> > it is attractive for users that want know what's going on. for users
> > that want click-and-pray interface there is windows.
> 
> There is much land between ease of use and a gui. A configuration 
> file that a command reads parameters from is making a system 
> more easy to use. Everywhere scripts are written to automate 
> things and make whatever easier to use.
yes... but it's difficult to see such solutions in commercial products.
> > 
> > do you think making system "easy" will gain more developers?
> 
> Do you think that not making a system "easy" will keep potential 
> developers away? SuSE and other distributions got IBM to port 
> Linux to the S/390, AS400, and "all" of the other IBM machines, and 
> I doubt these IBM folks are the least competent developers around. 
> I very much dislike SuSEs ease of use, as it makes it hard to know 
> what is going on and I agree, that this kind of "ease of use" is bad 
> and tends to become a new windows.

in my opinion suse is already "new windows". oh..maybe corel linux more.
both is unusable.
> > it will gain lot of pseudo-developers that will like "easy
> > development" and will be mainly interested in atting new desktop
> > themes to kde etc... instead of writing somithing usefu
> paid by MS!). This test shows, that Windows 2000 is of better 
> usability than Linux as a server OS and and a klient OS (and that it 
> is more secure too!). This is a nother MS paid document that 
> As long as making it easier does not break something, it does not 
> do any harm.
yes. your example is very similar to polish situation....

out civilisation is near it's end.. ;)