OPINION: Ubuntu should target developers, not "average users"

[cardinals_fan]

Before anyone starts screaming "elitist!" or throwing out the inevitable Mark Shuttleworth quotes, hear me out. I've complained about the misleading term "average user" many times in the past, but it will inevitably come up in this discussion, so I'd like to define it. I consider an "average user," "new user," and all such terms someone who wants to do things with a computer without understanding or caring about how such things are accomplished.

Consider the purpose of an operating system. An OS is really just a platform for the creation of applications. Operating systems cannot provide every tool that every user will eventually need. Such a goal is ridiculous. The vast majority of apps used by "average users" on any OS (even OS X) are third-party tools. In order to provide easy operation, an OS must simply provide a) a simple platform for developers and b) a logical software installation system for end users.

When we consider the fact that "average users" don't care how a system accomplishes something, we realize that such users are never the intended audience of an OS. An operating system is the underlying core on which all other apps run. This core is only useful for those who are interested in the actual workings of a computer - not the stereotypical grandmother.

Take a hypothetical "average user". They want to use their computer to do many things, all of which are in constant evolution. Ten years ago, very few people watched or published online videos. Now, Youtube is one of the most visited websites and is popular among every imaginable type of user. The end-users in question don't care about the format of their online videos or the apps used to play them. They just want to watch that hilarious golden retriever dancing on its hind legs. Almost nobody cares about Microsoft Silverlight, but a great many expected to watch the Olympics online on NBC. A computer is unlike any other tool in that it can perform a tremendous variety of continuously evolving tasks.

Since end-users need to use third-party apps, the availability and quality of this software will be the ultimate determining factor in their opinion of an OS. From hardware drivers to statistical analysis plugins, end users need stuff to run on their OS. A system concentrated on pleasing developers will ultimately serve end-users best, because only such a system has the wide variety of applications needed to help a varied array of people get things done.

Looking back, this is one of the ways Microsoft first took off. They focused on offering developers a usable platform with a concentrated network of support resources. This is also something being pursued right now by projects such as OpenSolaris and Haiku. Such projects and companies realize that the much-vaunted "average user" simply doesn't care about them. They care about third-party apps written by third-party devs.

[Keyper7]

I hate to use stupid buzzwords, but your point is one the things the "cloud" is supposed to solve. By only requiring that the average user have a browser and an internet connection, future computers might be able to reduce the concept of "operating system" to a minimum for the average user, while still keeping it complex for the developers responsible for maintaining the servers where the web applications are stored.

Anyway, this is an interesting discussion. Linux distributions are, in a way, already very close to what you're proposing. If you think about it, Canonical is not responsible for Gnome, KDE, Firefox and many other things that the average user actually "sees". But they are responsible for Launchpad and the repository servers, which greatly helps the developers who have to get those apps and bundle together.

[dannytatom]

I don't have much of an opinion on the matter, but that makes perfect sense to me.

[SunnyRabbiera]

So what do "average users?" use in the meantime?
Windows?
I am a average user, does this mean you just want us "average users" to just bugger off?
Look let slackware or arch target the command line guru's, and let the rest of us use ubuntu as a desktop as we please...

[dannytatom]

SunnyRabbiera: I think you missed the point entirely.

[GrouchoMarx]

You could argue that one of the most important factors that developers consider when choosing a platform is the size of the platform's user-base. Therefore when you attract average users to a particular platform you help convince developers to use it as well. The obvious example are hardware vendors. They support a particular platform because of the number of users that use it, not because they find one platform technically superior to the other.

[ugm6hr]

Isn't Canonical already trying to achieve this by agreements with various software publishers and corporations like the BBC?

http://www.ubuntu.com/news/arm-linux
http://www.ubuntu.com/news/zimbra-desktop
http://www.ubuntu.com/news/alfresco-enterprise-content-management

Obviously, in the meantime, Canonical is also trying to ensure that there is some incentive for these corporations to listen to them by providing a sensible user base for their products.

I don't think you can achieve success without both aspects.

[cardinals_fan]

So what do "average users?" use in the meantime?
Windows?
I am a average user, does this mean you just want us "average users" to just bugger off?
Look let slackware or arch target the command line guru's, and let the rest of us use ubuntu as a desktop as we please...
I think you misunderstood me. My point is that Ubuntu will have difficulty reaching broad adoption (not necessarily a personal goal of mine, but definitely important to Canonical) unless it has a broad base of supported software and hardware. This will only happen if it directly targets developers.

Also, I seriously doubt if you fit inside my definition of an "average user". If you take a random teen in my school or a random parent, the whole concept of an OS will probably be confusing and misunderstood. By considering the pros and cons of different operating systems, you have already showed an interest in the workings of the system.

You could argue that one of the most important factors that developers consider when choosing a platform is the size of the platform's user-base. Therefore when you attract average users to a particular platform you help convince developers to use it as well. The obvious example are hardware vendors. They support a particular platform because of the number of users that use it, not because they find one platform technically superior to the other.
This is probably true, but the chicken/egg type situation involved here is fairly difficult to do anything about.

[Bölvaður]

Look let slackware or arch target the command line guru's, and let the rest of us use ubuntu as a desktop as we please...
Sunny for president.


*edit*this is not important

But seriously. The developers are developing for users which they follow.. not the other way round (well almost, but it isn't as strong tenancy). Developers that dont need to make something for a market but more of a mission critical system are already developing that stuff for them selfs on stripped versions of debian for an instance.

Ubuntu is about bringing the crowed and medium size business to them self and the developers will follow. you know this all already man.

*edit*
Ubuntu is reaching the masses. 1 year ago very few people I saw used linux, and was mostly much more savvy than I was. Now Im seeing it everywhere, even in my psychology class there is 1 other than me out of 100, which is not bad for that type of people that do not know what OS even is.
about 20%-30% of people in openGL and international marketing use Ubuntu and one even has a sticker ^^.

I'd say ubuntu is doing a good job attracting the correct crowd to them selfs.

[swoll1980]

So what do "average users?" use in the meantime?
Windows?
I am a average user, does this mean you just want us "average users" to just bugger off?
Look let slackware or arch target the command line guru's, and let the rest of us use ubuntu as a desktop as we please...

The point is to focus on developers, and the users will come. You know Make it great for developing, developers will develop great software, users will want to use that great software. "If you build it they will come"

[cardinals_fan]

Ubuntu is reaching the masses. 1 year ago very few people I saw used linux, and was mostly much more savvy than I was. Now Im seeing it everywhere, even in my psychology class there is 1 other than me out of 100, which is not bad for that type of people that do not know what OS even is.
about 20%-30% of people in openGL and international marketing use Ubuntu and one even has a sticker ^^.

I'd say ubuntu is doing a good job attracting the correct crowd to them selfs.
Seeing it everywhere != reaching the masses. I doubt if the person in your psych class is someone without knowledge of an OS.

People are actually responding to one of my topics! Gotta love those controversial thread titles...

[gyrfalcon]

"Consider the purpose of an operating system. An OS is really just a platform for the creation of applications. "

An OS is not a platform for the creation of applications. An OS manages hardware, and the way applications interact with it. I would contend a lot of developers don't exactly care how a computer accomplishes things and just wants it to work like an "average user".

[Slowspeed]

That is a very interesting point of view.
I look at Ubuntu as being both enduser and developer oriented. Not in the way that it is trying to be everything to everybody but, capabilities and uses for both target audiences. I see Ubuntu as a very versatile OS as I have installed it for a specialized database application development server and several friends and colleagues are now using it on there home systems for "everyday tasks".
It seems from limited feedback that both of my target users seem pretty happy on a overall satisfaction level.
Just a perspective on your statement.
cheers.
Slowspeed

[cardinals_fan]

"Consider the purpose of an operating system. An OS is really just a platform for the creation of applications. "

An OS is not a platform for the creation of applications. An OS manages hardware, and the way applications interact with it. I would contend a lot of developers don't exactly care how a computer accomplishes things and just wants it to work like an "average user".
I misspoke. The OS does indeed work with hardware, and providing a friendly system for driver developers is a key part of my point.

I'm intentionally arguing this from a fairly extreme viewpoint because I believe that this is a side of the coin that should at least be looked at, even if it isn't fully adopted.

[oldsoundguy]

just a thought .. but if nobody USES a system except an elite few, what incentive is there for developers to devote time and energy just to placate a very few?
The key is BALANCE. The system has to be usable and in use as well. Usage begets the desire for more and better and it also generates COMMENT. Another driving factor in development.

Sort like creating a masterpiece and locking it in the garage. Who knows? Who cares?

[wmcbrine]

It seems to me that Linux/Unix has always targeted developers. Certainly for me, as a developer, I'm much happier in Linux than in Windows or Mac OS X. And the mindshare of Linux among developers is much, much higher than it is within the general computer-using population. So, that's kind of covered. The point of targeting average users is to expand beyond the avid user base of developers that we already have.

[tsali]

I get what you are saying exactly.

Ubuntu, the OS, is merely the platform or channel through which a user runs his apps.

From that perspective, if we focus on making Ubuntu friendly for platform developers, we should see a proliferation of applications that could be truly geared towards average users.

However, like the "Mac", I think a lot of users don't see the system as a collection of components. For them, Ubuntu is the whole experience...the word processor, the music player, web browser.

[Icehuck]

It seems to me that Linux/Unix has always targeted developers. Certainly for me, as a developer, I'm much happier in Linux than in Windows or Mac OS X. And the mindshare of Linux among developers is much, much higher than it is within the general computer-using population. So, that's kind of covered. The point of targeting average users is to expand beyond the avid user base of developers that we already have.

I'm not sure I can agree with the fact that linux already targets developers. For instance, there is the game developer 2d Boy who made a game for Linux. Here is what they said.


One technical hurdle was with Pulse Audio, which apparently comes standard on major distros like Ubuntu. It introduces quite a bit of audio lag. This would be fine for most applications, but it's not good for games, where the goal is to build an extremely responsive system that feels snappy. We were able to work with it, and get the game feeling right, but it took a bit of effort. I realize I'll get shot for saying this, but in Windows, it just worked right away!"

Also, and I've mentioned this before - Linux is created by too many smart opinionated people! There are a lot of very good ideas, but it can become difficult for developers to support all the different distro formats, bundles, audio/video systems. For linux to REALLY take over, it has to be easy for developers to make stuff, and easy for users to get stuff. It's one of those things where too many options can be suffocating, and ultimately hurt the cause.

How can you attract when your diversity causes more problems then solutions? Btw they made this game here, World of Goo (http://kotaku.com/5153699/world-of-goo-arrives-on-linux)

[wmcbrine]

I don't know "2D Boy". I can only tell you my own experience as a developer: Windows is awful. Mac OS X is OK. Linux is great.

Audio is perhaps not our strong suit, though. :)

[yse]

I don't know "2D Boy". I can only tell you my own experience as a developer: Windows is awful. Mac OS X is OK. Linux is great.

Haha, strange why the share market is exactly inverse in your order you said it:)

[SunnyRabbiera]

I think you misunderstood me. My point is that Ubuntu will have difficulty reaching broad adoption (not necessarily a personal goal of mine, but definitely important to Canonical) unless it has a broad base of supported software and hardware. This will only happen if it directly targets developers.

Also, I seriously doubt if you fit inside my definition of an "average user". If you take a random teen in my school or a random parent, the whole concept of an OS will probably be confusing and misunderstood. By considering the pros and cons of different operating systems, you have already showed an interest in the workings of the system.

Well for me the average user uses a computer for the following reasons:
Internet browsing
Email
Basic home office
Gaming
Multimedia

When I see an average user I think of myself, a person who just wants to use a computer without the hassle or annoyance of building things yourself.
I dont program, I dont code, I dont compile (unless its needed) I just use my computer for what I need it for.
Closing off Ubuntu to non developers would be stupid, Ubuntu's goal is to create a windows alternative OS that is easy to use and operate.
For a user like me Ubuntu does its job, I am not a developer in any way nor do I wish to be forced to be a developer.
To say Ubuntu should shut people like me out is nothing short of stupid, really if you dont like the so called "average user" use slackware or something where the average user is looked at like some sort of insect.

[cardinals_fan]

Well for me the average user uses a computer for the following reasons:
Internet browsing
Email
Basic home office
Gaming
Multimedia

When I see an average user I think of myself, a person who just wants to use a computer without the hassle or annoyance of building things yourself.
I dont program, I dont code, I dont compile (unless its needed) I just use my computer for what I need it for.
Closing off Ubuntu to non developers would be stupid, Ubuntu's goal is to create a windows alternative OS that is easy to use and operate.
For a user like me Ubuntu does its job, I am not a developer in any way nor do I wish to be forced to be a developer.
To say Ubuntu should shut people like me out is nothing short of stupid, really if you dont like the so called "average user" use slackware or something where the average user is looked at like some sort of insect.
Ubuntu itself offers you nothing. It is the conglomeration of third-party apps included in Ubuntu that you use, and this is what Canonical should focus on increasing by making development for Ubuntu as painless as possible.

[chucky chuckaluck]

I hate to use stupid buzzwords, but your point is one the things the "cloud" is supposed to solve. By only requiring that the average user have a browser and an internet connection, future computers might be able to reduce the concept of "operating system" to a minimum for the average user, while still keeping it complex for the developers responsible for maintaining the servers where the web applications are stored.

that's kind of what i was thinking when i read CF's post. in both cloud computing and what CF is suggesting, though, is a need for more uniformity of hardware and a great reduction in the amount of software needed to access the apps (either on the web, or on the computer itself). (which could end up like apple, if it were the only hardware and OS available and it used openbox for a window manager instead aqua.) CF, i can appreciate what you're trying to say, but i think you'd find objection from those who consider the OS as an 'experience' (you know, the types of people who get into gnome vs. kde/gtk vs. qt wars). for them, the os becomes a frame of mind and not just a utilitarian device through which to access one's work tools. could be a tough sell. i recall talking to someone from system76 when i first got my laptop, about kde. he said "it's just not the way i like to work" with more than just a hint of shudder in his voice.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Ubuntu itself offers you nothing. It is the conglomeration of third-party apps included in Ubuntu that you use, and this is what Canonical should focus on increasing by making development for Ubuntu as painless as possible.

Uh huh, so what should you suggest I use instead of Ubuntu if you say users like me are not being focussed on?
Look I use Ubuntu because for the most part it is easy, that you dont have to be a rocket scientist or a developer to figure it out.
Where do people like me belong then, on windows?
Look Ubuntu's goal is to make a windows alternative, how do you excpect that to happen if its shuts out non developers?

[BuffaloX]

Developers are human too.

[cardinals_fan]

that's kind of what i was thinking when i read CF's post. in both cloud computing and what CF is suggesting, though, is a need for more uniformity of hardware and a great reduction in the amount of software needed to access the apps (either on the web, or on the computer itself). (which could end up like apple, if it were the only hardware and OS available and it used openbox for a window manager instead aqua.) CF, i can appreciate what you're trying to say, but i think you'd find objection from those who consider the OS as an 'experience' (you know, the types of people who get into gnome vs. kde/gtk vs. qt wars). for them, the os becomes a frame of mind and not just a utilitarian device through which to access one's work tools. could be a tough sell. i recall talking to someone from system76 when i first got my laptop, about kde. he said "it's just not the way i like to work" with more than just a hint of shudder in his voice.
Somewhat true. In a perfect world, we would be looking at something like Haiku with a quasi-microkernel. I don't like the idea of leaving my data out there on the web, but projects such as eyeOS offer a great opportunity for standardized XHTML/CSS development that can still run locally.

Uh huh, so what should you suggest I use instead of Ubuntu if you say users like me are not being focussed on?
Look I use Ubuntu because for the most part it is easy, that you dont have to be a rocket scientist or a developer to figure it out.
Where do people like me belong then, on windows?
Look Ubuntu's goal is to make a windows alternative, how do you excpect that to happen if its shuts out non developers?
I never said Ubuntu should shut out non-devs. First, developers are not one big block of identical people who all use the CLI constantly and hate graphical frontends. A very large number of developers prefer graphical tools for administering their systems so they can get on with their work. Just because an OS is targetted at devs doesn't mean it will be exorbitantly difficult or focus on manual configuration. Writing a Java app, for example, does not necessitate manually configuring one's wireless adapter.

I would look at OpenSolaris as a role model for this sort of development. It offers a great many automated tools designed to make setting up the system painless, but focuses most of its innovation towards the creation of a usable platform for development. There was a great blog post from somebody at Sun last year on this topic. I'll look for it.

[Lostin60's]

Cardinal, when speaking to what you refer to as the "average user" you are going to come off sounding "elitist"
no matter how you phrase it. Understand, I am not arguing against what you said. I have seen you all over the forums, and you have helped me on a couple occasions. I have great respect for you, you really are pretty selfless here. I can't imagine the hour you spend just helping. (And here ends the kissing up..lol) The problem with what you said, is pretty well covered by Bob Dylan. "We always did see the same things, we just saw them from a different point of view. I wonder how many folks who disagreed with you realize they were conceding your point, but from a different perspective. As you know, I am VERY new to Ubuntu, also the things you have helped me with point to my level of expertise....and you're not pointing up. Heheh. My problem, though, is the same in many respects as your "average user". I just want an OS that works. Ubuntu is that, and IMHO, is getting better all the time. And a big part of that is due to developers. And not just Ubuntu developers. The guys out there who are just "pretty good" programers, and devote countless hours developing things like No-Squint. Just little things, but they make the OS more "user friendly", and more likely to appeal to the average end user. However, if you are that end user, don't gripe about the lack of third party software. Those things are not the purpose of an OS. The purpose of an OS, is to provide a platform for the software of your choice. And I don't mean the ability to use MS Office, but to have access to the same functionality, like Open Office. Next to security, what is the biggest complaint about windows? The ability to crash, even with your computer turned off...lol. And why is that? Because Windows targets the end user. The add more do-dads with each iteration, and then throw it in the water and pray it floats. Then you, the targeted end user, pay the price. And what can you do about the crashes?? Nothing. You have no access to source code. A user with only a modicum of computer savy, can at least try to see if they can find the problem. With Windows, you need to be almost a full blown developer to even get close to the source code. So you go to the various forums, and see if someone else can solve your problem. And then a month later when you have a different problem, that originates from the same source, you go hunting again. Why? Because you have no idea of what causes the problem, you just have an idea of the problem. In no way do I mean this to be disparaging. It's just the Windows way. Without learning a tremendous amount, you are stuck with what you have. Ubuntu has far, far less issues. And with Ubuntu, you need far less knowledge to have a shot at fixing your own problems. For easy stuff, like getting your wireless working, you will be surprised at how quickly you learn some coding, and because you actually entered the code yourself, and you know what the code does, even if just basically. The more you do, the more likely to say, "Hmm, I had a similar issue last month, and I did "X". Maby if I try "X+Y" it might work. Why put all that energy into an "end user targeted OS", when with much less effort you can work with an "OS targeted" platform, and learn something to boot. You are going to put effort into using ANY OS. By putting the emphasis on the developers, you get a more stable system, which, in turn, makes your experience more pleasant. I guess what it all boils down to is "there's no such thing as a free lunch" That being the case, I will go to a diner that attempts to be more cost effective, and therefore cheaper. I have been using Ubuntu for a couple months now, and I can offer forum members a pretty fair amount of advice, some code, and an explain it. How many of you can say that after a couple months on Windows? As with anything, you get out of an OS what you are willing to put into it. And as someone once said, "Don't build your houses on sand." Don't build you computer on a crappy OS.
aa

[Ms_Angel_D]

@Lostin60's, Dude add some paragraphing it was so hard to read your post....lol.


Uh huh, so what should you suggest I use instead of Ubuntu if you say users like me are not being focussed on?
Look I use Ubuntu because for the most part it is easy, that you dont have to be a rocket scientist or a developer to figure it out.
Where do people like me belong then, on windows?
Look Ubuntu's goal is to make a windows alternative, how do you excpect that to happen if its shuts out non developers?

I use My OS in much the same manner you do, but I think you have missed the OP's point entirely. Let me put it to you this way:

I'm a sugar cane farmer, and I have some really great sugar I need to sell. At first I just take it to the local supermarket to make some cash. But I'm not going to make the "real" cash just selling to only supermarkets. Sure I want it on the supermarket floor so the average consumer will buy it. But I know that to make the real cash I need to market my sugar to bakery chains and restaurants, the people who buy in bulk because they cook with it all the time. These people will take my sugar and make awesome cookies, cakes, pies and other goodies with it, and in this way I'll begin to see the real profits. That's not say that I don't want the "average consumer" buying my product I just know that I need those bakery's and restaurants to really grow my business.

It's the same with the OS yes you want the "Average User" to buy/Use your system but in order for it to grow you need to make it so that the people who build applications for it find it appealing and easy to use.

[phrostbyte]

Developers are probably the best served group in Linux. There is a wealth of free and extremely powerful development tools available from Python to Java to .NET to Ruby. And using the package management system makes getting libraries like a million times easier then any other OS.

[RiceMonster]

Look let slackware or arch target the command line guru's, and let the rest of us use ubuntu as a desktop as we please...

Developers and command line gurus are not the same thing. There is a lot of developers who want their computer "just to work" as well. Targeting developers does not mean changing to a "do it yourself" style operating system, but providing them with good tools to develop with. I wouldn't say Arch or Slackware are developer targeted per say; I'd say they're more targeted toward "Linux hobbyists".

[Rokurosv]

Cardinal, when speaking to what you refer to as the "average user" you are going to come off sounding "elitist"
no matter how you phrase it. Understand, I am not arguing against what you said. I have seen you all over the forums, and you have helped me on a couple occasions. I have great respect for you, you really are pretty selfless here. I can't imagine the hour you spend just helping. (And here ends the kissing up..lol) The problem with what you said, is pretty well covered by Bob Dylan. "We always did see the same things, we just saw them from a different point of view. I wonder how many folks who disagreed with you realize they were conceding your point, but from a different perspective. As you know, I am VERY new to Ubuntu, also the things you have helped me with point to my level of expertise....and you're not pointing up. Heheh. My problem, though, is the same in many respects as your "average user". I just want an OS that works. Ubuntu is that, and IMHO, is getting better all the time. And a big part of that is due to developers. And not just Ubuntu developers. The guys out there who are just "pretty good" programers, and devote countless hours developing things like No-Squint. Just little things, but they make the OS more "user friendly", and more likely to appeal to the average end user. However, if you are that end user, don't gripe about the lack of third party software. Those things are not the purpose of an OS. The purpose of an OS, is to provide a platform for the software of your choice. And I don't mean the ability to use MS Office, but to have access to the same functionality, like Open Office. Next to security, what is the biggest complaint about windows? The ability to crash, even with your computer turned off...lol. And why is that? Because Windows targets the end user. The add more do-dads with each iteration, and then throw it in the water and pray it floats. Then you, the targeted end user, pay the price. And what can you do about the crashes?? Nothing. You have no access to source code. A user with only a modicum of computer savy, can at least try to see if they can find the problem. With Windows, you need to be almost a full blown developer to even get close to the source code. So you go to the various forums, and see if someone else can solve your problem. And then a month later when you have a different problem, that originates from the same source, you go hunting again. Why? Because you have no idea of what causes the problem, you just have an idea of the problem. In no way do I mean this to be disparaging. It's just the Windows way. Without learning a tremendous amount, you are stuck with what you have. Ubuntu has far, far less issues. And with Ubuntu, you need far less knowledge to have a shot at fixing your own problems. For easy stuff, like getting your wireless working, you will be surprised at how quickly you learn some coding, and because you actually entered the code yourself, and you know what the code does, even if just basically. The more you do, the more likely to say, "Hmm, I had a similar issue last month, and I did "X". Maby if I try "X+Y" it might work. Why put all that energy into an "end user targeted OS", when with much less effort you can work with an "OS targeted" platform, and learn something to boot. You are going to put effort into using ANY OS. By putting the emphasis on the developers, you get a more stable system, which, in turn, makes your experience more pleasant. I guess what it all boils down to is "there's no such thing as a free lunch" That being the case, I will go to a diner that attempts to be more cost effective, and therefore cheaper. I have been using Ubuntu for a couple months now, and I can offer forum members a pretty fair amount of advice, some code, and an explain it. How many of you can say that after a couple months on Windows? As with anything, you get out of an OS what you are willing to put into it. And as someone once said, "Don't build your houses on sand." Don't build you computer on a crappy OS.
aa
Paragraphs, use them :P.

I might sound noobish but, how exactly can Ubuntu provide something to developers? I mean Ubuntu is, like you've said(cardinals), a collection of tools, libraries and all that stuff?

[sujoy]

The whole point is to make the OS developer friendly, and then the developers makes user-friendly third party apps. so combining them both, we have a developer friendly OS attracting a lot of developers who makes really nice and easy-to-use applications that makes the end users happy. :) I guess thats what CF tried to convey, and I absolutely agree with it.

Just that it creates some basic problems; unless you can lure in enough developers its kinda hard to implement. Also making the OS developer friendly means uniting the different choices with a common API sort of thing.

Like you may have pulse audio, alsa, oss or whatever, but there should be a generall API for them that makes the API calls same while underneath it branches out to the respective sub system. Kinda like how our filesystems work. You do fopen(filename, "mode") in C, no matter its ext3 or xfs ;) I guess with enough initiative we can reach that state in the coming days.

And no, no one is asking non-developers to use windows or other distros. Use whatever you want. Its just that the OS company wont think about making it easy for you, they will think about developers, who in-turn will think about you. So you go on using that media player without a hint of alsa or oss, while the OS has a myriad of configurations that needs to be taken care of by the developer of that media player.

[dspari1]

I disagree with the OP because there are already many distros that focuses on the developer.

The only thing that would happen if Ubuntu turned into a "developer's distro" would be that everyone else would switch to a more user oriented distro like Fedora or OpenSuSE.

[Lostin60's]

@Lostin60's, Dude add some paragraphing it was so hard to read your post....lol.



I use My OS in much the same manner you do, but I think you have missed the OP's point entirely. Let me put it to you this way:

I'm a sugar cane farmer, and I have some really great sugar I need to sell. At first I just take it to the local supermarket to make some cash. But I'm not going to make the "real" cash just selling to only supermarkets. Sure I want it on the supermarket floor so the average consumer will buy it. But I know that to make the real cash I need to market my sugar to bakery chains and restaurants, the people who buy in bulk because they cook with it all the time. These people will take my sugar and make awesome cookies, cakes, pies and other goodies with it, and in this way I'll begin to see the real profits. That's not say that I don't want the "average consumer" buying my product I just know that I need those bakery's and restaurants to really grow my business.

It's the same with the OS yes you want the "Average User" to buy/Use your system but in order for it to grow you need to make it so that the people who build applications for it find it appealing and easy to use.

If you don't indent, it's not a paragraph, it's just spaced.....so there!!!! LMAO.

You may be right about the hard to read part though, because you said about the same thing I did, albeit, more compactly. Let's expand on it.
You, (Ubuntu Inc.) grow sugar (OS), and think it would be nice to make a few bucks on it. So, how best to do it? Well, what are the available markets?

There is the consumer (end user), middle men (Comp USA, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) who sell both your product, and products that use your products. The "middle men" don't really care about the quality of your sugar, as long as the consumer buys their product. As far as they are concerned, you can sell them horse doo-doo (Windows) and call it sugar (Ubuntu), as long as the consumer will swallow it. The"bulk sellers" (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.), who need your product or something similar (cane sugar, brown sugar, raw sugar, Sweet 'n Low,) to sell their product. (What's a cake without sugar?) For their concerns, see "middle men".

"Direct to consumer" is the best "gross per unit", but probably the worst "net per unit". Marketing, transportation, start-up costs, etc. will eat you up. Not to mention the time you will lose that should be used for your real purpose, growing excellent sugar. Basically the same issues with selling to the "middle men". Which leaves the "bulk sellers".

As mentioned, their only concern is "bottom line" To this end, they will cover a lot of the marketing costs, nation wide. The middle men will do the same on a store by store level. Which leaves you with 2 "target audiences", one of which I haven't mentioned yet.

First the consumer. Easy, just give him what he has never had...SUPER SUGAR!! Tastier (more goodies), easier to reach their goal of either good cookies or gourmet confections (GUI, and user friendly CLI), and all at equal or less cost than the inferior sugars "Windows" that they have had to use up till now. Add to that, the fact that once they have the sugar they have the means to easily modify the flavor to their own tastes WITHOUT having to go to the grower.

Your other "target audience" is really two. First the soil (your programmers) must be tilled, fertilized, and watered; they REALLY need to understand that your sugar must, above all things, be all purpose (good solid basic coding, easy for others to write ancillary code for, modular, and have them understand that their job is to write a solid OS, not toys, but to make it easier for toy makers to work with".
Second, and probably most important is software developers. The toymakers. You don't really "market" to them though. More like a collaboration. You make an OS that that will be easy for them to write software for. You make yourself available to them to discuss any coding issues. You implement their suggestions on ways to make your OS more flexible and/or compatible. You work with them as a community, to assure that OS and software will flow together. You even help them with customer support. Between you, you create a great playground, and fun toys to use on it. In the end they will realize that by writing software for your OS, everyone wins.

Disclaimer: The preceding is simply IMHO.

Addendum: It is also spaced. Heheh.

aa

[Ms_Angel_D]

If you don't indent, it's not a paragraph, it's just spaced.....so there!!!! LMAO.

Disclaimer: The preceding is simply IMHO.

Addendum: It is also spaced. Heheh.

aa

first I wanna say your post makes sense to me.

Secondly lmao @ the spacing I guess when your right your right anyway this post looks much nicer than your first ;)

[oldsoundguy]

metalhellsagel, your point using sugar is off the mark if you think that it shows how the system should revert back to the dark ages of "developer friendly only."

First off, your bakers and others you cite are NOT developers .. they are CONSUMERS .. mass consumers and what are they doing? They are running a BUSINESS.
So making it all nice and cozy for developers ONLY will only KEEP such consumers out of the loop.

The real object is to up the consumption of the product. And, trust me, most businesses don't give a DAMN about development. All they care about is IF IT WORKS when you turn it on, and if it stays working without something happening to make them LOSE MONEY and just how easy and seamlessly it fits within their system.

Small businesses are the largest single users of desktop computers .. not gamers .. not mom searching for the perfect cake receipt not granny sending and receiving eMail or nine year old chatty Cathy that just HAS to IM her neighbor .. but people that use a computer as a tool and an aid for running their office.
Getting that OS into THAT computer should be the goal if they want mass appeal. Only way to do that is make it solid and make it WORK out of the box.

If developers want a playground, well and good, as that is needed to progress the system, but not at the cost of putting beans on the table!

[Ms_Angel_D]

That wasn't my point I was merely paraphrasing for the person who didn't seem to quite understand what the OP's point was. For the record I neither agree nor disagree with the OP, I am undecided.

[dcstar]

The Ubuntu distro is (like every single other OS that has ever existed) "a means to an end".

To the vast majority of computer users, the "ends" are the various consumer activities supported by the apps others have already outlined - and most would like to achieve those "ends" as easily as possible.

Ubuntu has made great strides in making the Linux flavour of OS far more easy for the vast majority of users to achieve those "ends", and since this seems to be the main aim of the Ubuntu project it seems to be reasonably successful in achieving this ongoing task.

Linux - and therefore Ubuntu - still has all the facilities for "developers" readily available - all they have to do is install them, so if these "developers" are having a problem with a user based distro not having all of these tools set up by default, then I think any problem is with the "developers", not the distro.

[Dekkon]

One technical hurdle was with Pulse Audio, which apparently comes standard on major distros like Ubuntu. It introduces quite a bit of audio lag. This would be fine for most applications, but it's not good for games, where the goal is to build an extremely responsive system that feels snappy. We were able to work with it, and get the game feeling right, but it took a bit of effort. I realize I'll get shot for saying this, but in Windows, it just worked right away!"

Also, and I've mentioned this before - Linux is created by too many smart opinionated people! There are a lot of very good ideas, but it can become difficult for developers to support all the different distro formats, bundles, audio/video systems. For linux to REALLY take over, it has to be easy for developers to make stuff, and easy for users to get stuff. It's one of those things where too many options can be suffocating, and ultimately hurt the cause.
How can you attract when your diversity causes more problems then solutions? Btw they made this game here, World of Goo (http://kotaku.com/5153699/world-of-goo-arrives-on-linux)

I freaking love you. +1

Finally, someone who understands that this is a problem and is hurting developers.

On, Windows and Mac, the developers can always be sure that the end user has say DirectX, DirectShow, and macs respective equivalent installed and doesn't have to worry about that. Linux on the other hand, can have one of 100 codec backends installed, and is certainly just not possible to develop for them all. Then you have developers only developing for one backend, and others developing for that backend, and soon you have 50 codec backends installed when you could just have say one or two.

Linux zealots and there refusal to see this is a problem.

[lykwydchykyn]

Things to consider:

- define "third party software" in the context of a Linux distro. Isn't it all "third party"? Are we basically talking about non-FOSS developers?
- How would Ubuntu be more "developer friendly"? More tools? Better LSB compliance? Stable selection of core subsystems? Shrink the repos and focus on statically-linked package formats? There are trade-offs for most of this stuff. Are they worth it?

[sertse]

I skipped half the thread, only skimmed the OP and may well be off topic.

However, in some way it sounds like what Arch is doing. Part of Arch popularity come from having a framework that makes it simple to build packages, manage and maintain them and puts them onto a repository for widespread use.

By making it easy for developers to get their software into the distro, it encourage a wide and varied range of software of use. Couple that with a rolling release, and we're beginning to see the "now the users come" result; Arch being increasingly popular nowadays, and the choice for quite a few UFers here... and there's now also the Chakra project, one attempt to make Arch friendy further showing developer friendly does lead to user friendly...

[lykwydchykyn]

On, Windows and Mac, the developers can always be sure that the end user has say DirectX, DirectShow, and macs respective equivalent installed and doesn't have to worry about that. Linux on the other hand, can have one of 100 codec backends installed, and is certainly just not possible to develop for them all. Then you have developers only developing for one backend, and others developing for that backend, and soon you have 50 codec backends installed when you could just have say one or two.


It's a good point, but consider the other side of the equation:
- You have an set of API's that you settle on and developers start developing for.
- Hardware and software advances are made that your API cannot handle, so you have to start kludging on to it while maintaining backwards compatibility for older apps.
- Eventually you have to come out with a "cleaned up" version of the API to remove all the old junk and cleanly add new features. It breaks all kinds of software. Users hate your OS.

Just so you don't think I'm picking on Vista or anything, two prime examples of this sort of thing (from what I hear) would be OpenGL and X11 itself (though they haven't reached stage 3). Incidentally, those are two APIs you CAN count on being on a Linux box.

I'm guessing most of the real problem is audio, which is a mess. But every attempt to "clean up the mess" by creating a new grand unified Linux audio system just adds more mess. So what would a "developer friendly" distro do?

[Lostin60's]

Ubuntu itself offers you nothing. It is the conglomeration of third-party apps included in Ubuntu that you use, and this is what Canonical should focus on increasing by making development for Ubuntu as painless as possible.
@Cardinal heheh! I told ya.

No matter how right you are, you're gonna get climbed on...with spikes. So much controversy over a simple comment, and a factual one at that.
aa

[Lostin60's]

Uh huh, so what should you suggest I use instead of Ubuntu if you say users like me are not being focussed on?
Look I use Ubuntu because for the most part it is easy, that you dont have to be a rocket scientist or a developer to figure it out.
Where do people like me belong then, on windows?
Look Ubuntu's goal is to make a windows alternative, how do you excpect that to happen if its shuts out non developers?

@ Sunny
Windows started out aiming solely at the user. We see how well THAT worked. Better to focus your energies on developers, and build a platform and apps that actually work together. "If you build it, they will come." That is all CF means..woo the users sure, but concentrate on developers and get it right.
aa

[Lostin60's]

first I wanna say your post makes sense to me.

Secondly lmao @ the spacing I guess when your right your right anyway this post looks much nicer than your first ;)

@ MHA
Thanks for the atta-boy. Always feels good to have someone respect your opinion.
Return key? What's a return key?? And where do you return to...LOL I wrote that first post after 2 days with no sleep...think of it as "chain of thought"
aa

[Lostin60's]

metalhellsagel, your point using sugar is off the mark if you think that it shows how the system should revert back to the dark ages of "developer friendly only."

First off, your bakers and others you cite are NOT developers .. they are CONSUMERS .. mass consumers and what are they doing? They are running a BUSINESS.
So making it all nice and cozy for developers ONLY will only KEEP such consumers out of the loop.

The real object is to up the consumption of the product. And, trust me, most businesses don't give a DAMN about development. All they care about is IF IT WORKS when you turn it on, and if it stays working without something happening to make them LOSE MONEY and just how easy and seamlessly it fits within their system.

Small businesses are the largest single users of desktop computers .. not gamers .. not mom searching for the perfect cake receipt not granny sending and receiving eMail or nine year old chatty Cathy that just HAS to IM her neighbor .. but people that use a computer as a tool and an aid for running their office.
Getting that OS into THAT computer should be the goal if they want mass appeal. Only way to do that is make it solid and make it WORK out of the box.

If developers want a playground, well and good, as that is needed to progress the system, but not at the cost of putting beans on the table!

Wow. I think you really misread MHA. His point BE user oriented. My point is, if you don't woo the developers, where do you get something that WORKS right out of the box? Also using your target audience Ubuntu comes closer to working "out of the box" than windows. You load up Ubuntu and you have OpenOffice. You load up Windows and then you get to PAY for MS Office, and THEN you get to install it. Again it's IMHO.
aa

[Ms_Angel_D]

Wow. I think you really misread MHA. HIS point BE user oriented.

lmao look at my signature...;)

[okamishadow]

Well... sometimes the "av users" can become developers... but in rare cases... that's why they're "average". I think the most of the LINUX, any distro, users are not average bcs we must do "by hand" certain stuff [i.e. compile a driver...]

You're :KS so right about that and I read your words before think "oh, an elitist!"

Yes, the free OS must be more oriented to developers... :D

[BGFG]

I skipped half the thread, only skimmed the OP and may well be off topic.

However, in some way it sounds like what Arch is doing. Part of Arch popularity come from having a framework that makes it simple to build packages, manage and maintain them and puts them onto a repository for widespread use.

By making it easy for developers to get their software into the distro, it encourage a wide and varied range of software of use. Couple that with a rolling release, and we're beginning to see the "now the users come" result; Arch being increasingly popular nowadays, and the choice for quite a few UFers here... and there's now also the Chakra project, one attempt to make Arch friendy further showing developer friendly does lead to user friendly...

I disagree with this, Arch may be developer friendly but it certainly not for the 'average user', there is simply too much work into getting Arch up and running. I applaud the arch devs though, for an amazing system designed for, shall we say: power to advanced user.

As to the the contention in this thread, i don't get it. the OP is correct, all OS should be developer friendly. But being developer friendly has nothing to do with the end user. End users rarely, if ever, encounter dev tools or are ever aware of the underlying framework of their favourite apps. As to 'targeting' developers instead(am i right in saying instead?) of 'end' users, I see no gain in this. Developers are a different kind user and if your OS has a superior developing environment, they will use it. No need to market or target that particular demographic.

I see the two groups of users and the way in which they interact with the system as being mutually exclusive.

Take the automotive industry:
lets say an automotive manufacturer develops a new technology for installing/designing brakes. mechanics are happy, installation is now a breeze. Third party brakes manufacturers are elated, the new tech allows for cost cutting techniques in design and implementation. The end user/driver is happy, my newfangled brakes can stop on a dime and last months longer and it takes the mechanic 15 mins to change.

See my point ?

[sanderella]

I'm an average user. One thing I have noticed in the past year or so, when you walk into a computer shop the assistants now know what Linux is, and many of them know about Ubuntu. Most pc shops now sell something with a Linux OS on it. This is a great step forward for averaging Linux.

I think Ubuntu should continue to have a wide appeal, usable by devs and us average folk.:KS

[chris4585]

By making it easy for developers to get their software into the distro, it encourage a wide and varied range of software of use. Couple that with a rolling release, and we're beginning to see the "now the users come" result; Arch being increasingly popular nowadays, and the choice for quite a few UFers here... and there's now also the Chakra project, one attempt to make Arch friendy further showing developer friendly does lead to user friendly...

I for one do love Arch a lot, but don't you mean "By making it easy for users to get their software into the distro...." I'm not much of a developer, I just can decipher some code... heh but I use Arch because it is easy and I can make it what I want it to be. Don't get me wrong I see what you're saying, maybe a little off though?

Here's a wild idea.. If developers are complaining about there not being standard's why don't they build on top of linux themselves to make their own standards?

[jwbrase]

Really, each level of an OS should be built to tailor to the needs/wants of the "average" user that is expected to want/need to interact *directly with that level* of the OS.

The "average user" is a different person at each level.

At the very shallowest level, it could be anybody, from a three year old, to a fifteen year old gamer, to a 27 year old developer, to a 40 year old businessman, to a 60 year old author, to a supercentenarian. Some of these will have more computer savvy than others, but the lowest common denominator may be fairly low.

Then you have the basic administration and first-aid maintenance level. People at this level probably have somewhat more experience with computers, but still may not have much. "Daddy, the sound isn't working." "Honey, this program won't install."

Then you have higher level administration and maintenance, which will probably be taken care of by people with a fair bit more experience in IT.

Then you'll have 3rd party software developers, who will want a flexible and easy to use API that can allow them to quickly and efficiently turn out programs that are as user friendly and as bugless as possible.

Then you've got current and future developers of the OS, as well as the uber-nerds who want to customize and refine their computer to the nth degree, who will be interacting with and tweaking fairly deep-level software.

[lykwydchykyn]

I think many of you are misintepreting the OP.
You are thinking "developer" == "advanced user". That's not really the point, as I understand it.

If I'm developing software for a system, it benefits me to know everything I can know about that system. I ideally want to know exactly what software libraries, subsystems, interpreters, etc. are on the system, and in what version.

So to create an ideal system for developers, you create a system where these things are straightforward and change little. It has nothing to do with "user friendliness" or console administration or any of that. It has to do with consistency.

The flip side is that when you lock in to a bunch of systems in a given version like that, you get stuck with all the design flaws and lack of features in that particular set of software packages.

So when the new hotness version comes along that fixes all the problems, runs 10x faster, and adds all the missing features users were asking for, you can't add it to your distro because it would cause problems for developers targetting your platform.

If you are targetting users rather than developers, you go ahead and put the new hotness software on there and force developers to fix their stuff to work with it.

[Lostin60's]

lmao look at my signature...;)

OOPS!!! Sorry 'bout that. Boy I bet I could really start one up if I said,"Sorry MHA, I just assumed you were a guy because your post were to logical to be a gal's."

(covers head and runs for nearest shelter)
aa

[Ms_Angel_D]

OOPS!!! Sorry 'bout that. Boy I bet I could really start one up if I said,"Sorry MHA, I just assumed you were a guy because your post were to logical to be a gal's."

(covers head and runs for nearest shelter)
aa

OMG THAT IS JUST WRONG!!!!....lol

[fissionmailed]

There's some developer level distros. Why should Ubuntu change for when it's known for being an easy distro? It seems pointless to me. If you really want to use Ubuntu and have more of a developer feel, just do a base install and build the OS from there.

[chris4585]

There's some developer level distros. Why should Ubuntu change for when it's known for being an easy distro? It seems pointless to me. If you really want to use Ubuntu and have more of a developer feel, just do a base install and build the OS from there.

I don't think you know what developer friendly means, which is ultimately what we want Ubuntu to become. Ubuntu is user friendly but not developer friendly.

[namegame]

There's some developer level distros. Why should Ubuntu change for when it's known for being an easy distro? It seems pointless to me. If you really want to use Ubuntu and have more of a developer feel, just do a base install and build the OS from there.

See, that's where I think you're wrong. The level of difficulty has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with whether or not a distribution is targeted at developers.

A good developer distribution would include many development tools by default, such as gcc, various languages installed (PHP, Perl, Python, Java, C/C++), various IDEs, etc.

I haven't used Ubuntu in months, but I think the only thing it comes with by default is Python...

[fissionmailed]

I don't think you know what developer friendly means, which is ultimately what we want Ubuntu to become. Ubuntu is user friendly but not developer friendly.

Well the OP said in the title Ubuntu should target developers, not "average users." That implies to me that it's an either or case and that implies that he means developers as in knowledgeable users. Of course I could be reading it wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong about what developer friendly is etc. I'm just interrupting it as I see it.

Edit, I read the whole post this time. Not just skimming through the first paragraph or two. The title is misleading and I agree with you with what the OP was trying to say.

[lykwydchykyn]

A good developer distribution would include many development tools by default, such as gcc, various languages installed (PHP, Perl, Python, Java, C/C++), various IDEs, etc.

I don't really think that's the point. Installing those things in Ubuntu is pretty trivial.

The point is to concentrate on a more stable core so that developers don't have the "moving target" problem. As it stands, there is a tendency to "rip and replace" entire subsystems every few releases (or more). Notorious example: pulseaudio.

The more I think about it, though, the only folks I really hear the "moving target" complaints from tend to be the commercial, proprietary software vendors. FOSS developers just release code and leave it up to the distro's packaging team to make it work with their distro.

[chris4585]

I don't think you know what developer friendly means, which is ultimately what we want Ubuntu to become. Ubuntu is user friendly but not developer friendly.

When I think about it, its Linux and its componenets that should be developer friendly for proprietary companies for Linux to be a platform that is easy to develope for. I think most people are missunderstanding, "developing for" and "developing on" the platform.

[Ms_Angel_D]

Maybe somebody should create a Ubuntu Developers Version, something that is Ubuntu but comes with some of the necessary tools and languages pre-installed and ready to be used. This would give dev's the tools they need to begin working right away immediately after install. I would do it but personally I'm no coder however somebody with some coding knowledge could probably easily create something like this.

Also it would send the message to the world that Linux is ready to have the major software companies build software for it.

[days_of_ruin]

When I think about it, its Linux and its componenets that should be developer friendly for proprietary companies for Linux to be a platform that is easy to develope for. I think most people are missunderstanding, "developing for" and "developing on" the platform.
How would ubuntu become more developer friendly?
Could someone list examples of problems for developers and possible solutions?

[chris4585]

How would ubuntu become more developer friendly?
Could someone list examples of problems for developers and possible solutions?

I myself do not have much examples because I'm not a developer, but I understand itself what others have said earlier in the thread. One issue has been with sound and issues with pulseaudio is one of the examples in this thread alone.

I"m going to emphasize this a little because I believe this is part of the messge the OP was trying to make.

"developing for" and "developing on" are two different things.

Its easy to get tools on Ubuntu to develope thats not an issue. If I am wrong please inform me.

[Flag]

Right " developing for " or " developing on " that's the issue.
What we ALL need is OOB bare essentials:
-Wifi
-Sound
-Video
-Webbrowser
-Mail program
Once we have that we can go on.;)

[pluviosity]

As I read this thread, I couldn't help but hearing Steve Ballmer yell "Developers, developers, developers..." in the distance.

[thatsmyboy]

I'm certainly NOT the average user but I think there SHOULD be an operating system that is both free and easy to use(for someone with little or no interest in operating system intricacies). Computers are just too ubiquitous for that not to be the case. Ubuntu seems to have jumped ahead of other OS s because it is surprisingly easy to get started and has a WOW factor out of the box (or off the liveCD). My sense is that the reason for this is Ubuntu's guiding philosophy (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy) :
1. Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.
2. Every computer user should be able to use their software in the language of their choice.
3. Every computer user should be given every opportunity to use software, even if they work under a disability.
Reading through the above, I disagree with the original poster and feel that Ubuntu should not target developers but average users.

[k2t0f12d]

I'm certainly NOT the average user but I think there SHOULD be an operating system that is both free and easy to use(for someone with little or no interest in operating system intricacies). Computers are just too ubiquitous for that not to be the case. Ubuntu seems to have jumped ahead of other OS s because it is surprisingly easy to get started and has a WOW factor out of the box (or off the liveCD). My sense is that the reason for this is Ubuntu's guiding philosophy (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy) :
1. Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.
2. Every computer user should be able to use their software in the language of their choice.
3. Every computer user should be given every opportunity to use software, even if they work under a disability.
Reading through the above, I disagree with the original poster and feel that Ubuntu should not target developers but average users.

All of those things are already done and ensured by Free Software developers, and do nothing at all to lessen developer friendliness. Developer friendly is not mutually exclusive of user friendly. However, Ubuntu doesn't necessarily need to be the best Developer distro, because, developers worth worrying about having work on Free Software projects can reckon their own systems all by themselves.

=P

[ryaxnb]

Opinion: You should use a different distro. Opinion: Ubuntu is not for you.
I mean, Ubuntu was born to be a distro with gnome, for average users, with a 6month cycle. You want a developer distro, with a 6month release cycle, fedora is staring you in the face, and a developer distro based of debian, well, there's Sidux and Debian itself. I'm sorry, but ubuntu is just not meant for developers.

[ryaxnb]

Before anyone starts screaming "elitist!" or throwing out the inevitable Mark Shuttleworth quotes, hear me out. I've complained about the misleading term "average user" many times in the past, but it will inevitably come up in this discussion, so I'd like to define it. I consider an "average user," "new user," and all such terms someone who wants to do things with a computer without understanding or caring about how such things are accomplished.

Consider the purpose of an operating system. An OS is really just a platform for the creation of applications. Operating systems cannot provide every tool that every user will eventually need. Such a goal is ridiculous. The vast majority of apps used by "average users" on any OS (even OS X) are third-party tools. In order to provide easy operation, an OS must simply provide a) a simple platform for developers and b) a logical software installation system for end users.

When we consider the fact that "average users" don't care how a system accomplishes something, we realize that such users are never the intended audience of an OS. An operating system is the underlying core on which all other apps run. This core is only useful for those who are interested in the actual workings of a computer - not the stereotypical grandmother.

Take a hypothetical "average user". They want to use their computer to do many things, all of which are in constant evolution. Ten years ago, very few people watched or published online videos. Now, Youtube is one of the most visited websites and is popular among every imaginable type of user. The end-users in question don't care about the format of their online videos or the apps used to play them. They just want to watch that hilarious golden retriever dancing on its hind legs. Almost nobody cares about Microsoft Silverlight, but a great many expected to watch the Olympics online on NBC. A computer is unlike any other tool in that it can perform a tremendous variety of continuously evolving tasks.

Since end-users need to use third-party apps, the availability and quality of this software will be the ultimate determining factor in their opinion of an OS. From hardware drivers to statistical analysis plugins, end users need stuff to run on their OS. A system concentrated on pleasing developers will ultimately serve end-users best, because only such a system has the wide variety of applications needed to help a varied array of people get things done.

Looking back, this is one of the ways Microsoft first took off. They focused on offering developers a usable platform with a concentrated network of support resources. This is also something being pursued right now by projects such as OpenSolaris and Haiku. Such projects and companies realize that the much-vaunted "average user" simply doesn't care about them. They care about third-party apps written by third-party devs.
But the thing is, most developers of linux stuff use a distro like Fedora or Debian and than port their app to every distro. That right there is a gaping logical flaw in your argument. Developers usually don't use the same distro you use in linuxland, heck developers might even be on BSD or god forbid, Opensolaris but because of POSIX and LSB and other standards, an application for Fedora or even Freebsd will likely work on Ubuntu. Furthermore, someone has made a good point; developers are humans too. What they want primarily is not a hard to use OS that is "simple" but rather great documentation, easy access to 100% of the code, and similar things. Ubuntu has a long way to go on the documentation front, but focusing ubuntu on developers won't fix that. Ubuntu should instead focus the DOCUMENTATION on developers as they just love good documentation. See my new thread.

[MasterNetra]

Sunny for president.


*edit*this is not important

But seriously. The developers are developing for users which they follow.. not the other way round (well almost, but it isn't as strong tenancy). Developers that dont need to make something for a market but more of a mission critical system are already developing that stuff for them selfs on stripped versions of debian for an instance.

Ubuntu is about bringing the crowed and medium size business to them self and the developers will follow. you know this all already man.

*edit*
Ubuntu is reaching the masses. 1 year ago very few people I saw used linux, and was mostly much more savvy than I was. Now Im seeing it everywhere, even in my psychology class there is 1 other than me out of 100, which is not bad for that type of people that do not know what OS even is.
about 20%-30% of people in openGL and international marketing use Ubuntu and one even has a sticker ^^.

I'd say ubuntu is doing a good job attracting the correct crowd to them selfs.

+1 I wouldn't even be using linux if it wasn't for Ubuntu.

[Dragonbite]

<snip>
I consider an "average user," "new user," and all such terms someone who wants to do things with a computer without understanding or caring about how such things are accomplished.

Consider the purpose of an operating system. An OS is really just a platform for the creation of applications.

This core is only useful for those who are interested in the actual workings of a computer - not the stereotypical grandmother.
Disagree: An OS is a platform for the RUNNING of applications. If not for running applications then you would be building something that nobody uses.



The end-users in question don't care about the format of their online videos or the apps used to play them. They just want to watch that hilarious golden retriever dancing on its hind legs.
Agreed.

A system concentrated on pleasing developers will ultimately serve end-users best, because only such a system has the wide variety of applications needed to help a varied array of people get things done.
Agreed: but why would it have to be Ubuntu?


While most users are happy using their computer for their pleasure or for work, they could care less how it works just that it works.

Similarly I am happy to go to the grocery store and buy chopped meat to have for dinner and I really don't WANT to know how the cow (turkey, chicken, etc.) was raised and slaughtered and cut up. Nor do I want to have to do that myself!

Ubuntu is not targeted to that market. Just like Mercedes could care less about the 8$/hour coffee-shop teenager unless they have the money to buy their car! I'm sure Mercedes drivers don't want Mercedes catering to them either!

Isn't nUbuntu supposed to be a developer's version?

Fedora and openSUSE are viewed for developers, I think, in part because their installation includes choosing what applications you want so this allows the developer the ability to add what development tools they want (language, IDE, libraries) without having to add it later, or to remove applications they don't want.

So while I agree to you that there could/should be a developer-orientated Linux distribution I disagree that it should be Ubuntu or more specifically that Ubuntu should focus on the developer instead of the "average user" as doing both would just be splitting their efforts where in the end, other distributions can do better because they focus more solely on the developer and do not spend time streamlining the process for the uninitiated.

[MikeTheC]

This is probably true, but the chicken/egg type situation involved here is fairly difficult to do anything about.

Arguably, we're well beyond the stage of "chicken and egg" and so I don't think this is really a factor any more.


CF, i can appreciate what you're trying to say, but i think you'd find objection from those who consider the OS as an 'experience' (you know, the types of people who get into gnome vs. kde/gtk vs. qt wars) ... he said "it's just not the way i like to work" with more than just a hint of shudder in his voice.
Most people who use computers don't engage in that kind of behavior, particularly with respect to computer-related technology. Frankly, whether we like it or not, most people use whatever is put in front of them. Our goal should be to diversify choice based on best-of-breed solutions, which will themselves come from the very healthy contest of competition.

If you're going to get users (and there's no question Linux as a whole and Ubuntu in particular are doing this right now) then there should be nothing considered wrong with putting the best tools in front of users.



Now, not being a developer myself, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I would think the things that developers would value the most, apart from documentation and open standards, would be consistency, stability and support. By stability, what I mean is once a means of doing something is determined, it remains in place long enough to allow an app to be developed, tested, finalized, released, and distributed (F/OSS or for a fee) for some period of time long enough for a given developer to feel they were able to recoup their time and trouble in having written the app.

I'm not against change, but you can't keep changing things wholesale and expect every software developer in the world to keep up, particularly when they may, quite likely, be developing for other platforms and have their hands already full with existing platform support -- let alone user support, much less worrying about what the latest APIs to call are, or libraries, or how an entire subsystem (sound, for instance) is put together.

Linux developers as a whole -- not just Ubuntu maintainers -- need to ensure things are developed to a logical point, and then stabilized so that app developers have a sane, safe and stable environment to get into.

[mangar]

Developers are also users. If you don't target users, you don't target developers as well.

[issih]

Hmmn, its a fair point to say that the developers need to be there in order to produce the compelling applications that make an OS attractive. An OS that is deliberately obtuse and difficult to code for will obviously begin to shed developers.

So there is a need to keep developers sweet, that is undeniable.

However, developers (with no disrespect meant, as in many ways I am one, and I am as prone to this as anyone) often produce software that is tantamount to unuseable by almost anyone but themselves. If you know what it was meant to do, its obvious you click the button on the left then enter 456 into the box if you want the character to hop on his left leg...what's so hard about that? Unfortunately, User Interface code is unbelievably boring and tedious to code. Its not doing anything interesting, or clever, its just put that box there, call this method I've already written when hit. It is as dull as ditch-water (to me anyway)

There is a real need, particularly in the open source community, where the developer is given far more status than in the commercial one, to have something driving the developers towards a consistent user friendly interface. That will not happen without someone having their focus on the end user, so whilst I understand the point, I think that on balance I disagree.

[Glucklich]

Almost nobody cares about Microsoft Silverlight, but a great many expected to watch the Olympics online on NBC.

Yep. And it's great for NOT watching the NCAA aka March Madness on Silverlight, when you're on Linux.
Well, you can watch but you can't listen. Which sucks a little. Not as much as if you couldn't see it either but... you got the point.

But I see where you're getting at. You think that at the stage of developing, it should be developers only. A way to get all the help they can get. Then as a final objective, average users. But that's the point of the Testing versions. As they release, within a certain period, definitive versions for the average user. And I think that's nice. Because if a user got a problem, as I did, maybe he will considering testing for a while. Letting know bugs and that kind of things. Because for the task of finding bugs, average users do what they do best... use stuff. And developers do what they do best... get their hands on it.

[AnarchyMaster]

I see where you're coming from but what if the average user wishes to advance? from what I can see from what you're saying it would make it more difficult.

[Glucklich]

I see where you're coming from but what if the average user wishes to advance? from what I can see from what you're saying it would make it more difficult.

My apologies. Misread your statement and had another thought going on the background. Edited.