthwhile, but even the base is constantly
> shifting and changing.
> [ ...valid points on stability of GoboLinux... ]
> If the technological base of Gobo cannot be stabilized in three to four months,
> even with limited time commitments, no, *especially* with limited time
> commitments, then it means that the technology is harming, rather than
> helping, the distro.

You make a good point. Even though the new technologu is there to
solve some fundamental problems it might be a bit too much at this
moment. Focusing on stability for a couple of months would not hurt.
:)

>     I realize that Gobo is "experimental." But you really need to decide if
> you want others to participate in the experiment or not. If Gobo cannot
> achieve a level of polish and usability, then you should ask yourself if it
> is really worth the effort of making this public. An unstable, unpolished
> system just makes *more* work for yourselves, because you need to answer
> people's questions as to how to make basic, fundamental things work. If you
> emphasize that 014 is for polish, bug fixes, and usability, and then declare
> that the "experimental" portion of 015 is to focus on one, max two, new or
> different features, then you have a good chance of appealing to both
> intermediate and advanced users.

That's an interesting thought. If so, we're not the first project to
use even number for stable and odd numbers for experimental releases.

>     People look at the idea behind GoboLinux and think, "Hey, that's something
> that has promise," but when they discover the amount of kludge involved, it
> scares them off, even (especially?) the advanced users. No one wants to work
> on something that's put together with chewing gum and duct tape. If the core
> technology of GoboLinux does not *just work*, then it means that GoboLinux is
> FUNDAMENTALLY AND HOPELESSLY BROKEN. "Polish" is not just a Slavic language,
> guys!
>     Which brings me to my last point: lower the bar. Don't say that advanced
> users are your target audience. Identify those areas that will attract
> intermediate users, too. Many eyes make bugs shallow, and all that. If you
> focus on making GoboLinux accessible to intermediate users, you have a
> greater chance of really propelling it forward.

I guess I expressed myself a bit clumsy in my earlier e-mails. Our
target group are intermediate to advanced users, even novice users are
welcome. I share that view and I try real hard to help all users get
along with GoboLinux.
Our problem is that the picture the user gets of usability of
GoboLinux differs from what usability of GoboLinux really is. And as
you've pointed out, the problem is not that the users are not advanced
enought, but a fundamental problem of stability in GoboLinux.

-- 
/Jonas