Software that 'just works'

As much as I hate bashing people, I'm afraid I have to agree with you at least in part. Havoc Pennington seems like a really intelligent fellow, and mosfet's rebuttle to HP's Free software UI article seems more like arbitrary rambling. He adds little value to HP's article and seems to agree with just about everything. Consider this:

HP: Answering questions[...] "hmm, maybe I can autogenerate my GUI[...]"

MOSFET: In KDE you *can* autogenerate your GUI[...] it's done with QT designer[...]

HP made a simple point that did not even imply the nonexistence of GUI auto-generating tools in GNOME. You cannot autogenerate a GUI! Somebody has to write the code! Sure, you can load the QT designer or Glade and virtually draw your entire GUI, but a great deal of the functionality must be done in code.

Mosfet then goes on to ignore the fact that open source developers and users are in a different class than your average Windows user. He discussed the apparent lack of preferences in (presumably) the Metacity window manager, and claims the following:

[...]he didn't listen to what most of his users wanted because the mailing lists were soon cluttered with people asking where their favorite feature was and how to switch back to sawfish.

Am I mistaken here? Is my mom supposed to even know what a mailing list is? Havoc did listen to the users. However, he recognized the fact that his target audience for the Metacity window manager did not contain his users. Bill in Accounting or Sarah the Administrative Assistant won't complain if she can't increase the number of virtual desktops on her display, or if she would prefer that the window borders snapped magnetically instead of by tile. Average users need a comprehensive GUI much more than we do (by we I mean the people who are able to configure their system to begin with).

Mosfet: For advanced users he talks about "user levels" and "Advanced menus". He does not think they are warranted and considers them a "band-aid". I disagree here.

I can't understand the reasoning for "Novice, Intermediate, Advanced." One of the few times I've seen this applied is in Teach-Yourself books. Some books are designed for "immediate" users. You don't separate user classes. You allow the users to pick and choose applications that best fit their needs, not skill levels that classify users into different categories. This would be like a car radio with a built-in LCD panel. You choose "novice" and every button but play and stop disappear. But as you learn to use an application better, why should the user have to decide if he's now ready for the "intermediate" stage of preferences? It's like a skill level, "Do you want the application to be easy to use or difficult to use?"

Everyone wants an application to be easy to use. So why bother asking?

Anyways, I'm going to stop here, because this is turning into a bit of a self-glorifying rant. Ryan: I don't see any relation between Mosfet and the above article. It claims Sam Varghese wrote it. Is Daniel Duley involved somehow?