Slashdot Mirror
GNOME Foundation, UI And Linux
David Huff writes: "Stephan Somogyi of ZDNews has written an article with an excellent take on the GNOME Foundation announcement entitled GNOME on the range " It's nice to a read a story that's focusing on the important part of the future of Linux UI (end user experience, consistency) and not the semi-annual GNOME/KDE resurging rash.
Wrong! There seems to be a lot of this thinking in the Linux community -- that the only reason Windows is popular is because of a pretty interface (The "shiny things" theory).
I agree. The Windows interface isn't actually very good (which is why it's such a shame that it is being copied, but that's another topic). People use Windows because of Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, all those programs you see on the shelf at CompUSA, and because enterprise applications created with the likes of Visual Basic (don't laugh, custom applications are a bigger cut of the software pie than most people realize).
The Windows interface is downright goofy in many ways. You have to choose what size database to build when you choose the Help topic from most program? And all those crazy dialogs with a dozen different panels of options--ugh. Has no one ever read a book on human-computer interaction?
No, sorry - I disagree. What he's going on about is having style guidelines - and sticking to them, which, for the most part, most X apps do not, whatever toolkit or desktop environment they are written for.
KDE _already_ has style guidelines (and I'm sure GNOME probably does as well) - but getting apps written to follow those guidelines is unsexy and something I think most free software authors don't care for that much.
What XMLGUI does is it frees the author from having to think that hard about it - simply by using it in your app to create an interface, that interface becomes KDE styleguide-compliant.
The fact that it's customizable is, whilst cool and potentially useful, irrelevant to this article...
Price is not totally revelvant. In fact, a 600MHz 64MB Dell computer with RedHat is actually MORE expensive than a similarly configured one with Win2k. Even for machines where Linux IS cheaper, for most businesses, the extra $50-100 really isn't a big factor in the overall cost of the system. It certainly won't beat any advantages in usability or software that Windows has. Linux really can't compete in price, because the bulk of the cost still lies in support contracts. Thus it HAS to compete on technical quality, usability, and software availability.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Actually, I think StormLinux and Corel linux already have them. The problem is that even they detect cards incorrectly. For example, Mandrake says I've got a Riva128 isntead of a TNT. They're not even the same ARCHITECTURE!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
A) Given two choices, there is always competition. It happens in everything from computing, to religion, to sandwiches. Live with it.
B) Competition is good. However, there is a difference between competition and infighting. The current situation here between GNOME and KDE is infighting, not healthy competition. The problem is that they aren't binary compatible. You suggest to stop fighting and write code. For which DE? If KDE and GNOME want to make a better product, they have to adopt a common API, and let the competition be in terms of features, quality, stability, speed, usability, and all that good stuff, instead of on which environment has more software support.
C) A common API guarentees that they will both stay "alive." People seem to have this notion that OSS projects can't die. That may be true, but they sure as hell can become totally irrelevant. No offence to the GNUStep guys, but can you consider that project "alive?" A common API can do wonders for an OSS project. The reason GNUStep is more or less irrelevant is because there really isn't any software. Since an OSS app can't really "die" per se, a common API guarentees that no matter how much more popular one DE becomes, others can always overhual there's and make a comeback. In the end, the user benifets because they use whatever product they feel is best without bloating up their system, and without being enslaved to the wishes of software developers.
In the current state of things, one DE will undoubtedly win. That's the dynamics of proprietory APIs. Do you really think OS/2 would be totally irrelevant if it was Windows95 ABI compatible? On the flip-side, do you think NetBSD or OpenBSD would be used by anyone if it wasn't UNIX-API compatible?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Whoa! Do you really want software creating the interfaces? Don't you think programmers should have some accountability? It is remnicscant of the horrid "code generators" Windows programmers are so fond of, yet everyone else hates. Of course if it's in KDE, it's got to be cool!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Do you expect GNUStep to make a comeback anyday now? OSS projects may not die, but being totally irrelevant is about as bad as being dead as far as most people are concerned. (Example: OS/2) Eventually, sheer software support is god, and affects both OSS and non-OSS projects. If the two use a common API, then yes, KDE and GNOME will both stay alive and force the other to improve. However, that would mean reducing the number of toolkits, and the UNIX nerds with their passion for multiple-redundant toolkits would NEVER agree to that.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
XFree86 4.0 gets rid of modlines and XF86Setup. One step forward, one step back.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
They don't have to use the same component model or same widget set. What the need to use is the same API. Then what would matter would be the back end. Which one was faster, which one had the better GUI, which one took less memory, which one was more robust, etc. That's what peopl need to compete on. Competing on features is a sure way to disaster. It leads to bloat, which is bad. Think hard. Do you need multiple component models, or multiple widget sets? Is KDE appreciable different from GNOME as it is? As I've said, they both have the same featuers and expose them in more or less the same way. Given those circumstances, why not let them be programmed the same way? They could take a cue from Microsoft's DirectPlay. You've got a common API for communication, and you can use whatever underlying method (TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, etc) that you want. Or from OpenGL drivers. They all have a common API, but you can't possibly say that Matrox's is anywhere near as usable as NVIDIA's. In that case, they are competing on quality, which results in a better product. Take another cue from MS. MS tries to compete by incorperating new features in every release. Without a common API, it becomes much easier to compete on features than on quality. Look where it led MS? To the lovely, bloated beast that is Win2K, and the horrid convultated API that is Win32.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I'm not a geek, but I manage them on TV. Well, at work actually.
When the technical staff convinced me to transition our shop from NT to Linux about two years ago, I had to begin learning Linux. As I said above, I'm not a programmer or a geek -- simply one of those (either despised or desired) "regular users" that Linux advocates (either regard as unimportant or want to assimilate).
So, my first experiences were with command line and AfterStep (which I found difficult to use) but then quickly moved to the emerging KDE and GNOME environments. GNOME, more than anything else, let me make the transition from Windows user to full-time Linux desktop user. I picked up enough along the way to prefer command-line to file manager, but -- since my orientation is not server management but is, indeed, paperwork, planning, project management, etc. -- the GUI is what lets me get my work done. Without GNOME (or KDE) I wouldn't be using Linux full time.
As a "desktop user" I see things a little differently: I need a better browser and a much better e-mail client. WordPerfect meets my "office" needs (although I see instabilities in Wine [we joke: "Corel WordPerfect . . . bringing the instability of Windows to the Linux desktop"]).
I think it's a matter of focus. Commercial operations that want the desktop users for Linux should pursue initiatives like the GNOME Foundation and support KDE. Those who are interested in other environments should continue on the course that has produced so much.
There are a few difficulties left on the desktop, but I notice that the Windows users who see me work on my GNOME Helix desktop are already amazed and are quite intrigued. I think there's more potential for Linux on the desktop than is generally realized by either the geek community or Windows apologists. A highly functional, customizable, tool-rich desktop will first impress and then entice those users. Desktop users are just as sick of clunky Windows interfaces and instabilities as techies -- many of them just don't realize it yet.
"When I grow up, I'll be stable."
at 6 AM when I'm leaving for San Jose in a few hours? What the article makes clear and something I've tried arguing for a while is that computer interfaces for the most part in the past decade have become horrible abominations. Grab the research papers about the eye movements and clicking habits of users of particular websites. People tend not to click things that have no text label denoting their function and tend to avoid colourful text as they've become accustomed to avoiding flashy advertisements. The same can be said of computer programs. The success of many man-made tools can be linked to their innate intuitiveness. If you know what a hammer is used for you can pretty easily guess the proper operation of it. If a hammer were designed with the same parameters and programs and websites it would end up being a metal rod that made the working end indistingushible from the controlling end. Computer interfaces for the most part are notoriously bad with a few exceptions such as the Mac style GUI (by which I mean labeled icons that are specifically not apart of the background desktop) which has been copied with varying degrees of success. Linux has just begun to move into the ease of use part of the interface game. A massive rethinking of how people ought to interact with computers needs to take place; it would be a good idea for the Linux guys who are still fresh out of the dugout to spearhead such a rethinking.
Go look at some of the more popular websites on the net (start with MSN and then move to Yahoo! or Google). With MSN you're left wondering where exactly to look and click in order to get where you want to go. On Yahoo! and Google you only really have funtional information. Now open up a terminal and stare at it for a second. There isn't alot to the CLI is there? In order to use the computer you need to know a laundry list of sometimes rather cryptic commands. Why not be able to just type "I want to go to Yahoo!" and a browser will fire up and go to Yahoo!'s site. How come X requires so many different mouse buttons (still) in order for you to use it properly. Why do keyboard commands and mouse clicks do different things in X and apps running inside a WM? I know the technical reasons for it, I'm pretty well versed in them actually. I want to know why the interface is still like that though. The whole reason we have personal computers is because they allow us to do a large variety of tasks with a simple imput of a software program. If they are REALLY personal and easy why is there a whole industry existing just to write books on how to use computers? I think a good place to look for interface inspiration is Star Trek: The Next Generation. The computer onboard the Enterprise responded like a personal assistant and performed functions with a plain English request. Even the manual controls on the glass control panels manipulated itself around so the user of the terminal was presented with all relavant information and changed when different data presented itself. We need to start work on that.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
KDE has had a compleat stile guide since before KDE-1.0.
You don't have a desktop environment ontil your stile guide is in place because otherwise it's not posible to make an app without your toolkit.
Folowing the stile guide you can write a KDE application that dosn't use the KDElibs, QT or even C++.
Talk about developer choice.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
There is an "open Source" problem, but I think you missed it. The GNOME (and KDE) camps have HCI people on board. It's that getting a whole mailing list to agree on something as subjective as an interface guideline is very very hard. I watched a 3 week flame fest in gnome-devel over window in window applications. They will work things out, but unfortunately, it may take some inner circle handing down rulings.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
The Gnome User Interface Improvement Project
Gnome Programming Guidelines
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
When you have two equal options, choice is good. But when people fight over which of those choices is better, you have problems: pride, greed, and so forth. Stop trying to kill each other, pick a DE, and write code!
What I mean is that my Mac can read DOS disks, even though I don't own a MS-DOS computer. My Linux box can write Mac disks. My BSD box can send e-mail to a co-worker using Windows. (Not that Windows is a good choice). As different choices mature, they become more compatible, unless something gets in the way. There is no reason not to have two choices, as long as both work.
Once both options work, the developers of A get the great idea to make it work with B. Then B's team decides to make B work with A.
If you look, that's what's starting to happen right now, despite the fighting between some misguided individuals. KDE can use GNOME skins. We have to encourage this trend, not stop it. It's the Right Thing to do.
By the way, people say that choice confuses users. Look at the KDE panel and compare it to the GNOME panel. Both panels have a button to launch programs. Both buttons are in the same place. This isn't nearly as big of an issue as some people believe.
I like choice. I want both KDE and GNOME installed on my system, so I can use whichever I'm in the mood for when I start X. The truth is, though, I usually start EFM.
it's green.
Actually you make a very good point. Connecting power with difficulty of use is a work of laziness. A great example is Alias's Maya. The interface is fairly easy to use, given the sheer power of the program. If you're a novice just learning it (okay, novices don't use Maya, but bear with me) then you've got buttons, etc. There all logically laid out, and that's something helpful to novices and the "elite" alike. However, if you fell at anypoint constrained by the GUI, you can always write your own components in the form of MEL scripts. At that point, you've got an interface that is easy enough for a beginner to use proficantly, but one that even an expert can lose himself in (feature-wise, not GUI-wise).
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
You can fork the kernel all you'd like, but Linus has final say on what goes into the official release of the kernel.
Say you do fork the kernel... The only person using it will be you, unless you come up with some dandy features that will wow the rest of the linux community.
Only thing is, it's a bit of a catch 22. Your changes are GPLed as well due to the way the GPL works. If the features are so good that you can pull the linux community from the official release of the kernel, you can bet your ass the changes will be migrated into the official version.
Relevance is not "HotTopics" but what people actually use, and a change in which effects the general computing arena. Right now, Linux is relevant. Changes and happenings in Linux affect the entire computing sector. Windows is relevent. A change in Windows effects hundreds of millions of people. OpenGL is relevant. Numerous games use it and changes to it affect a lot of the gaming market. Direct3D is relevant. 3D graphics card companies live and die by their D3D drivers. GNOME is relevant, KDE is relvant. If the entire GNOME project suddenly drops off the map, IBM, HP, and the entire linux community has to deal with it. Similarly KDE. In these cases, KDE and GNOME are relevant not because they directly have an impact on the majority of computer users, but because their sucess or failures affect the sucess or failures of Linux, which affects Windows, which directly effects the user. Things that aren't relevant are things that really don't affect the majority of computer users, or don't have any future.
OS/2, for example, is irrelevant. If IBM drops OS/2 right now, only a handful of people will be affected. QuickDraw3D is irrelvant since it has no future. One can make an OS now that has no QuickDraw3D. The same cannot be said for something relevant like OpenGL. Even major players like IBM's POWER3 are irrelvant largely because their sucess or failure doesn't (even indirectly) effect the general computing public. A common theme here is that things that are relevant are NOT just fads. Windows is relevant, and has been for years, and it will be for years. Similarly, Linux will be relevant for years, as will OpenGL, Direct3D, et al.
Relvance is a topic that depends on target market. However, that target market vaires widely in size. If one is talking about the high end computing market, then POWER3 is suddenly relevant. A better example is OS/2. The comuting market as a whole considers OS/2 largely irrelevant. However, get into banking and ATMs, and OS/2 suddenly becomes relevant. In a converstation, relevance is relative to the topic of the conversation. In this conversation, the topic is GNOME. Thus, the target audiance is those people that use GNOME. Thus, relevance is judged by what is relevant or irrelvent to the majority of those people. What is GNOME's target audiance? People switching from Windows, people needing a good looking desktop, and people who need a broad range of software. To these people, GNUStep is largely irrelevant. If GNUStep falls off the face of the planet tomarrow, it wouldn't affect the majority of GNOME users.
You miss my point entirely when talking about the unfication of GNOME and KDE. I'm saying that they should use a common API. This has nothing to do with their user-interfaces, it has nothing to do the actual code powering those APIs, it has nothing to do with developers (they aren't the target market of GNOME/KDE anyway.) We're not talking about the usual UNIX contingent here. The article was about GNOME, and due to GNOME's support from HP and IBM as the next CDE, business users (for whom you say appearance and profitability come first) are EXACTLY those users who we're talking about. It just happens that the same concepts apply to home users as well, and together, home and business users for the majority of KDE/GNOME target audiance. For them, my arguement applies. Either KDE or GNOME will win, and the other will become irrelevant. Even if the other becomes very relevant in the Phython-developers segment, it won't be relevant to the business/consumer segment as a whole. A unified API prevents that kind of fall into irrelevance.
I might seem like I'm using a lot of generalizations, and groupings, and compartmentalizations here. But ask any marketing person, they'll tell you that it WORKS! No matter how individualistic a particular person is, a segment as a whole is very uniform and predictable.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Simply because Open Source projects do not use it does not make CORBA a failure. This is the same as saying Java/COM/iMacs/Oracle databases etc. are failures because you haven't seen an Open Source project that uses them.
There are a large number of closed source, large scale (millions of lines of code) products that use CORBA that the average sysadmin/linux hacker/whatever will never see or get to use. As an example, the company I worked at this summer (i2 technologies ITWO) has a been generating millions of dollars in revenue with a CORBA based Supply Chain Management application for the past couple of years.
You see Corba is broken. but only a little. In order to use it you must build something else on top that actually talks to your apps.
Isn't that what the CORBA Component Model was designed to fix?
PS: I am a distributed computing junkie and am currently doing research into RMI/CORBA/DCOM and have found a bunch of interesting articles that break down these technologies for people who are wondering what exactly they are...here's an article that compares all three.
(-1 Troll)
That is the whole point of creating User Friendly tools for Linux. After all when a Windows user needs a power tool they are stuck. It doesn't matter how much they are willing to learn their platform won't take them any farther.
Linux, on the other hand, has a platform that makes everything possible, but you have to put in the effort. Gnome and KDE are simply bridging this gap. They make the simple things easy for the novice to do, but the do not remove all of the tried and true power tools that the rest of us have grown accustomed to.
How many times has someone come up to you and said "How do you do foo?" and you have realized that under Windows the answer is "you don't." Probably about as many times as you have watched someone's eyes glaze over when you showed them some neat trick in bash or Perl.
Personally I am quite excited about Gnome (despite the fact that I use very little of its features, just like the article pointed out) simply because it will allow my Grandmother to use the same OS that I do. She still won't have any idea what a regular expression is, but when she needs to have 400 gifs changed to PNG format she won't need to open them one by one in Paint Shop Pro either. She can ask me to help and we'll have the task licked with plenty of time left for her to repay my brave deed with a batch of cinnamon rolls.
Now that is what I call progress.
... we need interfaces that teach the user. For example, how many people do you know that have been using Windows for years, yet still barely know their way around the system? That's because every time they need to do something, they hunt around in the Start Menu until they find it. This is all wrong - we need to create an interface for Linux (or build one on top of GNOME or KDE [I prefer GNOME, but that's just my opinion :-)]) which allows the newbie to work in the system, while at the same time learning how to do the same thing from the command line!. For example, create a little front end to tools such as find, locate, etc, etc, and every time the user uses them, it prints at the bottom of the window the actual command-line equivalent.
Over time, they'll find themselves using the command line more often because it takes less time to get to than searching through a Start Menu-equivalent. Once they're at the command line, they'll want to learn how to do other things from there as well.
--
Read this excellent essay article on OsOpinion "call for cease-fire in the KDE-Gnome war": http://osopinion.com/Opinions/GaelDuval/GaelDuval1 .html
I could only agree with that!
Sorry... I forgot to mention... KDE *does* have UI guidelines up at the developer site: http:/ /developer.kde.org/documentation/standards/kde/sty le/basics/index.html
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
"I think it's mildly unfortunate that the KDE camp considered itself so cornered that it felt compelled to issue miffed- and wounded-sounding position statements that it will continue to fight the good fight."
It would be nice had the author noted the actual statements rather than just give his opinion of them. What exactly was he referring to here?
Helix Code, along with Eazel are working towards bringing a streamlined user experience to the Linux desktop. The Helix Code Gnome Distro is _VERY_ nice, along with it's Upgrade tool it makes the desktop very easy to use. Also the helix code admin tools are shaping up to make Linux more approchable to novice users, while still leaving the full command to users who like tweaking files.
If open-source OSes don't develop their own human interface guidelines and find a way to make them stick, Linux on the desktop will become a forlorn dream.
Why not just use their's ? (might as well get some use out of it, judging by the mac mouse, Apple isn't using it) Seriously, though, I agree with everything the article says. I've gotten so fed up with Gnome and KDE that I've started doing most of my work in the console.
--
Both GNOME and KDE are driving toward a set of user interface guidelines. But at this time, they really seem to be focusing on making flexible and powerful toolkits (GTK+/Bonobo and Qt/KParts/DCOP) and interoperability communication mechanisms. If they are going to beat Microsoft and win some users for the Linux desktop, they have to have technology that Microsoft and Apple don't have. A large base of highly flexible, consistent, themable components is important... And the UI guidlines are coming around. I don't use GNOME, so I can't comment on the consistency of its apps, but KDE (particularly KDE 2 betas) seems to follow the standards set by Windows and Mac very nicely. In fact, Mosfet is(was) a huge Mac fan, and has designed the KDE2 theme engine, a number of components, and a number of themes that are somewhat Mac-like.
What I'm really trying to say, is they are both getting there. Mac has a 20 year history, and Windows has like a 15-year history... obviously the developers of those systems developed standards that evolved over the years. KDE And GNOME are both quickly catching up.
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Please read this to the end before you flame me/moderate me to kingdom come.
/.) and HCI.
;-)
I think open source is great, but it has this one very basic flaw: Geeks write programs for themselves, and hence, for geeks. And we all know that geeks don't care too much for easy-to-use interfaces, but more for powerful ones (see shells, vi, emacs, etc). So when open source people start writing programs with user interfaces, these will be very similar: powerful, but hard to use for the normal user. And inconsistent with anything the users already know (read: Windows).
Now I am not saying that Gnome (or KDE, for that matter) should copy Windows, but that it would be very beneficial if not only coders worked on such projects, but also people from GUI design (and I am sure that there are people with experience in this area reading
Now that open source is growing up (in the sense of: os software being used by non-geeks as well), this is a necessary step. And it brings world domination much closer, too
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
(I'm speaking about the "typical geek" here: proficient with >= 1 programming language, knows his/her way around Unix/Linux, etc)
That is right. Geeks prefer advanced, difficult, powerful user interfaces, whereas novice users prefer simple, easy, "magical" UIs. This is because geeks already know their way around. They know how things depend on each other. They have already mapped the Interface in their brain.
Novices have not. They need to learn the UI, begin to place pieces of the map in the right places in their heads.
So, GNOME and KDE are trying to make life easier for the novice by providing them with simple user interfaces that they can use. Of course, they should be consistent. This is one of the most important points of UIs: to make life easy for the user, so that he/she can easily get acquainted with a tool.
But, what if the user already knows the tool? What if he/she has used it often and thououghly enough to have a mental map of what it does in his/her head? If this happens, most tools seem restrictive to advanced users, and therefore, when given the tools to do it, they construct these powerful, hard-to-learn environments.
But that's not the way to do it, IMHO. Instead of producing a one-size-fits-all tool, you (and you, and you) should create tools that are fit for differently experienced users to use. See UN*X, for example. It's philosophy was:
"Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs that handle text streams, because that is a universal interface."
(Peter H. Salus, A quarter century of UNIX[TM])
This is a concept that is both simple and powerful. It brought forth tools like sed, grep and so on. These are extremely simple to understand, and if you understand them, they are extremely powerful. Why noone has succeeded in creating an equally powerful and simple concept in GUIs escapes me, but it's definitely time to go create one.
--
this post was brought to you by Andreas Fuchs.
this post was brought to you by Andreas Fuchs.
echo [Address] | sed s/[-a-z]//g | tr A-Z a-z
Do you realize that GNOME itself is the 1st successful software project based on Corba ?
Why should a technology not produce any good results for over 10 years and then suddenly become worthwhile when an open source project starts to use it ?
Not just any Open Source project either but one with lots of backing and funding from everywhere.
You see Corba is broken. but only a little. In order to use it you must build something else on top that actually talks to your apps. Gnome usees Bonobo. KDE used Kom. Despite being built on the same technology they couldn't communicate with each other. Not even when Gnome used the same ORB as KDE ( Mico ).
This is the power of the Hacker mentality at work. They took a broken twisted pile of junk and built a wonderful interface on top of that. Best of all being Corba makes it 100% buzzword compliant. Read this post to asses how much of a "buzzword" it is.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
One thing remains in Linux that MUST be improved: Screen resolution support. By probing the monitor, Linux should be able to detect what resolutions and refresh rates a monitor can tolerate (as Windows and Mac OS already do). Enough with this 2K xf86config file and utility, they're ancient. I do like the ctrl-alt-+ and ctrl-alt-- shortcuts - that is, if they even worked for me. I think that it's about time for someone to make a GUI Display control panel. Even if the user had to restart X after every setting, that's fine. Just as long as we don't have to wade through the 50 questions session of xf86config!
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I've often heard people say this, but I've never heard anyone explain why this is a good thing. Should every new model of automobile arrange the driving controls in a different way (accelerator on the dashboard, steering with your feet, etc.), rather than "copy others"? No, because the basic problem of automobile control was solved a long time ago, and there are no advantages and some serious disadvantages to creating a new user interface in every new model. There is minor variation across models, but everyone uses essentially the same solution, and with good reason.
The basic paradigm of menus, buttons, and text fields was worked out 20 years ago; it's old, but it continues to be a good solution to the problem of human/computer interaction. People admire innovation, but I see no point in throwing out a tried-and-true solution unless the replacement offers some real advantages. I have yet to see any new kind of computer interface which seems to represent a real improvement over the current situation.
I'd welcome some sort of written user-interface standards worked out by the Linux community; but I'd hope that this set of formal standards would be largely a cleaned-up, rational statement of the customary practice in the community today rather than some misguided attempt at innovation for the sake of innovation.
I never said that GNUStep was dead. My point is that it's not RELEVANT. People work on OS/2 software as well, but it doesn't mean it's relevant. I'll even go on a limb and say that in it's present state, BeOS isn't really relevant either. With less than a million users, it is of no signficance. That doesn't mean that people aren't perfectly happy using it, or that people don't activly develop for it. It just means that what goes on in it's development doesn't really have a significance to the computing community as a whole. (In BeOSs defense, it's popularity seems to be increasing, it is still on the upswing. In contrast, it seems that GNUStep is kind of trudging along.) Until recently Linux was "dead" so to speak. Sure some people used it, but it was only recently that the computing community as a whole cared about what happened to it. That is the case with GNOME and KDE. If one "wins" (as one undoubtedly will) there will still be people using the other. There will still be development going on for the other. However, the majority of compter users will find that the number, variaty, and quality of apps on that environment do not suit their needs. That's why a common API is so important. if there is acommon API, it ensures that both stay RELEVANT, not just alive.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
For example, pressing K...Multimedia shows a list of KDE-aware programs only. Pressing K...Gnome...Multimedia shows a list of the Gnome-aware programs only.
Why have two Multimedia menus? Why not just one?
With the merging of link formats in KDE 2.x, this problem should go away...but something makes me think there will still be a seperate Gnome menu tree. Anyone want to comment?
Can we easily end this sillyness, and focus on function not what the flavor of the program is?
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Well, that depends on the target audiance. If you're targetting be-fan groupies (I know you're out there) then I'm quite relevant ;)
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Please forgive me if I get a few details wrong, I'm not a KDE developer, I've just read the presentations and seen what happens in the KDE 2 betas... but
:-)
KDE 2's XMLGUI technology is doing this now.
What it allows is, as the name suggests, developers to create XML descriptions of the UI rather than rigid, fixed programmatic representations. At run-time, these descriptions are merged with the standard KDE interface elements (also described in XML) and then created on-screen using the standard QT/KDE widgets.
The net effect of this is that simply by using this technology, you can create a customizable, dynamic GUI that _automatically_ conforms to the KDE2 style guidelines, and all by just writing a few lines of XML...
I think this is very very neat indeed
What will make a desktop Linux? Interface, interface, interface.
Wrong! There seems to be a lot of this thinking in the Linux community -- that the only reason Windows is popular is because of a pretty interface (The "shiny things" theory).
Now, an easy-to-use interface is important, but what is far more important is APPLICATIONS. I simply don't understand why people don't get this. Work is not done with desktop shells, it's done with applications.
Why did Win 3.1 kick everyone's butt despite having a horrible interface compared to the Mac or OS/2? Because it had all the applications that everyone wanted.
There still is not one Linux end-user application that is better than the equivalent under Windows. Not one. And many are greatly inferior. [OT: I often wonder if this is the grand example of where cathedral-bazaar development has utterly failed. You would think there would be one good example of an end-user app that is clearly better, but there just isn't one.]
For Linux to have any chance of gaining a foothold in the "normal" world, it not only has to have equivalent apps, it has to have better apps by a long margin. People are just not going to switch for no reason.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Although "skins" are the trendy thing these days, there are many more elements to the user experience than title bars, scroll bars, and other widgets. Keyboard bindings, mouse behaviour, dialog content and layout, etc. All of these things combined make the entire system - OS, Desktop, Applications - consistent. Once you use and get used to one app, then others are that much easier to take on.
This is the issue that is not being addressed. The GNOME & KDE folks, and any others so inclined, should issue standard design principles stating how applications should behave by default (consitent with one another). Of course, the flexibility allowing advanced users to bypass or reassign (some/most of) the defaults will be needed as well for those who spend more time playing with their systems then using them.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
The problem with creating a manual like the Mac User Interface
guidelines is that it requires a lot of effort just to write the
document.
Once the document has been written, applications must implement
various of the user inteface features. The lack of resources in the
free software world to produce this kind of documentation is the most
important problem.
One of the approaches we have taken in the GNOME project was to add a
pieces of the user interface consistency through the GNOME libraries.
Various pieces in the libraries are nothing but programming sugar, and
they achieve two things: simplifying program development and helping
to create same user interfaces.
GNOME contributors realize the importance of this and other issues in
user interfaces. Our approach so far has been to follow the
guidelines from existing systems and try to bring the best user
interface experience details into GNOME. Discussion usually happens
on the various forums about specific user interface improvements.
A year ago, the GNOME UI team was created to help coordinate the
development of user interface issues in GNOME: to write a manual, to
write guidelines, to point out problems in current applications, to
point out desired improvements in applications and so on.
The GNOME UI team has been very successful. Various of the UI changes
you have seen in the October GNOME release (last october) and in the
Bongo GNOME release (last may) were prompted by the UI team.
The UI team is lead by Jim Cape, who takes the input from participans
on the GNOME UI mailing list and presents the suggestions to
the actual developers.
Anyone can help improve GNOME and help the GNOME UI team. User
interface experts from Eazel and Helix have been working with the team
for some time now: both helping and implementing those ideas.
You are right: finding information about the UI team is not easy. I
would love to see changes in the GNOME website to more easily direct
developers to this important resource.
You can read more about the User Interface team here:
http://developer.gnome.org/gnome-ui/
Miguel.
Oh, Microsoft did do manipulation -- but not against OS/2 until Warp and Windows 95 came out. And per-processor fees also did some damage.
But OS/2 2.x's problem was really that it cost more for both the hardware and software standpoints than Windows 3.1 in 1992. You could run Windows on an old 286 with a meg of RAM -- something utterly impossible with OS/2.
The people Microsoft really hurt were Digital Research from 1985-1995, and Netscape 1995-today. OS/2, as much as I loved it, didn't stand a chance.
Steven E. Ehrbar
I disagree. A multiplicity of choices is almost always a good thing. What is needed is a set of standards that are adopted by all of the different desktop environments.
When there is only one of anything, the pressure to innovate is reduced considerable. I believe that the rapid growth of features in both GNOME and KDE is largely because of a desire each group to outshine the other. That is a *wonderful* thing.
Consider word-processors. Having a plethora of incompatible word processors with different features and file formats creates confusion for the user. However, if there was a standard file format and a standard set of features, users could choose the one that *feels* right to them. Each word processor would then be motivated to add features and usability to gain mind-share. As long as the file-formats stay standard, people could still switch from one to the other seemlessly. And new features that are successful would be adopted by the other word processors to keep up.
I believe desktops are the same. If KDE and GNOME (and whatever comes next) have a standard (or at least interoperable) distributed object model, and a standard set of UI guidelines. People could choose the one that works best for them and use apps designed for either. Both groups would continue to innovate in an effort to outdo the other and everyone would benefit.