Slashdot Mirror
New Desktop for Linux
naasking writes, "A new desktop project has been started by former Apple and AOL employees. Their goal is to create a graphical environment for Linux that "your mother could use." The company doing it is called Eazel. " It also is supposed to be based on GNOME. CT: Several people noted that this shell is destined to be the GNOME 2.0 shell/file manager.
This is the one area where that Linux really needs help. I have long argued that Linux was a horrible desktop product because of its lack of standards for the user interface. Of course, any time you say anything negative about Linux, the wackos moderate you down. Linux has shown itself to be strong in the serving area against all comers and goers but serving does not require a human interface, only a geek one.
Apple's 10 year-old MacOS 6 is far more thoughtful to the needs of the basic computer user than the current desktops provided by GNOME and KDE. Mainly because these are products made by geeks for geeks -- your Grandma need not apply.
Once a real human interface is developed for X, Linux can really break open the holy grail of the home & business desktop. Until then, Linux will be left to the domain of the geek and file serving. Kudoos to eazel!
Right you are--I didn't mean to imply that E was part of GNOME, just that E and GNOME may not be the most optimal combination if you're looking for speed. I should have written "...if you're using E..."
FWIW, I'm not slamming Enlightenment--E is what gets folks drooling over my Linux desktop, so I fully intend to maintain my E configuration and keep installing the latest cool E themes and stuff. When I set up my new laptop I'll probably use the same configuration so when I'm out and about I can grab folks' interest with E, then show them how flexible the "Linux GUI" (the term I use for their benefit since they usually assume that every OS has an integrated GUI) can be by switching to sawmill, WM, etc.
slashdot broke my sig
I hate to say this, but for *good* quality printing from *nix, I've found the available answers to be 'buy a postscript printer', 'buy a postscript printer', and 'buy a postscript printer'. Unfortunately it's quite hard to justify the cost of a Color Laserjet 4500 or other "low-end" colour laser printers.
I'd be extremely happy if somebody could tell me how wrong I am.
----------------------------
Thanks for that.
Guess they're sending a hit out for "Wakko Warner" now...
I should have called my account "Steve Balmer".
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Apparently, to most, it wasn't.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Not to be pedantic, but this is inaccurate.
They would only need to get the pay license if they want to distribute without source. If/how much they charge, and whether or not they are a "commercial" organization doesn't enter into it.
It's arguable that QPL is like GPL in this respect, and less like LGPL.
New XFMail home page
My mom and my grandmother can both read. Both have not problem playing solitary, and they can write down all the nessicay steps to do so. THey could log into a cli, startx, move to the xterm and type xsol -preferences sol.pref -conf sol.conf -other stragne_option. If that is really what it takes. Yeah they'd hate it and wouldn't understand, but they can do this. They can even write down how to log out after words and do it.
My uncle has 4 kid, the oldest is 6. I setup microsoft networking so he can print on his new computer (via some old 10base2 network that I discarded) to the old 486 that still runs quicken just fine but won't do the games that the kids play. The kids however cannot figgure out how to get past that log in screen. I had to disable that. He is better off using sneaker net (which he can figgure out via written insctructions) so that the kids can play their games.
The kids can turn the comptuer on, and they can use the mouse to double click the game application on the desktop. Chaninging a CDROM is byond their abilites. (The oldest can do that, but the 3 year old would scratch the cd if they left them in her reach, and yes the three year old plays games on the computer)
I've heard that KDM is a login that kids have a chance to use, if there is no password on the games account. (I can prevent the games account from loging in via anything but local connection if security is a concern) Can kids use the rest of the system? I've not tried to set my system up that way so I can't make more comments in this area.
PS, why are their so few kids games for unix? We could use a few decerate the treehouse things that I see the kids enjoying now.
In fact, I'd not care if my {insert-non-educated-relative-definition} could use Linux. There's always some windows/AOL for it. What I care for if *I* can use it and if it's convenient for me. GUI firewall configuration is more convenient that ipchains -L/ipchains -A repeated, so I take it. GUI email clients aren't good with me, so I still use pine. That's what I want from Linux - to be me-oriented, not some imaginary super-dumb user-oriented.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Because you don't know to use/find right themes. Go and self-educate. BTW, I don't really like that theme - too artistic for everyday work.
And bringing Mac theme to GNOME is work of few days or even hours. How much it would take to bring GNOME theme on Mac?
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Never heard that linuxconf ever required me not to touch config files. I touch them all the time and linuxconf seems to cope with it nicely.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Quite seriously, if it's to be useful, it should hardly be characterized as "Just A File Manager."
Consider:
And that is where it starts to get interesting.
The thing about Linux, as it is today, that is kind of scary to people that need to think of computers as "appliances," is that it doesn't have a unified way of treating things as "documents."
A "document manager" that lets you make sure that stuff doesn't get lost due to it falling into a directory that you didn't know you needed to look at is going to be the killer app of the next decade.
I agree that Explorer is quite horrifying; I look at it as the "machine gun" of computing.
People tend to be horrified at this analogy, but its ability to accidentally destroy files quite analagous to the notion of walking around the office carrying an M-60 with finger on trigger. You slip up a bit, and "Oops! I accidentally shot up 15 cubicles and killed 8 coworkers."
If these guys can do some good HCI work, perhaps taking some of the better concepts from OS/2 and NeXTstep, and actually create a usable and powerful "document manager," this seems to me to be quite a worthy task.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
--
Both of them do focus mainly on Linux. They do run on other operating systems (the sysadmins in the CS labs here at RIT recently installed KDE on the Solaris boxen) but Linux is still the OS they're most concerned about.
What i would like to see (note that I am not a big unix guy - this may already be possible) is a file manager in which 'rules' can be set up for how the content displays in the window for various directories, file types and files.
(naturally they'd be overridable)
For a similar thing, consider how readme files appear when ftping to particular directories.
Various components could exist for html display (a linked library, i'd guess) or flash, or generic ls data, or whatnot. This helps preserve the unix philosophy of many small tools. The rule file merely calls different components according to the info in the rule file.
CSS would probably be useful in designing the rules - letting the rule styles generally cascade down for consistency.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Jakob Neilsen has some interesting stuff on his Web site, such as his Death of File Systems paper, on why he thinks that the hierarchical directory tree model isn't necessarily what you want to expose to the end user; there's also a paper by him and Don Gentner, Anti-Mac, with thoughts on what a different-and-possibly-better user interface might look like.
"Kernel support" in what sense? Supporting exec-family calls being able to run Windows binaries (which may just involve telling the kernel to fire up Wine on them)? Or support in the kernel as necessary to make Wine work better? Or both?
But what if you want to paste something other than the highlighted text? What if, for example, you highlighted some block of text, copied it to the clipboard, and then want to replace some other block of text with the copied text, by highlighting that other block of text and then pasting the copied text?
Paste-current-selection is not, the apparent belief of some UNIX/X users nonwithstanding, the be-all and end-all of cut-and-paste in UNIX/X.
The problem he had with the KDE editor and Netscape probably stems from Qt not pasting to the damn clipboard; if a Qt application (such as a KDE application) does a paste with a Qt call, it pastes to the primary selection, rather than the clipboard, so that applications that implement "Paste" (not "paste current selection", "Paste") as "paste clipboard" don't work with Qt applications.
I have no idea why the folks at Troll Tech decided to do this. It has apparently, on at least two occasions, violated the principle of least surprise (the person to whom you're responding didn't get what they expected, and somebody in another Slashdot thread ages ago had a similar problem, which is what prompted me to go look at the Qt source and discover that it paid no attention to the X clipboard). GTK+, and probably at least some other toolkits (e.g., Motif, that being what the current Netscape uses), behave correctly here. I consider this an example of the sort of inconsistency the person about which the person to whom you're replying was complaining.
(On the other hand, Quicken 2000 for Windows, for some unknown reason, doesn't use Ctrl-C/Ctrl-X/Ctrl-V for copy/cut/paste, so UNIX/X isn't the only platform with applications that sometimes don't quite match other stuff running on the platform. It's also irritating that the "OK" box in some dialogue boxes in Quicken, such as the one for Split items, doesn't seem to be activated by the key - that key just takes you to the next line, which makes some sense, but I just want to be able to enter the entire damn transaction without taking my hands off the damn keyboard.)
Yes, using the middle button for paste-current-selection is, in many circumstances, a workaround, and often obviates the need for cut-and-paste or copy-and-paste - but I wouldn't assume that it always obviates the need for it.
Havoc Pennington, GTK+ developer at Red Hat, said in this article:
That makes "switching apps" even more irritating than it is now. I might personally prefer an interface that exposes "apps" somewhat less - for example, if I'm editing a bit of source code, I wouldn't mind being able to put a link into it to a spec for the protocol it implements or dissects, and be able to click on that link, while editing the source code, to pop up a copy of the spec.
I've wondered whether a document/hyperlink-based desktop metaphor might work better for my files - source files, specifications, notes to myself, Web pages on other sites, saved netnews articles, saved mail messages, etc., etc. - than the directory-based metaphor used by existing OSes/desktops. I hate having to manually search for the damn mail message/note-to-myself file/whatever that explained how to do XXX....
I.e., components, such as Nautilus and, I think, the KDE 2.0 file manager will use?
There are other ways to link tools together than to build shell scripts, pipelines, and the like.
You are aware (as Havoc Pennington, GTK+ developer at Red Hat, has pointed out several times in various replies to various comments) that Eazel are not doing a new desktop, they're doing the next generation of file manager for the GNOME dekstop, right?
2x2's the default in KDE, as well.
The switcher is in the KDE and, I think, GNOME panel, which is a separate program from the wndow manager, so, no, it isn't necessarily a WM feature, although the WM may do some of the work, and one could conceivably run a WM that does its own virtual desktops.
As GNOME doesn't (yet?) have a default standard window manager, if some of the virtual desktop switching is done by the WM rather than by the GNOME panel, one could say that GNOME doesn't (yet?) provide all the support for virtual desktops.
KDE, however, does have a default standard window manager, so it does implement virtual desktops.
Is he then sending those changes back to the GNOME folks? If not, he should (assuming he hasn't already done that without success). If so, are the GNOME folks then picking them up (assuming they don't break other platforms, say)? If not, they probably should.
Is it fading, or was it not ever there as much as one might like? I.e., is this a case of programmers now writing for Linux rather than, when possible, generic UNIX, or is it a case of programmers now writing for Linux rather than writing for, say, 4.2BSD, or SunOS 4.x, or...?
(And are they writing for Linux, or for Linux/x86? "I don't have to worry whether this pointer points to an address aligned on a 4-byte boundary, right?" If you want your code to run on all the various non-x86 Linux systems, much less non-x86 non-Linux systems, yes, you do.)
Indeed? The two biggest desktop candidates both, as far as I know:
So that somebody can have KDE provide their desktop environment; the window manager provides part of the desktop environment, so KDE includes a window manager.
Why would it need to be "the most customizable wm ever"? If somebody wants a different window manager, they can choose a different one, although they may have to tweak files by hand to do so, and not all window managers will necessarily support all the KDEisms that the KDE window manager supports.
the last comment is the best. "[run windows bins w/o] something idiotic like vmware or wine"
right.
the only other choice left is wabi.
here's a little clue. to drive a car you need to learn how do do it. you know now, right? ok, now go drive a semi. or drive a car in a different country - maybe even one where they drive on the other side. drive a forklift. drive a motorcycle.
they all require training, and all they accomplish is moving you from point a to point b.
think of windows as steak and potatoes. think of linux as a stew. and think of your skills as a knife and fork. yes, you can eat your linux stew with a knife and fork, but it's hard. it would be easier to just use a spoon.
finally consider that most people on the planet have never used a computer - it's just as easy for them to get the spoon as the fork and knife. and since they generally don't have a lot of money, which os is the right price for them?
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Flamebait.
Please, for those of you out there, this is not the typical Mac user. At least, this Mac user doesn't want to claim any affiliation with this guy...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
So I'm really looking forward to this.
Andy Hertzfeld is a good prototype programmer. He wrote Switcher on a dare: how can we make the Mac pseudo-multitask without changing anything underneath?
The problem is that it's still legacy cruft because, as you say, it's all kludge.
They should never let the guy write production code. Around about the time of General Magic, people stopped letting him do that and the products got better (Magic Links *rocked*).
_Deirdre
Speaking of Lusers, a private email from Andy Hertzfeld, in response to my post here, threatened that I was "subject to legal remedy."
This makes it REALLY REALLY clear that Eazel Does Not Get It.
Go ahead Andy, feel free. My address for service of process:
Deirdre Saoirse
2033 Sharon Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
_Deirdre
Actually, I can see a few things:
- Transparency in the menus and dialogs
- Anti-Aliased text
- Sharp-looking icons because they are vector- and not pixmap-based, and will scale to any size and still look good.
There are many improvements that you cannot see from a screenshot, such as the cool way the buttons throb, the 3d way the dialogs slide out of their windows, and the way windows iconize by being "sucked" down, bending and distorting like a genie being pulled into a bottle.This is because of Quartz, a new vector-based graphics layer upon which Aqua is built.
Read the Ars Technica article for more info.
bp
It sounds like they're building extensions to GNOME... And it's all GPLed... GNOME people can grab whatever theyed like from it. So can KDE people. So if it makes good progress, expect to see pieces of it pop up all over the place, or even see Gnome co-opt it.
An effort like this has needed to be started for a long time... Unfortunately it doesn't seem like enough of an idea to base a business on. Look: If it doesn't amount to anything, then no one want's it. IF it becomes the greatest thing since sliced bread, then it ends up being taken over or absorbed into Gnome, and in turn gets distributed with all the major distro's... Not much revenue for the original authors/concept people.
A good GUI means next to nothing until WINE is more up to the task of emulating windows... Pretty interfaces don't win desktops, plentiful, usable applications do. Witness Windows 3.1: Aweful in terface compared to Macs and OS/2... Incredibly unstable. Lots more apps. Guess who won the battle for the desktop?
Most people use windows because they're required to.
Company's standardize on windows because the programs they want are available. Schools standardize on windows to help students use what they'll one day use. Homes standardize on windows because so students can stay compatible with their schools computers, parents can bring home work. That plus when they have problems, there's huge amounts more of Windows users that may be able to help them out...
I don't think people use Linux because they're lazy... Unless laziness is not wanting to switch from what gets the job done to something they've just been hearing about for the past year...
A "GUI" that I would love to see for Linux would be one based on the Quake 1
:) As others noted, it was a model for a tool. Much like the T-rex. I did get the warm-and-fuzzies when the 12 year old girl said: This is UNIX... I KNOW THIS!
A few months back, there was a slashdot article about exactly this sort of thing. Well, sort of. It's here
I know that SGI had a similar thing for IRIX as seen in Jurassic Park
Yeah, that was real.. And so were the dinosaurs.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I do know that Linux has come a long way in the years that I have been using it and much of what I used to have to do by hand is now automagically done (ethernet was easy as is ppp). I look forward to the coming years and seeing the progression. I think that the more companies that get involved with Linux will be good for Linux. I already see more driver for Linux and support of some kind from hardware manufactures, the next thing I'd love to see is shockwave support, yes I have flash, but I want shockwave too. It would also be nice to see stuff apearing on Linux first and windows second. I hope I hope.
I always have to laugh when my friends using windows have problems, and my Linux box is rock solid.........
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
that other desktop manager that i saw posted here last month? like the one that was going to be seen as the alternative to KDE and GNOME.
I can't remember it too well, except that it was apparently based on the Acorn interface (i think?) and it was based almost entirely on the drag&drop metaphor.
Anyone who knows what this was want to correct me? I was really excited about this, i was hoping a linux file manager would come around that would embrace drag&drop-- right now the only GUI that has a truly developed idea of how drag&drop _should_ work (drag from ANYTHING to ANYTHING and have the software figure out how that amkes sense..)is the Mac OS. It would be nice to see more OSes that really understand drag&drop (which Windows never will..)
Especially now that apple seems to be heading away from an application-based view of things (layers, the applications menu) and toward a window-based view of things (maximisation, minimising individual windows, the Dock, "virtual desktops" ala E or WM). forced "maximising" is not only in my eyes the worst thing ever to happen to GUI design, but it is the natural enemy of drag&drop. If my worst fears about Aqua come true.. bah, never mind, i'm rambling.
Anyone rememebr the acornish thing's name?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Despite their lacking business model, and the problems of creating a Linux frontend that anyone's Mom (excepting Dilbert's) could use without maybe interpreting Windows-keypresses as pipe functions, they get points in my book. On their front page, they say they're hiring hackers. And the mean CODE-hackers, not security experts, not white-hats, but honest-to-god, code-monkey hacks. What a concept.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Sounds like a bunch of folks with some decent professional GUI experience. Hopefully, they'll focus more on usability than widgetry.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
4.Get rid of GNU. Yeah, that's right, drop the command line utilities that you know and love, and lose all that power. If granny can't remember her password how's she supposed to remember arcane commands?
5.The gui must be the OS. This means, goodbye X. Most of the newbies who ask me for help request help with setting up X (well, networking comes close). X must disappear, or it must become so much a part of Linux that it's just there, and it just works, no matter what video card, RAMDac, or whatever the user has on their machine.
Sounds like an "updated" version of windows or a working OS X to me.
While that's what you may want, or you may want for the unwashed masses, I won't be using it (and neither will hundreds of thousands of other people who are the core of the Linux community). Some of us choose to use Linux for more than just the ideological reasons. Removing the ability to get under the hood and manipulate the system removes a very big reason for using Linux.
Removing the user and permissioning model may make it easy for grandma to use, but it also reverts to the "useful only as an appliance" paradigm. If there is only one user then that user can do anything to the system (which is why "try reinstalling windows" is the most common final tech support answer), and if you restrict the capabilities of the user to damage the system you then create an appliance/toy that is of little use to most of us.
Part of the problem with "the gui is the OS" is that in nearly every implementation I've ever seen, if the GUI has a problem you're left high and dry with no way to fix the problem -- because the GUI, which *is* the OS, is hosed.
I would venture to say that you don't "get" Linux (or any UNIX or Unix-workalike).
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
She's about as computer literate as a house plant.
:)
Hey now! I'll have you know my house plant contributed patches to the 2.3.x series of kernels!
My journal has hot
Remember, these "top designers" worked on General Magic's cumbersome "Main Street" UI metaphor. To switch apps, you would have to walk "outside and down a virtual Main Street to find the correct building/app. yuck...
cpeterso
Before someone says, "oh yeah can just add a purty theme for GNOME/KDE/X", I've never seen an X theme that doesn't look like Windows 3.1. Because the X themes and apps are so disconnected, there cannot be smoothly integrated. Maybe GNOME is working on this..??
cpeterso
In the current Linux Magazine, Dave Whittinger has a piece that takes a very controversial stand. And it has bearing on the issue at hand.
He says, in order for Linux to succeed on the desktop, stuff like Eazel has to happen. However, he also says that either KDE or Gnome has to go. Developers have to band together and concentrate on one GUI library. He told distros to pick one or the other desktop and make it the standard.
Now, the presence of a couple dozen different window managers, a couple dozen different file managers, a dozen widget libraries, and half a dozen desktops is way to much for a newbie to deal with. However, paring all this down to just ONE choice is the wrong way to go (let alone being completely unrealistic). It also ignores the fact that Gnome, GTK+, KDE and Qt are *NOT* for Linux. They are for X, and that means all of Unix, plus OS/2 and any other OS that has an X port.
Many GTK+ developers abhor Qt and will never ever use it. And vice versa. Ditto for Gnome and KDE. I know people that will switch back to fvwm rather than *use* KDE. There are a few ecumenical souls out there who actually support both Qt and GTK+ interfaces, but they are rare.
But Dave is correct about some things. It confusing even for experts when every other application has its own inteface. And every distro that is even vaguely geared towards newbies needs to pick a default desktop and leave the alternates on CD #2. And developers need to have good reasons before they start duplicating applications. Just saying "it's like kfoo but for gnome" isn't good enough.
Although fifty or sixty standards are too much, I believe that Linux/BSD/Unix/X is big enough for two desktops and two widget libraries. But those desktops are going to have to learn how to work together smoothly.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Taking your shell script analogy further, think of Nautilus or Konqueror as a shell. Then the component model makes sense. Konqueror does just one thing, and it does it well: it browses. It doesn't matter if I browse a file system, an ftp site or a web page. I'm still browsing. I'm still browsing in exactly the same way.
Keeping everything small in the Unix model only makes sense if you're going to *USE* them. And you use them by putting them together with redirection, pipes, tees or scripts. That design philosophy can be restated as "componentize". That's exactly what konqueror is.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Then keep your file windows small and your browser windows large. Nobody's stopping you. No one's forcing you to type an internet URL in you file manager.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Really. Having a choice is OK.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In fact, Nautilus isn't even a file manager, however it does have one among it's components, so it can be used as one if you feel like it.
This is the way it's done these days, both in Gnome, KDE (esp. in the new Konqueror in KDE2), on the Mac and even in old (shrug) Windows.
Here that sound? That's the sound of a thousand components coming this way.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Now our desktop is too difficult to use? Which desktop? we have over 50 or so window managers, and 2 object models. I can see something based on gnome helping out, but what happens when JoeRandomNewbie loads up his pretty desktop and it proceeds to segfault? What if XDM drops him to a standard login prompt like when Windows can't load all of its dll's?
Suddenly, cold hard reality sets in. This isn't MacOS. For it to be close, they would have to somehow castrate the shell interface. You can't really do much in BeOS until you drop to a command line. MacOS is good for new users because they CAN'T go to that level. Everything is taken in graphically, just as our minds tend to work.
I once worked at Egghead. On the week following WIN95 going on sale, fielded many questions. One of the people there wondered if he had to use "DOS words" When I asked hem what he meant by that, he said "like name _period_ dat dat dat" and It dawned on me he was referring to filenames! This seems to be a common thought pattern among users out there.
Linux not getting new users is all about the CLI. New users are afraid of it. If a "newbie" distribution is made, it would be accepted quickly, but what happens if it fails out of the GUI? Or if a release goes out that has something broken in it? And the usual questions like "does it run Word" comes to mind. Heck, if it runs on Intel hardware, and so does Windows, why can't it run Windows applications? You will have a lot of Linux users on paper but not in life. They would be Eazel users.
While innovation is great, I think this project may do more harm than good. It will be good in the sense that a lot of UI work would be done. It would be great if it could be downloaded for free and used under any distro as a window manager. But how will Eazel make money if it is a company. There's the obvious support, but even RedHat sells a physical product.
If they put it up for sale it may not reach full adoption like standard libraries such as GTK or tcl/tk or X protocol. But they probably have a plan to take care of this. I could be wrong, but they could just be the first with an idea.
I know that the OS to most of us isn't the sum of its GUI and ease of use. It's the kernel and the applications. I hope the Eazel foks remember that. It's a different paradigm.
Lowmag.net
GNOME and KDE both work on FreeBSD and I believe Net and Open as well. Is it easy to keep GNOME updated? It's hard as hell as I'm sure the FreeBSD GNOME port maintainer will tell you. In addition to the normal "update everything at once" that all GNOME users have to do, he has to go through and patch all the Linux-isms.
This is one of the problems right now in general, in that the skill of portable programming is fading and many (certainly not all) coders are writing for Linux not Unix. This shows up in Linux specific system calls when there are other calls that work fine for all Unices.
-- I know that SGI had a similar thing for IRIX as seen in Jurassic Park, but there is AFAIK nothing like this for Linux. --
What you saw in Jurassic Park was a little demo that SGI put together called "File System Navigator" that basically displayed your UNIX filesystem in 3D using OpenGL. You could see the directories, files, sizes of files/dirs, etc.
It was never part of the O/S or 4Dwm, and it wasn't really useful apart from the "cute" factor.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
After giving my 86-year-old Grandmother a Windows box, I've learned a lot about how easy GUIs are to use. Or aren't, as the case may be.
We talk a lot about "inituitive" GUIs, but that intuition has to be learned a click at a time.
The whole single-click vs. double-click vs. click-drag is fairly arbitrary in the Windows world. For example, why are toolbars single-click, while desktop icons double-click? It's easy for people who understand the difference, but it's not easy to learn if this is all new and frightening.
And especially for someone with coordination limitations, it's a real challenge to navigate and use Windows. Putting it into 640x480 mode on a 17" monitor helps, since it makes the icons bigger and easier to see. Putting the mouse on lowest sensitivity helps, except for the click/double-click timing issue.
I think that if we want to get the largest audience, a purely menu-driven system (like old BBSes, or DOS using Peter Norton's menuing utilities from the days when Peter himself was writing 'em) might be the way to go. I dunno.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
Now, I realize that choice is a good thing. I think it's a good thing that Linux has two major consumer desktops (KDE, Gnome) and all of the standalone WMs that form much of the workstation market (AfterStep, CDE, etc). But really, is it better to start a new project for this kind of activity?
I think it would be better for these developers to contribute to the existing projects. It's kind of a waste of man-hours to go about writing another window manager if Sawmill, Blackbox or E will meet their needs. Similarly, I think it's kind of a waste of man hours to go about trying to build another project with similar goals to KDE and Gnome.
Besides, it may be special that they're starting to build this product, but who really believes that it will surpass Gnome/KDE? Even if they take the existing Gnome codebase and add modifications, I think it's unreasonable to expect that anyone else will be able to improve Gnome faster than the Gnome team. Both Gnome and KDE have built communities of developers and users, which help them develop better products. I don't think that this new entry will be able to do any more than the existing products, or advance at a quicker pace.
Of course, I could be wrong. Actually, I hope I am. Best of luck, guys.
Not to be rude, but:
- What's the key combination to print something in Windows?
Alt F-P
- What's the key combination to close a window?
Depends on what you mean. Alt F-C to close a document. Alt-F4 to close the entire application.
- What's the key combination to save a file?
Alt F-S
- Where does Game X install itself in the Start menu?
Usually under the game name. Where did apache choose to install itself?
****But no, your Grandmother doesn't care. All she wants to do is to be able to surf the web, send email, find where she put her files, and MAYBE hook up a scanner, printer, or cable modem. ****
Yes that's true, however Grandma also wants to make a bunch of those really neat/creative homade greetings cards... unfortunatly printing with Linux has a ways to go also.
Granted I haven't tried tooooo hard, but I have never had anything that resembles *good* quality when printing from Star Office or The Gimp or Word Perfect or Emacs...etc... Any suggestions on filters...etc that will improve my printing performance would be appreciated (HP desjet 693)
My point is that there are stil more than a few rough edges that need to be worked out before Linux can be targeted at the Grandmother crowd. I think we (a broad large blanket being thrown over the Linux community) can't get tooo hung up on the whole ease-of-use/eye-candy trap(crap) when there are still funnctionality issues that need to be dealt with.
After all, the whole Linux idea is supposed to be based upon functionality, not overtaking the evil competition.
I won't flame you for linux being already "easy to use", but I do ask: why is "easy to use" synonymous with "good" in so many folks' views? Why is it seen that it "must" appeal to the desktop luser as well as everyone else?
Isn't the idea of "winning the OS war" that (a) there is no war (b) it's the strength of quality signal that counts, not count(bums_on_seats)??
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Hey, luckily for you, there already exists an OS that is exactly what you want: Win 98 by Microsoft. Why reinvent the wheel?
Heresy you say? Well, lets look at your points.
Now, answer a question for me, WHY must Linux run on a every single desktop on the earth? Is this important? Some people seem to think that for Linux to survive an idiot-proof, warm and cozy version of the system must be assembled for "the masses." This way, Linux can achieve total world domination.
Now, I'm not a programmer, nor do I play one on TV. But after using Linux on my 2nd computer for year, I've come to some conclusions. The thing that makes Linux great (for me) is the open source ideals and the community the springs from around that. This is why I hang around, but the people you want to target with your magic-OS couldn't give a rats-ass about these ideals or the community. They just want appliance that works, and a close-source binary system would work well here.
In closing, there is no one-size-fits-all computer, for all users are different. And Linux isn't the be-all end-all of OSes and doesn't seem to try to be, but maybe the community behind is something neat.
and I hope it works and they make a lot of money. This type of thing is exactly what the GPL creates. When no one owns the basics they have to compete like hell to sell you the extras. More users = more apps = more users = more money for programmers/admins = more time to code = better code = more users.
--
+&x
This is not a fork. Nautilus is the REPLACEMENT for gmc. It will be part of GNOME 2.0. I actually had not heard of Eazel until today, but I knew of the existence of nautilus and that the Gnome project wanted to replace MC/GMC with a brand spanking new file manager.
It'll end up being a complete distrobution when they're done. Then they'll sell the cd's and the documentation and support for the entire distro. Remember, this isn't being aimed at people who want to download the software off the net and install it themselves -- it wouldn't do to say "Here's a filemanager for all you novices out there, but you'll have to install it over an existing scary-to-install installation.
Corel's distro is basically Debian + a filemanager. There's no reason for this company to do differently.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
The people who want it to be easy to use are asking for it to be easy to use because they want it to be easy to use -- they find it hard and would like it to be easier. They want the stability and the low hardware requirements and the neat apps and the security and all the other stuff without having to invest a lot more effort. They themselves want this for their own purposes, and they're happy when someone comes along and says: "Sure, I can give you that." Some people simply don't do complex things, and it's usually not prudent/fair to make them learn how to handle complex tasks that don't arise for them.
It's not the number of seats that matters so much (although I could present arguments as to why it does matter) but the satisfaction and happiness of the people who fill them. If Linux doesn't serve their needs perfectly but could do so if someone out there wrote some software to accomodate them, then let that programmer go ahead and do so.; especially if that software is just a shell wrapped around all the technical and gritty details that remain inside for people to play with if they so choose.
Linux isn't just about making an operating system that's fun for hackers to play with. It's supposed about making an operating system that can be extended to fit people's needs as they arise and if someone wants to address them. One of those needs is a click 'n drool interface. You can safely ignore it if it doesn't suit your needs.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I have many friends and relatives who you would probably put into the category of "desktop lusers."
Just because someone doesn't care about their computer for its own sake doesn't mean they should be forced to use an inferior operating system. I would very much like to be able to recommend linux to my friends, but right now although I use it myself, I would definitely not recommend it to most of my friends.
For me winning the OS war will be when we really have a choice. At home I have and I can impress my friends with my system. But at work it is a whole different story. Here, I'll have the choice when we have all the apps I need (and Lotus Notes is one of the necessary ones) and to have the apps, we need to have the audience and as the audience is the "dumb"...
:-)
:-)
At work all we have is Windows and AIX. AIX to run Baan and Domino and Windows to do almost everything else. A few NT servers could be replaced, but... *sigh* I won't start while I'm still in a good mood.
IMHO, winning is *not* having quality. It has never been quality and it never will be. I really think that in case to win, we need to crush MS. Its share on the desktop needs to be less than half of what they have right now, otherwise they'll still be too powerfull and be a too-save choice. A breakup of MS will help too.
Thimo
--
Avoid the Gates of Hell. Use Linux!
* = or any other program.
For those that haven't found the link: Nautilus.eazel.com. From their changelog it sounds like they're developing (or planning to in v1.1) system administration stuff. So, while GTK is platform-agnostic, I am thinking Eazel is focusing exclusively on Linux. OTOH, it will be GPL'ed, so you can port their tools...
engineers never lie; we just approximate the truth.
Ask anyone what program they use most every day, and they will probably answer NS/IE.
:-)
Actually, I most often get this answer when asking people who their ISP is.
heh-heh-heh, ex AOL workers, someone had to say it.
George
Garth: Hey, that's a Unix book. [I do believe it was a copy of Steven's Unix Network Programming.]
Garthette: Yeah.
Garth: Cool...[They smile shyly at each other.]
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
What the world really needs is a new OS (perhaps based on the Linux kernel, perhaps not) that bundles ease of use and robustness in a single package.
It's high time some of you stopped deluding yourselves into thinking that GNU/Linux is the be-all and end-all of Operating Systems.
You're right, of course. But that isn't going to happen all at once. And as long as Linux exists and has some advantages, it would be nice to improve it in a good way. I don't see anyone taking any steps toward an alternative system.
So, in other words, make the same design mistakes that Microsoft did that alienated all the legacy hardware users out there? You do realise, of course, that Linux is not all about servers running the latest and greatest in hardware? It is largely developped by and aimed toward those poor souls running 486s and low to mid-range older Pentiums who want to get the most out of their hardware. People who run Linux aren't all basement hackers on 386s or anything, no. Linux runs just fine on large SGI machines, sure. The point is that the Linux community is not the type to drop legacy support ... ... I shouldn't have even replied to this its so preposterous.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Yes, it is.
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
And Maybe...just maybe...we' ll get an increase in the geek population so that we can move people towards a "thinking" base and away from the degredation of thought that has happened for far too long. :-(
I hope this for all the world.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
"Bah!" - Dogbert
I'm not sure upper management can handle such a complex interface. Think of all the decisions to make!
:-)
Oh-No Manager Bill! =-)
One of the great things about open source is that programs can be whatever programmers want them to be. There isn't pressure to ''dumb down'' the interface, but the possibility still exists to do so. Linux (and the other open source systems like *BSD, HURD, etc.) will continue to evolve regardless of their ''market share'' against commercial OSes.
True but we're talking about making Linux available to the average user. Remember that the average user is trained almost from birth to have people do things for them, not the reverse. Until that changes or we're big enough to alter the game we're all playing then we have to work within that framework if we want Linux to be usable to Joe Public.
Besides, Linux is *already* accepted--by many hard-core programmers, many of whom probably don't really care if it's accepted by the world of end-users.
This is true and much appreciated for without those users we'd probably not have a working Linux to speak of at all! However, remember that one of the best ways to get something to flourish, especially if you care about making it big, is to get the general public interested in it. While this may not be the ideal solution due to "comittee" type issues it will most definitely blow the doors off even more than they are.
And maybe someday - hopefully someday soon - we'll all be using some form of Linux for all our uses. One can only hope.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
"Bah!" - Dogbert
And with general society today your point would be...?
;-)
Unfortunately this is the sort of thinking that the "unwashed masses" (sorry clichet filter kicked in) want in their day to day lives. The current spate of government and other similiar groups have this as a main agenda on their tickets because they want to control everything. If they force people into this mode then they get to do that - no questions asked.
Aren't you glad we're at least asking questions about what should be?
The Tick - "Spoon!"
"Bah!" - Dogbert
I agree with your sharpshooting - please have patience on a previous VB programmer who's doing pennance by re-learning C on Linux. ;-)
/etc/inittab for the shutdown line. means?"
As for modularity that's fine too but remember that what we need to do is have a level of access that will be acceptable for the new user. Unfortunately this means using a lot of extra code to hide most of the functions "behind the scenes" so that the user does not become confused.
An ideal solution would be not just a mode of install (Basic, Full, Server, etc.) but a mode of usage as well! Imagine having an internal switch setting for each user account that allows the system to treat the new user at a level that they feel comfortable with.
I hate to bring M$-isms into this but maybe a first-time "wizard" that asks the user simple questions to determine the level at which the user should be able to use the system.
"Do you know what GREP the
That's actually a bad example but you get the idea. When the user eventually grows/learns to a level that they can use the system then they should have gotten to a point where they can turn that switch off on their user account and move on to a more complex setup. Doing that would allow both newbies and experienced users to use the same system without have major problems or conflicts. You can also do this for the installation choices as well and eventually get to the point where even a beginning user will not have too much problem installing and configuring a new system.
Modularity will help that certainly but there needs to be a shift in thinking so that the newbie "level" is designed for totally new users and not anything higher.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Then keep your file windows small and your browser windows large. Nobody's stopping you. No one's forcing you to type an internet URL in you file manager.
I think that the poster was trying to say that the implimentation of Win98 like features is a bad thing and should not be copied to the unix/linux envirnoment because they are in fact two entirely seperate things.
Unix design philosophy makes use of small tools linked together not large software programs doing everything at once.
I know this I have designed a number of shell scripts and am intrigued about how it is working. If you do any shell programming you know what I am talking about.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
------Flame on-------------
You know one of the reasons I even bothered with linux in first place was because it offered a plausible alternative to be being bludgeoned with the OS that is windows into upgradding PC hardware. Having something that works is at the core of what most humans think is a good idea.
---------Flame off-----------
In general I think that it's fine to increase power of whatever however there should be a system or a library that would be called libscale or whatever that impliments a series of usable features that could be scaled to whatever thing happened to be running. For example you can create open source quake that allows for dynamic AI routines or whatever with massive 128bit graphics rendered to whatever you want but you could also have (almost) the same thing with gameplay and such with no sound, low res graphics (maybe ascii) or perhaps something that would allow you to do more tweaking for the particular processor.
In short there really is not excuse to increase bloat just to make something spiffy or "modern"
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
-------Yeah flame so sue me------
When I refer to NT or solaris I am not refering to the kernel I am refering to the kernel AND associated system components.
While although technically feasible linux could be seperated from the wm it is not considered as part of the whole package that we expect.
I guess English may not be your first language so let me state this formally and slowly:
[The system we currently call] Linux [ and it's standard material that comes with it] is generally slow for me in condition x (ie running GNOME).
I actually dare you to run a "linux system" with just a kernel and nothing else. Going to be a little difficult.
Oh and by the way I ran linux with slackware 3.4-3.6 on a 80386sx 20mhz 4MB ram 80MB hd for at least 2 years. It gets real old real fast running in CLI mode for that long when I could run much better, much faster win3.x programs on the same machine.
---------Flame off--------
You know theory dosn't really matter all that terribly much for even natural human interfaces. Highlightig the fact that "linux" strictly speaking as being the kernel makes little difference to someone already ensconsed in the OS.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
I would hate to build anything on top of Gnome.
I have used gnome in the past from time to
time, but eventually something always happens
that places Gnome in some wacked state from
whence I can never return. Gnome resembles
an M$ product -- sex appeal sans stability.
Darn it I tried I really tried. I guess the only reason I use anything GNOME related is because some apps can be run without the need of the whole things running. Mostly I use Gnome-terminal and the occasional other possibly useful app.
What really truely pains me is that it takes so much of my system with it.
486dx66/16MB ram/340MB hd/20MB swap.
I can barely get anything to actually work without a tremendous slowdown.
I have figured out one thing with linux which I think is accurate.
All the development on linux apps is going into what that theoretical computer in the sky will be able to do and not what the average or low end machine can do. The size of the disk space requirements, the size of programs, the need to compile almost everything yourself (and then spend 10+ hours banging your head against the wall getting the said features to work). It is intensely agraviating. I only use it because my machine isn't supported by the bastards in Redmond and never will.
Gnome could very well streamline it's use of memory and perhaps allow for a seamless use of things. Perhaps scale itself for whatever machine or system profile. Have graphics taken to vertain levels depending on the memory or disk space would be an excellent start.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Although many Gnome/KDE fans I'm sure are not happy with this, I think this is a godsend. I find that (IMO) programmers (like myself) sometimes have a hard time separating the details of the project from the product. There are always little quirks that the user must understand, that really have nothing to do with the end product and only through backs from engineering. Apple has, IMO, done an excellent job of separating the engineering from thier desktop. An example of some terms that I've always felt turns off non-computer types is Object Oriented, development libraries, or multi-tasking. Does a user really need to know what these are and what they do, of course not. They just need to understand the benefits that they bring, not the details of what they do!
-- Moondog
Although some people might not like the idea of a 'dumbing- down' of Linux, I think it's really good news as this will doubtless help convince other people that Linux really is one of the best choices (if not the best choice) around.
OTOH, it will convice me that Linux is turning into a Windows clone and that I should switch to FreeBSD, as that will be, for me, the best choice around (though OpenBSD sounds reasonably good as well). A Windows clone (however stable and open-sourced) is not what I want to use - I want to use UNIX, dammit! If I can't get that from Linux anymore, I'll go elsewhere. Which is too bad, I really like RPM a lot (yes, not all distros have it but mine do and I like it).
And from what we've heard about Windows 2000 I think it's clear that it's not all that unstable. Plus it's more user- friendly than any desktop we have . . . I still prefer Linux, but an easy- to use GUI would be welcome.
Most people are not going to like using Windows 2000 (unless there is an "technical idiot" mode built in somewhere). Since when is administrating an NT box simple and user-friendly? From watching my NT-fan friends at it, Linux seems a hell of a lot simpler (yes, familiarity with it and all that), but having to install things in certain arbitrary orders (and the software doesn't stop you or even warn you away from making a mistake) seems like a real pain in the ass to me (for instance, I heard from someone today that if you install DNS before (or was it after? Can't remember) Active Directory, your install get's fucked up). Personally, I don't want to deal with that kind of shit ever.
From what I've heard, it's actually pretty stable. I know a few people using it. One of them managed to crash FreeBSD (sound card driver went south) but not Windows 2000.
Even as a UNIX freak and anti-M$ bigot I could probably figure out the basics of NT/2000 admining fairly quickly (yes, I would make many mistakes but I could figure out at least some of it), but could your favorite technophobe? I doubt it. Especially if they've been using pure point and drool client OSes (Windows 95/98, MacOS, etc) their entire life. Which leaves exactly what? Several hundred million poorly secured and unpatched Windows 2000 boxen. Just what the world fucking needs.
It certainly isn't a publicity stunt, we tried to get Rob to change the headline from "New Desktop Project" to "Eazel contributes GNOME 2.0 desktop shell" or something, but it didn't get changed. The "new desktop" thing is entirely an artifact of Slashdot.
They already have some of the original Mac UI designers working there.
When you are visiting and you want to write a new startup script for her, just escape to the command prompt, or switch over to Enlightenment or KDE or whatever your favorite desktop shell/environment is.
I think that one environment will never appeal to everybody. That's what Windows tried to do, and that's one of the reasons we all use Linux today. By providing muliple environments for users of different skill levels, Linux can become truly an OS for anybody.
- MacOS
- BeOS ( I know, I know, embedded systems. It's still a good consumer OS. )
Do we really want to sacrafice the power of UNIX on the altar of widespread acceptance? I know I don't. Linux stripped of its UNIX history is worthless, Linux is UNIX. That's like saying an eagle that can't fly is the same as a tiger. The eagle was built as an aerial predator, cutting its wings off doesn't allow it to survive as a gound predator. Linux is the ideal platform for me, Mac is the ideal platform for my grandmother. Let's just quit trying to homogenize the OS market : no matter how many X modules you write, one size doesn't fit all when it comes to operating systems.- Dave "It's better to be a pirate than to join the Navy" - Steve Jobs
Easy to use == less them spent working around and configuring stuff == more efficient, more time to get on with my life == Good.
-Being able to drag and drop components from different applications is easy to use. Interoperability is good.
-Being able to plug and play peripherals without wasting time configuring them is easy to use.
-Being able to use an application without having to learn arcane, but ultimately completely arbitrary commands is easy to use.
why is "easy to use" synonymous with "good" in so many folks' views?
Forgive me if I seem condescending here, but I think the answer is obvious. No matter the quality, a tool (of any kind) has absolutely no utility, and therefore no value, if no one can use it. That being said, there are places for both complex tools (requiring special training) and simple tools (requiring more than two brain cells). This isn't an attempt to steal away your ultra-flexible command prompt, just a way to get more functionality out of your computer without having to look at it should you be so inclined. If you're not, don't use it, but please don't gripe about it being there. This OS is not now, and never was, the exclusive property of you and your hacker kindred. Bring on the masses...
bp
woxy.com - Bam! The Future of Rock and Roll
He throws a gnife.
It misses.
-> Throw axe
"Join me now and share the.... AAAACK!" [THUD]
You've killed a little GNOME.
The body disappears in a puff of greasy black smoke.
I agree that Linux needs to become usable for someone who doesn't have the slightest clue about command lines.
But that's not a reason to get rid of them.
For a lot of things, command lines are much much more efficient than even the best GUI could be, so why not give people who know how to handle it the option to do it? I don't think people would find it confusing if they had the "Command Line" button, even if they never used it.
Same for User IDs and passwords - why get rid of them, if we can just do something like
"su user -c exec startx" in rc.local?
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
We've all seen these before, but compare them and think, "What is Aqua doing that GNOME is not?" Nothing! Both screenshots are simple desktop+explorer shots. Yet somehow the Aqua screen looks like da bomb and GNOME looks like shite.
Look again. Look at the details.
Look at the use of fonts: The Aqua fonts are antialiased, the GNOME fonts aren't. The Aqua font was designed by someone who knows what they're doing aesthetically; the GNOME font looks ugly and unbalanced at screen resolution. There are two sizes of the font on the Aqua screen, and they're different enough to contrast well; the GNOME screen has at least three sizes, and they're close enough that it's not obvious at first glance that they're actually different sizes. It adds up to a cluttered look where Aqua's use of fonts looks smooth and slick.
Look at the use of color: the GNOME screenshot shows colors from the horrible garish 16-color Windows palette; the Aqua colors are subtle and harmonize well.
Look at the use of icons: the GNOME screen has a huge number of little icons, and most of them are not obvious at first glance. The spreadsheet window has two whole rows of these things, and they're not even designed to go well together with a consistent style. Again, the look is cluttered. The icons visible in the Aqua screenshot have some technical advantages (more colors, larger size), but more than that, they look like they were all designed by the same person with the same sense of color and shape. They look like they belong together. Again, the impression is of slickness versus confusing clutter.
Look even at the smallest details. On the GNOME screenshot, notice how the white boxes around the desktop icon names are a little too large, and not quite balanced top to bottom? Notice how the background pattern is so garish that it's not easy to see the icons themselves, and it would be distracting if the windows were small enough that you could see more of the desktop? Notice how the menus with accelerator underlines sit a bit higher than those without, in the PDF window?
People don't necessarily see these details explicitly. They might not even be able to point them out in a screenshot. But they notice them, all right.
-- Jason A. Lefkowitz
Read my blog.
I hate to sharpshoot, but....
A yes/no response takes up one bit, consisting of either a 1 or a 0.
Having said that, I think this is an opportunity for the modularity of Linux to shine through. If you want the easy GUI (the 2-bit one), you can have that, even make it the default install interface so you don't even have to set it up. If you want to work only from a console(the 64-bit interface), that too is acceptable. If you want something in the middle(the 32-bit interface), you have many choices.
Remember, it's all modular. I use KDM at home so that my 3-year old can click on the icon for him to log in and have his own little world (he likes to run 5xXroach, 5xXsnow, and wine at the same time), but I can use the virtual consoles or X if I want to, and I just pick which window manager to use at log-in. Even a no-brainer can figure out how to log in, and the more advanced users can pick which option to use.
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
I have to disagree. Lets look at a few things. First of all emulating windows never did anyone any good. OS/2 emulated Windows 3.1 functionality (I was able to run pretty much any 3.1 app that I put on OS/2 Warp)I'm not saying that OS/2 died because it ran Windows apps. I'm saying that People aren't going to come to Linux just because they can run Windows apps. They have Windows to do that for them already. Linux needs easy to use apps that will bring people over to Linux. If we have to rely on running Windows apps then we have lost. Linux either stands alone or it doesn't stand.
Molog
So Brain, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
As I point out occasionally, the whole configuration mess needs a rethink. I'd start by dropping support for all non-PnP hardware, all ISA hardware, and driving the configuration process strictly from the PnP tree. No end user should ever have to deal with IRQs, device address numbers, or hardware conflicts again. Yeah, some legacy hardware won't work. So use an old version of the OS on those machines, or upgrade.
I can understand the mindset to make a product that can surpass or compete with Apples simplicity and ease of use for the average user, but comparing this to Wind*ws seems a little odd. Back in the days of Win 3.1 and possibly up through Win 95, the environment was still pretty simple and the ease of use was also pretty good. However with 98, NT and now the upcoming 2K, these environments are very complicated for the average user to set up and re-configure when adding new HW or maybe a larger application. Look at how AOL's 5.0 completely hosed so many systems.
One more firm that wants to be part of the open source model is a great thing though. A little competition for Mandrake wouldn't hurt for the end consumer either. Although the article seemed a little press-releas-ish, it looks like they want to create a pretty complete environment.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
- What's the key combination to close a window?
- What's the key combination to save a file?
- Where does Game X install itself in the Start menu?
These question may have different answers for different Windows applications, but they have MANY more answers in Linux.
And Windows has another very important advantage regarding programmers: a unified API. It may be a difficult to learn API, sure, but at least it is _ONE SINGLE_ API to learn. In Linux, if you want to do changes in any of those Open Source programs, how many different toolkits must you learn? Motif, K, Qt, Gtk, Xaw, etc, etc...
Another plus for the Windows API: printing and the clipboard are about as transparent as they can be. How do you program printing in an X application? The most common way is use PostScript + GhostScript, the absolutely slowest way. Well, it's fast in a P3-500, but isn't the ability to run in 486-66's a Linux advantage?
Let me make one point clear, before a moderator sets me to (-1; Troll): I'm a Linux user. But I'm not a zealot. I would like to see the complete Windows API ported to Linux, with all its extensions. I have done extensive programming in both, they both suck, but the Windows API sucks less than any of the X-based APIs. Over that we could put a nice and consistent UI.
Before I forget, I tried writing this comment in a Kde editor and cut and paste it into Netscape 4.61. I couldn't do it. Maybe there's someone out there who thinks it's really easy, it's just my fault that I'm so dumb, but I have twenty years experience in programming, two of those years in Linux application development. If I cannot cut from a Kde editor and paste it in Netscape, how could a newbie do that?
I just have two questions:
Whens the IPO?
And how do you know my mother can use it?! You talking bout my mamma?!?!
...
I'm working around 90% as you do.
Ie. I start Acroread from wharf, and - like you - I know which file I wanna see.
So a lot of pgms have a tiny (!!) xyz-terms w/ a tiny script asking me for the filename, with "just ENTER" set to reasonable defaults.
Some of these defaults present a filelist,
*
*** but I do not have the __OVERHEAD__ of a filemanager ***,
I just have an "ls".
When you started in the 70s you know like I do, that saving resources is a good thing.
Even on a powerful machine.
We upgrade our hardware constantly,
but --- DOES ANYTHING RUN FASTER ???
It doesn't (w/ exceptions of course), because we add new OVERHEAD.
We do that because some of us like to click with pointing devices.
I don't.
I prefer keystrokes and I try to keep the system load as low as possible.
We're not so far away I think...
george./
I used to hold the same opinion of GNOME, but after updating all the modules to the latest stable versions it became pretty solid.
Part of the problem with GNOME may be Enlightenment as the wm. I love E, don't get me wrong--it's the sexiest wm out there IMO, but it's just too much for my everyday use. I just recently built and installed sawmill, and the result is a smaller, quicker desktop that is very clean and configurable. With E, my 128 meg machine was consitently using about 40 MB swap, with most of that being X. The GUI was syrupy and just didn't feel right (prob. just some stupid configuration decision on my part). With sawmill, I'm using about 5-10 MB swap and everything's snappy. Now if I want to show off to friends, I use E, but when I'm working it's sawmill all the way.
slashdot broke my sig
There's no particular reason for this to represent a "duplication of effort," at least from the standpoint of the GNOME project. After all, they needed a better file manager. GMC has not been all that satisfactory.
What their application amounts to is one that unifies files and remote objects (via HTTP/FTP) together, and lets methods be invoked on them.
By using the Bonobo interface, they can pull in all sorts of GNOME objects. That's certainly not duplication.
It may be duplicative if you're a developer working on the Kconq file manager for KDE that has similar scope; it's not duplicative within the context of GNOME.
I'd say that this is the most important component to have some serious HCI people take a look at; that's the only hope of it being usable to the "Bubba" users. (No offense intended to other than Presidents of the United States :-) ...)
It's important that this get HCI attention in that if it succeeds, Nautilus would become the front-end for a whole lot of users to get at "system stuff."
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
It appears they're just writing a new file manager/explorer type application for GNOME and releasing it under the GPL. I don't see a way for them to make money doing this (after all, neither support nor documentation should be an issue for something like a file manager).
How do they expect to make money?
Define "use".
I've done UNIX development, both kernel and userland, since 1977-1978 or so.
I use a KDE desktop on my machine at home, including using, shock horror, the file manager for some things (I have a few PDF standards documents, and I find it more convenient to have a "Standards" folder on my desktop, and click it open, and then click on the relevant subdirectory and click on the document I'm interested in, than to go find an xterm not running something or put what's running there in the background, pushd to the appropriate directory, and fire up Acroread on the file in question). I also have another desktop icon to fire up xmms and have it play a local radio station.
Now, for administrative stuff (on the rare occasion that it's necessary), I'll just go tweak the config files directly, blah blah blah - but there are, your apparent belief to the contrary nonwithstanding, reasons why "a real UNIX pro" might well use a file manager (why should I waste a perfectly good xterm firing up Acroread, when I could be using it to do compiles, or greps, or...? :-)).
OTOH, the rush to World Domination has often led me to wonder -- will the presence of the clueless millions "improve" Linux the same way the opening of AOL's floodgates "improved" the Internet?
Please let me get a little evil here for a minute. What, in the end, has the popularization of the Internet gotten us, as nerds? LOTS OF MONEY for doing the shit we'd be doing for free anyway. Who here really has to work for a living, in the way our parents had to work at jobs they hated?
Not only do we get the money, we get the POWER: WE understand this shit, and they do NOT. We are scary powerful in this realm, and our ideals and methods are influencing the general community because of the public Internet. Is this bad? For us, no.
Similarly, what happens when Linux is made available and accessible to the masses? WE GAIN POWER as we again are the happy few who UNDERSTAND this shit.. Not only that, but our influence on people's computing grows, and for us again, this is not bad. It means we can use the software we like, and get paid for it. WE craft the rules and determine how things are done.
This is NOT megalomania speaking here: this is thinking big. World Domination is about not having to put up with Micro$oft shit because everyone uses it. It's about being able to fix the problems with our systems when they appear. It's about freedom of speech as well as freedom of beer. It's about getting paid big bucks to work on cool shit you'd have done for free anyway, and who better to get those big bucks, you or those fratboy jocks who were such big shit way back when but who are now, if they're lucky, hapless NT techs?
Like I said, it was going to be evil and self serving, but I hope there were a few kernels of truth in there, or at least a spark or two..
Cheers,
Your Working Boy,
I speak as a person who has tried to use Linux for everyday use and went BACK to Windows...
.conf file and restart X. Or how about those people that can't get hardware working because Linux's precious kernel doesn't support it? -- but a module does!! Well how do you install the module? Recompile your kernel? You're kidding me, right?
.EXE file and following instructions on where it will be installed and watching it make icons so you can actually find the program to use it (which, I'd like to add, the install scripts don't give you a chance to tell it where to put anything in Linux).
If you made it easy to learn, then that is one thing, if you make it completely easy, that is yet another. It seems to be that noone in the Linux community (and I mean NOONE) is attempting to make a GOOD set of troubleshooting tools and a help system that is at least decent. 'man' only goes so far, and is rather pathetic all things considered. man will tell you everything in the world about the topic you asked about... LITERALLY. I've never seen a man page that explained what the topic was in any small amount of space. It rambles and rambles until you have no desire to do whatever you were trying to in the first place.
As for making the desktop easier to use, I'm all for it. How about support for fonts that actually look good without having to run in circles to get a font server running and then somehow tieing it into the desktop environment or window manager (something I've given up on several times). How about a configuration tool that actually works? linuxconf sure doesn't. Redhat's control-panel is a start but it is still lacking something... like maybe words telling you what button does what. Who was the genius who thought of that one? He must've been really impressed with Tooltips...
Back onto the topic of learning... Don't you realize that some people out here in the real world don't have time to sit and learn how to use console-based configuration utils that don't work in the end to set up a couple of NIC's that don't work after 2 weeks of trying? Or maybe you'd just like to tell those people that have video problems in X that they are idiots because they just have to change settings in this
I got another one for ya... How about those people that go out and get situated on Linux, and get it working correctly, and want some of this free software they keep hearing about. How are you going to explain to them that they will have to un-tar.gz it and then compile it themselves and THEN install it? But wait, there's more! Libraries are missing, out-of-date, or even worse - they're NEWER then the source needs to compile!! What then? Get the needed libraries, compile them, install them (if there aren't any more conflicts, that is) and then finally go back to compiling that program, and then installing it? That is a LOT of work for something equalled in Windows by clicking an
You want to complain about people unwilling to learn? I think you should recompile your brain's kernel so it's not so one-sided.
I before said that I left Linux for Windows... I will go back as soon as Linux is decent to use for everyday use (and maybe when I can run binaries from Windows under it natively rather then using something idiotic like VMWare or WINE).
- 8Complex
That means:
Full navigation with the keyboard
All window management functions accessible via the keyboard alone
A way of moving the mouse pointer and simulating mouse clicks with the keyboard - for that one time your mouse is broken but you still have to navigate the gui, no matter how slowly.
Proper keyboard focus control. 99% of the time you should not have to use the mouse to put the keyboard focus where it ought to be
*Integration* between keyboard and mouse scrolling in all text widgets and the like - none of this snapping to somewhere in the file you didn't expect to be just because you positioned first with the mouse, then moved with the cursor keys.
A lot of other things I've forgotten, but we all know what they are when they're not there
Even my mother can type!
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
There's a much better desktop and OS than this Eazel/Nautilus thing, one that my mother could definately use. Screenshot
_______
2B1ASK1
I completely agree, but why is this? Why do all X themes look butt ugly?
We've all seen these before, but compare them and think, "What is Aqua doing that GNOME is not?" Nothing! Both screenshots are simple desktop+explorer shots. Yet somehow the Aqua screen looks like da bomb and GNOME looks like shite.
cpeterso
Cool. Now check out Konqueror in action...
http://www.mosfet.org/kde2action/
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
>Why just Linux. If they have there head screwed on they should be able to get it to compile on other Un*x's. FreeBSD at least.
Is this GNOME's fault. I've never thought about it before but does GNOME and/or KDE work on anything other than Linux.
The KDE team takes pride in the number of systems that will run KDE -- they claim more than any other windowing system. Quite a bit of work has gone into both system irrelavance (bigendian or littleendian), and language irrelivance (16 bit strings, and text automatically paints left to right or right to left depending on the language it is written in... neat watching it's accuracy with Hebrew sentences quoting English and visa versa).
I know that the Japanese KDE is fully featured and translated. I know a fellow who uses it, along with his mother, who dosen't speak english (well, almost none).
Several of the main developers use Solaris, and BSD is common on the developer list, so the "big three" are represented well, along with AIX and a few others that I can't recall off the top of my head.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Read more about Andy Hertzfeld in this old wired article from when he was working at General Magic. My favorite line is:
Guess he is starting with a new platform after all.
Noel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix
kayaking
Jeez, and I just submitted this, too... :-]
BTW, one of the employees on the project is Andy Hertzfeld. It will therefore NOT suck. (Andy is about the closest thing to a Linus the Mac OS has, other than Bill Atkinson and a select few others.)
For Mac users reading this, try this experiment. Find a copy of PepsiCaps. Run it in the OS X blue box. Marvel that a 15-year-old Mac application still works on today's machines, even if it does deviate slightly from the human interface guidelines.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
I'll believe it when I see it. What "mere mortals" want is auto-everything. For auto-everything to work the system has to make assumptions, or rather the programmers behind the systems make assumptions. My experience is that they almost never make the same assumptions I would make, which always leads me to disable all the auto-everything stuff the system will let me disable.
Another thing "mere mortals" want is an all-graphics interface; everything point and click. Hmm, I can't see how something like:
rm `ls -l|awk '{print $3}'|grep "juser"`
could be graphical, not with the same flexibility and any kind of Unix without the pipe/redirect capabilities would be kinda stupid.
Another thing, admin tools (like linuxconf) require that you refrain from touching the config files by hand, or things will preety soon get out of sync.
So, it will take quite a piece of software to convince me it can be useful and enjoyable both for current Linux users and for "mere mortals"; if any software does convince me, though, it'll be amazing.
1. A bulletproof install. It must work, out of the box, no questions asked.
2.Hardware support for everything. Drivers need to be there for the hardware and they have to be installed automatically. Don't make the user guess what brand of video or sound card they have, 'cause generally, they don't know.
This would be great. Yet no PC operating system I've used yet has either of these features. Yet I have seen systems that come pre-installed, and come with a bullet-resistant install disk tailored for that system. However, upgrading your hardware might 'break' such an install disk.
3. Get rid of the UNIX model. Yeah, no more user IDs, passwords or any of that. It can be too confusing on your grandma to have more names and numbers to remember.
4. Get rid of GNU. Yeah, that's right, drop the command line utilities that you know and love, and lose all that power. If granny can't remember her password how's she supposed to remember arcane commands?
What's this "get rid of" stuff about? The built-in support for multiple users is incredibly useful in a household where more than one person uses the computer. eg: I can screw up my stuff without screwing up everyone elses. Of course, if granny lives alone she might want the option to allow it to automatically log her on. And the Gnu tools are great for some things that a GUI couldn't easily emulate. I do agree forcing someone to use them is not ideal. There should be an alternative.
5. The gui must be the OS. This means, goodbye X. Most of the newbies who ask me for help request help with setting up X (well, networking comes close). X must disappear, or it must become so much a part of Linux that it's just there, and it just works, no matter what video card, RAMDac, or whatever the user has on their machine.
I'm not especially attached to X, but making the GUI part of the kernel or even a built-in part of of the OS just seems like a bad idea to me. If you actually meant that it should be seemless, then yeah, this would be great. As far as it "just [working], no matter what video card..." -- well, keep dreaming & see response to 1 and 2. Video cards (and other hardware) change over the years, so the drivers need to change. The best way to keep your install bulletproof is to buy specifically supported hardware.
6. This GUI must be slicker than whale shit in an ice flow. Yeah, it must blow all other existing GUIs out of the water for ease of use, configurability, etc.
7. Did I mention that this stuff must work, right out of the box? It has to be so simple that the user can install it and configure it without a thought.
Amen!
What the world really needs is a new OS (perhaps based on the Linux kernel, perhaps not) that bundles ease of use and robustness in a single package.
I don't know that we need a whole new OS. There are more than just one OS with rock solid foundations to build a nice user interface on. No, linux, the kernel, does not need this GUI. What people, like our grandmothers, need is an easy-to-use, visually appealing user interface with a stable foundation. And that GUI needs Linux or a similar stable and open kernel beneath it.
numb
This is exactly the sort of thing that is needed for Linux to be accepted by the mainstream public.
;-)
For all our talk as Linux users about the "dumbing down of Linux" as an OS Linux really needs something like this.
For instance I could teach most of KDE or GNOME to my mother but what would she do if the print spool wouldn't clear after trying the Printer Control? Or what if she wanted someone else in the family to be able to use her system but not touch her stuff? Both of these tasks require administrative skills that she does not have and would most likely be unwilling to have to learn. Unfortunately for those of the Linux community there is no substitute for the Windows Control Panel. (yet)
Remember what people have said for years about software and business management - Programmers want an infintely wide interface, middle managers want an 8-bit interface because that's all they can handle, and upper management wants a 2 bit interface - Yes/No.
Most (I use the word loosely) users in America today can handle the 8-bit interface but due to the increased "dumbing-down" of our culture we're forcing people down to the level of a 2-bit interface. (Unfortunate but true.) Thus we're left with the situation that "Anything that is simpler for the user is the solution."
We may not like it but there it is and we do have to accept it until we can change it.
Also for those of you about to rally to the "We'll force them to learn!" flag - might I suggest you look at your own reactions when someone "forced" you to do something such as use an M$ product.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Because a lot us have better things to do with our time than figure out crufty interfaces. I've configured zillions of ascii-based configuration files. As the lounge singer said, "the thrill is gone, baby."
--
KDE can't modify the file system - therefore we can't add MIME types as file attributes (at least not without ugly kludges like creating .mimetypes files in every directory, containing a directory listing and mime types).
That would require major kernel and glibc changes, and of course break compatibility.
Old hardware, while not the most important thing, also needs to be supported - many people are running 486s or Pentium 60s as LAN fileservers or IP masquerading servers.
Windows binaries: that's already supported. An emulator (not perfect yet) is available at http://www.winehq.com/, and you can use BINFMT_MISC for the possibility to simply run them as if they were Linux binaries.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
I guess that if they ever decide to go Windows, it would be called Weazel... ;-)
"The Internet, of course, is more than just a place to find pictures of people having sex with dogs." - Time Magazine
Take a look at the nautilus screenshots here ...
http://www.ionet.net/~hestgray/nautilus/
Steve -- If you have to call it a system, you don't know what it is.
1. Distribution contracts
2. Integrated XML using Gecko
3. Integrated Internet functions
4. Web bases software installation and updates
5. Hidden complexity, but still accessable to Geeks
6. Parallels with BeOS interface
Now, I much prefer BeOS over Linux, but this will be a step in the right direction for Linux being useable for the average person.
Please don't flame me about how Linux is already easy to use, because there are many rough edges.
Have a good one.
EverCode
I think this is great news. Although some people might not like the idea of a 'dumbing- down' of Linux, I think it's really good news as this will doubtless help convince other people that Linux really is one of the best choices (if not the best choice) around.
I tried to convince a friend of mine to switch to Linux a while ago, and he was dismayed at having to _type_ in the name of a file in the WM menu configurator instead of being able to browse for it. I consider it a trivial inconvenience, but to him it's still a big deal.
Let's face it folks, most people out there use Windows at least partly because they're lazy. (I didn't say all!) And from what we've heard about Windows 2000 I think it's clear that it's not all that unstable. Plus it's more user- friendly than any desktop we have . . . I still prefer Linux, but an easy- to use GUI would be welcome.
Unless it comes with a one button mouse.
- What's the key combination to print something in Windows?
- What's the key combination to close a window?
- What's the key combination to save a file?
- Where does Game X install itself in the Start menu?
Ask 10 people and you'll probably get at least 5 different answers, simply because every application is allowed to do things differently. This makes the learning curve exponentially greater because you need to learn the shortcuts for _every_ application!
As much as I hate the MacOS from a technical standpoint, it really does have everything else beat hands-down when it comes to simplicity and consistency. (Or at least it did -- Aqua looks pretty hideous...)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings about this.
1) It doesn't seem to be a fork on Gnome, but rather an extension of it (perhaps a set of modules for it?)
2) It is NOT being developed by Apple or AOL. These are a bunch of people who used to work for Apple and AOL, but neither company is itself directly involved.
3) I know a lot of people are just going to post without reading the article, so I might as well reiterate it here: yes, it's GPL'd.
4) Once again, this is NOT Apple doing this. But I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people from the now-defunct Human Interface team there are now working on it.
Now, my own views on the project: I hope it works out. GNOME and KDE are both making good progress towards bringing a good, usable GUI to Linux, but both still have a long way to go. A boost, particularly from people who've designed UI's professionally before, would be a great help.
I see a lot of posts on here that pretty much parrot the line: "this is what Linux really needs." That's a load of crap.
If you want Linux to succeed in a mass market where the majority of VCRs silently blink 12:00 into infinity, then it must have something truly compelling to offer over the competition. This means that Linux needs to be simplified to the extreme. Sticking some pretty eye-candy on top of X isn't going to do it. To wit:
In short, Linux needs to be something totally different from what it is.
I use GNU/Linux because it works for me. I've used various flavors of UNIX, MacOS, and MS Windows as a professional programmer, student, home computer user, and employee. I've set up, installed, configured, even built machines targeted at all three operating systems. I use GNU/Linux at home (while my wife uses MacOS). I don't expect everyone to have the technical knowledge that I do, nor have the desire to acquire that knowledge. I mean, look, I do this stuff for a living, it's my business to know, but my doctor doesn't do this stuff for a living, so I don't expect him to want to learn to operate a computer just to get his work done, and neither should you.
What the world really needs is a new OS (perhaps based on the Linux kernel, perhaps not) that bundles ease of use and robustness in a single package.
It's high time some of you stopped deluding yourselves into thinking that GNU/Linux is the be-all and end-all of Operating Systems.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
No, not so much a flame as a caveat. One Eazel employee told, at a recent bay area Linux gathering, of how harsh the management is about prospective employees.
And several prominent Bay Area Linux people with heavy GUI backgrounds (like myself) were snubbed by Eazel to hire much less expensive neophyte programmers. Yeah, I was one of them, but I don't care as I found a great-paying and good job elsewhere. I was much more surprised when several other friends with good credentials were ALSO snubbed.
Basically, they'd be willing to pay a premium for a big name, but I sincerely doubt the employees will be treated well.
My vote on Eazel: nice concept, wrong company.
_Deirdre
...but it's going to take a lot of work. We need apps that my mom can use, and lots of them. Financial apps, word processing and spreadsheet apps, and a good web browser (Unix Netscape just sucks today).
Some of the pieces are already being worked on, and a few already exist. You might say StarOffice is good enough for mom to use, despite the fact that it doesn't always import MS formats properly. The financial apps are pretty poor right now. All the Free ones listed on freshmeat are so feature-poor, it's hard to use them for anything but the simplest checkbook balancing. When/If Intuit ports Quicken to Linux, things will be different.
As for the web browser, this is probably the "killer app" for most people. Ask anyone what program they use most every day, and they will probably answer NS/IE. The problem is that web browsing on Linux sucks. Unix Netscape on the whole is just crap. Its more unstable than Win32 Netscape, and X just makes the fonts look like shit. The text is unreadable and ugly. Furthermore, plugin and Java support in NS on Linux is abysmal. This is a serious problem. Mozilla looks to change all that, by providing a high quality, standard web browser implementation cross-platform. That would be quite a feat! Unfortunately, that's also quite a ways off.
In sum, I think efforts like these are nice, but I really believe that it's a little early to be making things mom can use. In many ways, right now we don't even have stuff WE can use.
This is the best thing that could have happened to Linux. The problem with other desktop environments to date is that they're being developed by people bent on one-upping windows. They may not even realize it, but they're taking all the user interface decisions that Microsoft has made--many of them fundamentally wrong--and are duplicating them. For example, human interface designers have been been very vocal about the problems of "nested expand-to-the-right" pull down menus (a la the Start menu). And yet this a fundamental feature of KDE (not to pick on it too hard).
What Linux needs is some fresh air; some people who are more than just coders looking for a project, and who have their own ideas they want to bring to life. There has been much research and are many available books and papers on interface design that don't follow the Mac/Windows paradigms that we've been seeing on personal computers for sixteen years now.
Something to note here is that there are some real gurus behind this effort. This is much different than two college students with little historical perspective trying to outdo Microsoft in a "me too!" sort of way.
Heh. Getting my mother to use Linux wouldn't be that difficult. My fiancee is another matter entirely. She's about as computer literate as a house plant. Which is why I hope they suceed. I'd like to be able to discuss Unix and Linux issues without her eyes glazing over.
That said, making Linux an easier pill for John Q. Public to take requires more than a GUI.
It's going to require a "Plug and Play" ability for peripherials...or at least better automatic detection and mounting. The latter is mostly an issue of better driver support. The former is a much more drastic change.
It's also going to require a increased ability to set things up from the desktop graphic tools. Don't get me wrong. I'm a command line evangelist. As a systems admin, the command line tools give me a better insight to how the system works. John Q. Public, OTOH, really doesn't give a flying fsck how the system works. John Q. Public wants to run his Quicken 2000, Office 2000 (two products that, if ported, would make a lot of converts), games and web surf for cheap airline tickets and pr0n. What he doesn't want to do is kernel tuning, add patches (or service packs), manually add zip disks, etc. A computer is a tool. If the average user can't figure out how to use our tool or gets continually frustrated, he'll buy one that he can use a lot easier...Macs and Win 9x.
What we really ought to be doing is not beta testing with other techies, but beta testing with people like my fiancee. Those that have no clue and really don't want one. If it passes that test, then it will be ready for prime time as a home computer OS.