Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Making Linux Beautiful

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the stuff-to-read dept.

intensity writes, "Wired has an interesting read on efforts to 'make Linux pretty.' I originally got into Linux because it gave me total control over what I could do with my desktop through the X Windowing system. That was in 1995, when setting up X was a chore in itself. Is it time to set down a standard GUI for Linux systems? " It's mostly yet another story about Eazel's Nautilis project (AKA the GNOME 2.0 Desktop)

12 of 496 comments (clear)

  1. Standard? by Hrunting · · Score: 5

    Bruce Tognazzini, founder of Apple's famous Human Interface Group and a frequent interface critic, stressed the need for a standard Linux interface and a comprehensive set of interface guidelines to ensure consistency across the system.

    Ugh, no. No standards on GUI, please. The great thing about using Linux is that there isn't just one way to do something. If we start forcing GUI standards on people, we'll get bloated window managers that don't serve the needs of particular people. It's very very difficult to make one interface that suits everyone without making it be this huge Swiss Army knife of a program (see emacs, although please, no flames).

    The X standard is enough. I think Eazel's efforts are great, but I like the variety that the current crop of window managers provides and if you 'standardize' an interface or the commands it can use, inevitably, something will be included that you don't need and something else will be left out that you do.

    1. Re:Standard? by Psiren · · Score: 5

      Valid points, but wouldn't it be nicer if all GUI apps played fair and co-operated. I mean *all* apps, not just KDE with KDE and Gnome with Gnome. Just simple things like using the same keybindings for open, save, etc would make life less troublesome. It doesn't matter much if you use QT or GTK based programs then, since they can be made to look similar (with QT's new theme stuff). Its the interfacing that needs to change, not the toolkit.

  2. Poorly researched by arthurs_sidekick · · Score: 5
    Although Linux already has a pair of evolving GUIs -- KDE and Gnome -- neither has a graphical file manager. Instead of clicking on icons or menus to open and save documents, users must type file names into a command-line interface.

    Err ... yeah ...

    --
    "Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
  3. Not just sittin' pretty by Skyshadow · · Score: 5
    I think it's a mistake to think of a GUI as being only useful for "prettying up the OS".

    Really, there are a lot of steps in certain routine configurations and obscure syntaxes that I, as a sys admin, would prefer not to have to edit by hand if I didn't have to. For example, I probably add/remove ten DNS records in a given week -- I'd rather have a GUI to do it. I doubt, however, that my boss would want to pay me to develop one and I'll be damned if I'm working on my off hours.

    The mistake that most of the command line crowd (myself included) make is viewing the GUI v. command line debate as being an either/or situation. Well, just because that's how MS does it, it doesn't mean that we have to make the same blinding errors.

    In any event, any Linux GUI will always beat the hell out on the NT version for one simple reason: setenv DISPLAY tux:0 -- while the rest of my officemates are driving upwards an hour to get to their clients to reset some little thing or the other, I can do anything remotely that I can do in person.

    ----

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Not just sittin' pretty by IntlHarvester · · Score: 5

      The administration issue is still a gaping black hole in the Linux usability picture. Yes, you can make your desktop "beautiful" with themes and whatnot; Yes, the installer is easier than Windows 98's. But, no, nobody has really tackled the administration issue -- things like linuxconf and the other tools you find seem to be shaky or ill supported at best.

      The root of the situation seems to be ultimately cultural. Most people use Linux because they want a unix system, and unix systems have a long standing tradition of obscure administration practices. Folks have made your suggestion this board that you can have your cake and eat it too, that admin functionality can be integrated into the pretty GUI without minimizing or removing the unix environment. These suggestions are usually met with disdain -- the community as a whole seems either happy with the way things are now, or afraid of 'windozification'.

      For some folks like me, it's part of the fun. But it does bring up the question of whether World Domination is really the goal or not. Widespread deployment of Linux, even on the server level, is going to require the enlistment and education of the current minimally skilled small server admin crowd. It's a tough problem -- the average MS certified goon isn't even qualified to run a mid-sized NT installation (I know, I've interviewed these guys, and apparently MS will certify you even if you don't understand basics like WINS or domain controllers), and now these guys are being asked to wade into quagmire of a unix installation without any tradition or dummies books to guide them.

      Small and medium sized businesses are seriously considering Linux as an alternative to Windows, but even at zero cost, it can't do them a lot of good if they can't find/afford anyone to run the system. The barbarians are the gates -- the question is are they going to find a soft landing when they get in, or is the potential configuration nightmare of a unix system going to kill the prospect of widespread Linux deployment? Is World Domination really what people want, or is Linux best suited to the traditional unix niches of academics, ISPs, and glass houses? It's a tough problem, there's no clear answer, and it's something that may well lead to a fork in the community.
      --

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  4. The Font DeUglification HOWTO by Booker · · Score: 5
    As much as I like Gnome, it is possible to make X a lot nicer looking without signing over your first born to any particular desktop environment... the nice thing about this is it's not "theme beautiful" - just "easy on the eyes" beautiful. :)

    The XFree86 Font Deuglification Mini HOWTO
    ----

  5. Re:Standard? = tradeoffs, good and bad by gfxguy · · Score: 5
    Linux will not compete with Windows unless there is a standard interface. However:
    • Linux shouldn't necessarily compete with Windows. And:
    • A standard interface doesn't mean you won't be able to switch to a non-standard interface.
    It's kind of like the RedHat distribution. A lot of people mistakenly think RedHat = Linux. While the notion is wrong, if people make their products work with RedHat, there's a good chance you can make it work on any Linux system, and still have all the configurability and customization you'd like.

    What I think is that there should be a standard FRAMEWORK. Something where you can write a program to be compatible with the "desktop environment", and not necessarily Gnome or KDE or something else. I would have it be like OpenGL - vendors (in this case GNU or Troll Tech) could add extentions, which might eventually be rolled into the specification for the "desktop environment" if they are widely accepted.

    The only problem, as with many open software projects (and can be a drawback) is who ultimately decides what features are required to be compliant with "desktop environment 1.0"
    ----------

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  6. This thread is scaring me by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 5

    Many of the responses to this article tend to go like this:

    "Who needs a fancy schmancy interface? Raw Xwindows is great!"
    "We don't want to make Linux easier to use!"

    Look, Linux started out as a private hack that went public and has grown into a very stable operating system kernel. But the long line of open source development and bleeding edge kernels is not the means, not an end. The goal is not for Linux to be the OS of the 3/_33t who like recompiling kernels and hacking X windows config files. If you want to be able to graduate and not have to use Windows on the job, then Linux has to progress beyond the embryonic stage.

    Quite frankly, we need the expertise of people like those at Eazel. I recently tried out OS X for the Mac (which runs on a Mach kernel), and it's far from perfect but it's so far above and beyond anything for X, including MacOS-like themes, that you can't make valid comparisons.

  7. Re:File manager? by Inoshiro · · Score: 5

    Or the Gnome-MC (which is, IMO, very nice). This line struck me as the most self-contradictory:
    "users must type file names into a command-line interface."

    Is it the common dialog of GTK+/QT he doesn't like? I don't recall the Win32 common dialog having a nice little "click pretty pictures to specify a textual name" thing.

    I think what we have is a red herring article designed to trump up the new Eazel effort.
    Compare:
    "Nautilus' file system includes a point-and-click file manager that will offer advanced features like the ability to tell the difference between sound files and pictures, and display them accordingly."

    This right after mentioning that the ex-apple people would be using Nautilus. It's practically a press-release.
    Step 1: Say there are no graphical feature F in X and Y graphical front ends.
    Step 2: Mention that Z project is using program B
    Step 3: Crow about program B. Mention it has features F, K, and G.
    Step 4: Mention that some guy related to Y front ends and other internals has "seen the prototype, and loved it" -- something which should not be special with opensource (ie: everyone can see it).

    He also ignores the fact that Gnome-MC and KFM both use mime types to display file types (although KFM, by default, seems to know fewer mime types) claiming that they don't know what they are (by saying that Nautilus does).

    Then the semi-FUD makes its appearance:
    "questioned the need for yet another PC interface -- especially one based on a design that hasn't changed significantly in 20 years."

    We don't rethink addition or subtraction every 20 years just because the knowledge is "old" and "hasn't changed significantly" .. I really wish people today would understand the concept of matured software/knowledge.

    Then the guy is quoted as saying that they want "internet enabled" desktops which tell you what you need to know. Which strikes me as wrong because 1) if I want to browse, I open a browser and 2) if I want to filter knowledge, I can.

    I use Linux/Gnome and Win95 on my workstations at home (Win95 for games and some apps, Gnome for the rest). And I've worked on machines with the "IE memory/CPU tax" installed at work. Considering the 3 to 5 second pauses most tasks seem to require as parts of IE load for doing things like file management on a machine that is 400Mhz (Celeron) and has 128mb of ram (SDRAM DIMM).. It's funny to see how many Win98 machines perform worse than my own slower machine at home (a paltry 266Mhz K6-2 w/ 128mb of ram SDRAM DIMM). I really wish people would get off this integration kick that MS seems to have started (and which Gnome, KDE, etc seem to be following a bit). The basic shell should provide mechanism, not policy. If I want to do a set of tasks, I'll have applications for them (that are small and fast).. Not some huge integration crud..
    ---

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  8. Re:Desktop model is dying. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 5

    I never understood this "3-D UI" of the future. Our language is two dimensional, our books are two dimensional, our desks are two dimensional planes upon which we work. The best we could hope for is a 3-D wrapper for our 2-D world.

    Audio can be recorded in 3-D, but it certainly doesn't enhance the ability of a speaker to communicate, it just sounds prettier. People today readily discard quality audio for efficient recordings. By the same token, why would people want to work in a 3-D rendered UI?

    Personally I think the next useful UI will go in the opposite direction. Less virtual, more real. Desks which automatically digitize handwriting, panels which are as easy on the eyes and as portable as paper, and of course, lots of specialized devices, like palm organizers, crosspads, networked stereo components (ala MP3 players). We're seeing the beginning of this now. Transmeta, embedded linux, and the like are a step into the future.

    Quiet, unobtrusive and asthetically pleasing. If you want to dictate, dictate, if you want to type, type. Conduct online research from your sofa, or at the coffee shop down the street. Offices will become passe as the mechanisms of communication become easier and easier.

    On the other hand, if you want to play games... go ahead and imerse yourself in your thick 3-D virtual reality.

  9. Send all flames to /dev/null by tweder · · Score: 5

    I tend to disagree with what everyone seems to be saying here. Just hold your horses, and breathe through your nose for a minute while I share my humble opinion...

    I think there should be a standardizing of UI's for Linux. Everytime I bring this up everybody bitches and moans about how if we standardize the Linux UI it'll get "...as fuck ugly as Windows..." Let's get one thing straight - I DONT WANT TO STANDARDIZE THE GUI - Just parts of the UI. If we standardize the GUI, we'll lose our artistic expression. Personally I think the KDE kids are doing a nice job, but it's sooo damn ugy. That's why I use E(yecandy)nlightenment.

    The reasoning for standardizing the UI is to remedy all the blasted different ways programs behave. For example, in some programs, to quit the hotkey is 'CRTL-Q', while in others its 'ALT-Q', or ':q!', or even 'CRTL-X CRTL-C'. And to save it's the same problem - 'CRTL-S', 'ALT-S', ':w' or that awful 'CRTL-X CRTL-S'.

    Why can't we just set aside our differences and play nice?

  10. Oh Puleeeze! by snookerdoodle · · Score: 5

    I'm sorry, but this anarchy-for-anarchy's sake stuff gets to me when you talk about Linux' UI (or lack thereof). I really do not intend that comment as a flame... ;-)

    As a former Unix/C programmer who has backslidden into Management, I have listened to a LOT of folks who might like to use Linux, but just find the UI baffling. Believe it or not, these same folks can actually use MS windoze. Germaine to the article at hand, though, my users RARELY ever open up the old Windows NT Explorer (formerly File Manager).

    ANYWAY, a set of UI guidelines (and that's all they're REALLY proposing, by the way) are long overdue. This, to me, is the ONE THING that now differentiates the Mac (and my old NeXT that I still miss, may she Rest In Peace) from PC's. Sit at a PC or Linux box and try to find something on the various menus. You just have to keep looking until you find it, look in Help, or (like my users) pull out your '45 and shoot the computer out of frustration.

    On the other hand, things on a Mac or my dead NeXT are pretty much in the same place from program to program. This is really due to a document more or less called the User Interface Guidelines, IMHO.

    Of course, QuickTime doesn't count. ;-)

    Please Let's DO encourage this! I think they CAN be made generic enough to please most folks.