Slashdot Mirror
The Future Of The GUI?
Graymalkin sent in a nice article written for fairly novice folks comparing Mac OS X, Microsoft's upcoming .NET, and Nautilus's respective user interfaces. Considering all 3 are still vapor, it'll be even more
interesting to read an article like this in a year, and compare it to
this.
I am not saything there is not anything wrong with the new stuff, I am just saying that the old stuff ain't bad either. At least they work.
Gorkman
You raise an interesting point, worth considering further. I'd suggest that all interfaces limit the user's actions in some way or another. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that all interfaces make certain operations easier and others harder.
:)
Consider:
GUI: viewing a list of files, selecting a bunch of them, and moving them elsewhere is quite easy
CLI: In a strict, single screen CLI is more difficult to view a list of files (list may scroll off the top of the screen), select multiple files (must type each name correctly), and them move them
or,
CLI: With the typical suite of *nix tools, it is fairly easy to examine (more, less, head, tail) and manipulate (cat, vi, |, perl voodoo) documents for a variety of actions
GUI: Must load word processor, then open documents, then manually accomplish each action
But in each case, it *is* possible to accomplish the task. It may just be difficult.
The trick, or perhaps the key, to a good UI is making the most common and most important operations trivial, and providing a good set of tools so all other operations are not overly difficult.
But to do that, requires a good understanding of what people do and how they'd like to do it. I'm concerned that, at least in a few minor cases, UI designers don't know understand how many people work (or maybe I'm just odd).
- Easel will auto-iconify folders based on its content. Thus, a folder of music files gets a music icon.
That would be great if I organized my files by type, but I organize by content. Thus, a given folder is usually a mixed group of filetypes that all share a common (abstract) theme, like "my web page" or "my thesis" or "games". Auto icon-ifying based on filetype will most likely give me misleading icons for most of my folders.
- MSN Explorer, a partial, proto-UI for the next version, has a persistent media player.
Why? I listen to music about 50% of the time I work on a computer. And when I am listening to music, I don't want the media player visible anymore than I want my stereo on my desk/couch/lap when I'm working and listening to music. I want to start the player, and then not have to think about it again.
(I could think of something for Aqua, but I'm tired of writing
But despite my minor quibbles, hopefully the majority of the GUI features of these new guys will allow the important stuff to be done easily.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
Why are you afraid of cookies? Is Big Brother(tm) watching you?
(Big Brother is a registered trademark of Microsoft corporation and is used without consent.)
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Hmmm. Completely objectively, I use Enlightenment to manage my Linux X windows. It is certainly innovative to a level that I find lacking in both Windows (unless they've vastly changed the GUI in Win2k, which I've not yet used) and Mac OS.
A docking bar with a mini-preview-snapshot deal for each "minimized" application. Multiple virtual desktops, with a small map with previews of each application. The ability to scroll over the edge of the screen and have it flip up the next window.
No start bar. No task bar. No stupid menu bar stuck across the top of my screen. No silly pull out control bar. No shortcut bar. BUT a configurable start-type menu that appears anywhere on the background that I left-click. How much more innovative should Linux be before it is released from this myth that the Linux GUI is nothing more than a copy of windows & macintosh?
I do not have a signature
Your Gnome apps? Would need to be completely rewritten. Ditto for the KDE apps.
Everything needs to get recoded using OmniORB, C++, GGI, and the Berlin libs.
As a result, jumping to Berlin means losing all the GUIed applications that you might be running now, from StarOffice to GNOME to Netscape to KDE.
If you run Berlin atop GGI atop X, then maybe you can run some of those concurrently...
It makes you jump through the hoop of applying DPS to everything, which will be quite wonderful for anything that should be WYSIWYG, and which may represent a big "who cares?" for other sorts of applications.
It has the merit over Berlin that there may be some existing NeXTstep and OPENSTEP applications out that would be an "easy port away," and might have a bit more ability to play well with existing X apps.
Unfortunately, both suffer from the same daunting problem that in order to make them useful, there's a whopping lot of code that needs to be written. And they're pretty useless until both libraries, services, and applications get written.
GNUstep is somewhat closer to usefulness, with the added merit that there are parts of it (namely the DPS services/libraries) that can be usable with other graphical environments.
In similar senses, Linux and the BSDs are not particularly "innovative," as they all "merely" represent Yet Another Unix Clone. In contrast, EROS is a truly innovative OS kernel design, but since building a user space to go along with that is daunting, practically nobody uses EROS.
Innovation is pretty cool and all, but I'm just not sure that it actually represents something deployable.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
More innovation has come out of development on Linux than from M$ and crApple combined.
Okay. Let's play a game. You name something innovative done on Linux and I'll tell you the source it originally came from or was inspired by.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I must admit I just don't get Eazel (yet). It appears to me that all it is is a file browser. What the hell do I care about a fancy file browser? I have that with konqueror, and honestly, I can't see any real difference other than look (HUGE icons, like everything in Gnome...WAY too frickin' huge like everyone has vision problems).
Would someone explain to me why Eazel, a mere file browser (web browser?) is in the company of full GUIs like the doze interface IDEA and the MacOS X reality? It is just an app that can be run on an interface system...like gnome or kde for instance.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Yeah, and what's gfm (Gnome File Manager) for then? They make it sound like Gnome was just in total useless disarray before the saintly Eazel came along, and that Eazel is essentially synonymous with the Gnome desktop. I mean, Gnome is a lot more than just one file manager/browser. Seems to me that Eazel is at best a peripheral player who is nicely writing some Free software for Gnome hoping to capitalize on it later. Hardly responsible for Gnome as a whole.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Most problems most people find with today's GUI's are problems because most computers today running GUI's are running windows.
The problems you describe with the icons--Macs don't have those problems. Apple didn't have any dumb DOS filename extensions they could use as a lame argument for not making the icons recognizable, so the file icon *had* to convey what type of file the user was looking at. All you have to do to undertstand what type of file you are dealing with on a mac is LATFI (Look At The Fine Icon). Getting to the argument about the executables and files having the same icons, in most cases, macs have different icons for files and executables. Getting to the whole application integration thing, macs have always been able to do this. A mac file has two basic properties, a creator type and a file type. The creator type says what program the file "belongs" to, and the file type is the file type (jpeg, mp3, etc). When you double click on a file icon (let's say an MP3), the mac will open up the file in MacAmp. Double click a word document, the document
Most of the things you describe in your post are things that macs have been able to do for years. The whole application integration thing has been tackled by applescript, a plain english type of scripting language that has hooks in a great many mac programs. The file/folder system is not a bad system, but it needs to be implemented consistently, like it is on a mac. On a mac, every object is consistently manipulatable. I can choose a different icon for just *one* file of a certain type. If I have a britney spears MP3, I can change the icon from whatever the default mp3 icon is to a pile of dog poo (seems appropriate). I can have the ability to change the icon for a single folder, as well. Every object on a mac (with the exception of trash) is a folderitem--it is either a folder or something that fits in a folder. It can be easily modified, changed, deleted, or moved. Contrast this with windows, where there are regular files/folders, and then there are files/folders that have special "behaviors". Files/Folders like My Computer, Dial Up Networking, Control Panels, Printers, My Documents, etc. These files/folders don't act normally, so they break consistency. Any GUI that breaks consistency with itself is going to be user hostile.
I fail to see why Miguel is so damned impressed with Microsoft.
C:\ONGRTLNS.W2K
What a pud. More innovation has come out of development on Linux than from M$ and crApple combined.
What are you talking about? Completely objectively (I am a user of Windows, Linux, and the Macintosh), the GUIs for Linux are more attempts to outdo Windows than anything else. You won't find much in terms of amazing human engineering or honest innovation, just more doodads.
Very unfortunately, the "we must beat the evil empire" attitude has hurt Linux development in a number of ways. Isn't Linus always saying "there is no war"? Doesn't anyone listen?
I think that the GUI is going to need to take another leap and a few bounds, before it actually improves. What OS X really needs to introduce is voice input. Mac has always had great graphics capability. They are showing commercials that show how easy it is to hook a video camera to the system. They need to push some kind of easy to use send mom the video campaign. I started sending my relatives mp3s of me talking to them already rather than a typee letter. Sure they are larger, but it si almost like a one sided phone call. The technology is here and a 1 meg donload over 56k is about 5 minutes, which is not that bad. If Mac could make this the NORM, then I think it it would be a leap in the right direction. If they could make it standard with voice input, even if it is as a side assistant then it would be real cool. Like prody parrot or something.
If nothing else Mac should introduce handwriting recognition devices as part of its top of the line machines.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
every minute a computer user realizes that eye-candy sugar coated user interfaces are a waste of time and computer resources and detract you form whatever it is you were trying to do before a shitty user interface got in your way.
check out this.
Note that this is not a lame link to goatse.cx or otherwise dried up joke.
GONE FISHING
... as someone who started out with Macs, went to Windows, and finally to Linux, MacOS X is IMHO the best of all worlds as long as they continue to allow access to command line and the ability to hack the interface.
/me ends overshare
I know it's sort of a lame reason to really like an OS. Stability and functionality should be (some of) the most important issues. But I have to admit the only reason I even tried Windows 95 was when I saw that you could replace the shell and use apps like Litestep to totally change the experience. I simply hated MS Windows, but realized the need to get to know it. After that, of course I would be interested in Linux and want to get to know it, since so much of Litestep is based on GUI's used with Linux and Unix. And that helped me get over my admittedly irrational fear of working command line, really hacking the way a computer works, etc.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
I can't understant how anyone can get by without right-click, especially in Windows. I right click everything. Copying/moving/deleting files, viewing properties of just about everything... and for Quake of course, you need at least 3 buttons plus a scroll wheel.
The basic premise of UI and feature design given today's busy desktops is that if it's not on by default it might as well not be there. Very few users change defaults, or even know it can be done. Same with right-click. Very few users know about it or what it does since most of the time right-clicking goves you nothing or nothing useful/understandable.
I think it's just a matter of experience but you can't change user behaviour easily and it's just one of those 'obscure' things most people don't know about.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Last I checked you could purchase an OS X Beta CD for $29US to run on your G3 or G4. And in a few months the full OS will be available to everyone.
All I ever ask for in a GUI is hot keys. I use them as often as the mouse. That's the only thing I can think of that helps me speed up productivity, whether it's Ctrl C/V/X for cut n paste in just about any app(as well as ctrl+shift for more specific cut n paste) or Alt-Tab switching, I use them all the time. Even the weird ones that make you contort your fingers.
While the job of revamping Macintosh and Windows obviously belongs to their respective stewards, the same can't be said for the upstart Linux system. Nobody owns this Unix-based operating system built around the code first created by Finnish programmer Linus Torvalds.
Uhhmmm, actually Linux is owned. Different portions of it are owned by different people. Linus Torvalds owns parts of the kernel, as does Alan Cox and many other people. The GNU utilities are probably owned by the FSF rather than the individual coders who created them. The fact that all of these pieces of code have been licensed under the GPL in no way nullifies anyone's ownership of them.
So many people confuse the GPL with something being in the public domain. If a piece of code was in the public domain, the GPL would be unenforcable. It is only because individuals do own and hold the rights to the code they have created that the GPL has any meaning at all.
Something that a lot of people don't realize is that code licensed under the GPL can be licensed by its creator under other licensing terms which are incompatible with the GPL. Users of that code, who use it under the GPL, do not have such rights, but the copyright holder does. So the next time someone tries to tell you that you can't license your own code to anyone else once you placed it under the GPL, tell them to go study copyright law just a little before they start running their mouth.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
If what you say is true, .NET actually sounds much worse than I thought. First, XML is just a buzzword, one of an infinite number of ways to represent data (it is a useful interchange format, to be sure, but what other vendors does Microsoft want you to interchange your Windows configuration files with?); it does not make object sharing between apps or OSes any simpler than what is available now (read: badly done), it simply makes it more structured for reuse (read: badly done and shared). What you're really saying is the big deal is that all configuration files are accessible and modifyable. I don't believe it but, my goodness, wouldn't that be a absolute support nightmare? It's nice to have a somewhat configurable system, but giving the users the ability to tweak absolutely everything is a disaster waiting to happen.
One thing that strikes me on reading all of this is how the GUI deliberately restricts and channels the actions the user may perform -- "Here is the metaphor, you must make your actions fit this model". .NET very much present a set of actions, a set of ways to show your data and interact with it (I reserve comments on Nautilus, I can't really draw any conclusions on it from the article). For instance, .NET offers different "levels" of user (Basic, Intermediate, presumably "Expert"). Within these, it seems like you can edit some aspects of what that levels means in your interactions with the GUI.
Both Aqua and
But what happens when the desired action isn't made available? When I decide I'd like to be able to drag one document on top of another and concatenate them? (cat doc1 doc2 > doc3 in good old CLI world). I cannot.
It seems like the "dream" GUI really is the CLI / pipe metaphor taken to the next level -- put data in this widget, output it to that widget, send the results of that to my Web site. If only that were possible and easy to use! *That* is the next stage for me -- a visual environment where I am free to hook up components in a meaningful way, and save that "hookup" as a new widget of it's own (The "spell check, reformat, ftp" widget).
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
i dont know what will happen with .net, but i do think two main things are the key to success. a good, solid, stable gui with plenty of configurability, and a good, solid, stable backend, which you can administer via a console.
console/gui hybrids are starting to gain popularity (ie: BeOS, QNX, OS X, etc..), and i feel its important that companies continue along those lines.
a gui cannot do everything, which is why many prefer console. however, millions of users (like your parents, grand parents, etc..) have no clue about bash, csh, or what have you. for them there is the gui.
systems comprised of both, as in OS X, and even Nautilus, among others know this. so the trick seems to be...how to make the gui easy enough for your mother, while still retaining its roots for you, and/or other power users.
sorry if this seems more like a rant then anything else...just my two cents worth i guess...
DevPlanet.org
One of the things they mention as a feature they want for .NET (it sounded like eventually, but they might want it right away) is to have one "entry field" where you would do whatever you wanted to - write a letter, e-mail, or paint a picture (I presume) and it would figure out what you were trying to do. Basically, God Emperor of Office Assistant.
.NET and OSX and that other thing seemed nice, they really had nothing at all innovative. I like OSX and the concept of various levels of user interfaces in the other product sounded great, but these are all just re-hashing of ideas we have seen before. Granted they might be very GOOD rehashing as we have learned through iteration, but they are not really unique.
I think that approach is fundamentally flawed, and the constant instance that it is the right thing to do infests all Microsoft products. There's such a thing as the right tool for a job, and just as I would not start framing a basement without a hammer, nails and two-by-fours I also would not start a task of any sort by simply starting to work and then figuring out what tools I need as I go along.
Even in Emacs, greatly and wrongly derided for being the kitchen sink of all applications, you choose a mode to work in before you actually start work and thus many task specific features are made available to you.
My other thought was that while
It's time for some real experimentation. Where are the 3D GUI's? What about a GUI with a lite-brite set used for application control?
One of my own crazy pet theories is that the world of comics offers much in the way of possibilities for computer GUI's. After reading "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud over the years (sorry, too lazy to produce a link right now) it really seems that somewhere lurking in the mechanism of how readers perceive flow and structure in a comic has something interesting, new and relevant to say about the way humans interact with computers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No start bar. No task bar. No stupid menu bar stuck across the top of my screen. No silly pull out control bar. No shortcut bar. BUT a configurable start-type menu that appears anywhere on the background that I left-click. How much more innovative should Linux be before it is released from this myth that the Linux GUI is nothing more than a copy of windows & macintosh.
What you are describing is the standard X interface from 1987. The trouble is that raw X--or raw X prettied up with alpha-blended windows--is not close to the usability level of the Windows or Mac, primarily because there are no interface standards. Desktop environments, like KDE and Gnome, are attempts to make Linux more luxurious and pleasant. But that movement, from raw X to desktop environment, is pretty much a "Microsoft is doing it so we will too!" game. That's what this thread is about.
This from Neal Stephenson explains why almost all of our current UIs are crap myself I find myself in console more and more often also I find that when I'm helping someone I take them into the CLI. It is in many ways just easier now I know this is not for everyone but the limitations of a GUI make it impossible to create something that is *really* good.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
After which the article immediately notes:
"(Gates is well aware of the irony--the old command line, left for dead, is back!)"
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
We listen. So do the people running the KDE and GNOME projects. Remember that pretty much every modern GUI is somehow a rip-off of the original by Xerox. This includes both Windows and MacOS, as well as most Unix GUIs. As for KDE and GNOME, both have (IIRC) publically stated that their first objective is to match Windows and MacOS in usability terms before they move on and start trying new things, although both are already doing some new things... Windows (the versions I've used, at least) doesn't nearly match the number of interface options available with either KDE or GNOME.
-RickHunter
I'm not so sure the "beat the evil empire" thing is altogether bad. I agree that most efforts seem to be an attempt to out-Windows Windows and that probably isn't inherently good. However it does provide a competitive influence as a driver. Windows sets a benchmark to beat. Right now linux is beating that benchmark in some ways and has a ways to go in other areas. But without Windows (or some similar dominant system) I seriously doubt that linux would be getting as much development effort as it is. You have to admit that there are more than a few developers working on linux simply because they don't like Windows/Microsoft.
Linus himself may not be at war, but for better or worse a lot of linux developers certainly are.
Is it just me, or does .NET feel like a dumbing down of the Windows UI to AOL levels to other people too? Perhaps, I'm not thinking outside the box enough, but where's the desktop? Where do things get done? Does anyone have more info on how the .NET desktop works?
Did you check out windowmaker?
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
When I complain that the whole metaphor for desktop objects that virtualize objects like 'folders' instead of oraganizing around work or processes or workflows or the logical reason for collecting objects... I get flamed for CWG (computing while geezer) and that everyone young has no trouble with this. I'll reapeat myself. The entire notion of organizing a GUI around "LOCATIONS" on a PC is completely bogus. The entire notion of creating a desktop on your PC is bogus. I don't want to organize something on my PC I can't organize in the solid world. That's why I have a PC. I don't care about folder names or file paths. Other than the fact that it is a kludgey mnemonic for ME to assign context to a collection of objects it has no bearing. The GUI, to be useful must have two basic attributes: First it has to be event driven so that the appearance and function change with events that trigger it. So the GUI takes on visual attributes that are useful for say document processing vs. ftp vs. backup administration. So that File, Edit, View..... actually have some real context built into them and mean, do and appear like different things depending on what I'm doing. Print for example has no meaning if the app if WinAmp so why would not put EQ there instead (silly example but you get the gist. And second, the GUI has to be flow, or if you prefer, event sequenced context driven object oriented, organized so that if I have 35 different file objects related to task "project 1" and they have different formats and sources, I can collect and use them in-flow without having to open each app and laboriously open-review-cut-paste......print.
Why for example do you have to start an equalizer and then drag artifacts up and down or side to side. Why not just have a functional driver that allows you to 'other mouse button click' swipe the pointer anywhere in any direction to do something like increase volume? Why can't we make use of 'tics' small dedicated mouse movements that trigger discrete events like poping a document, print, pan left-right.
PS. I can't wait until the new edition of Hackers is released! I've been looking for it for a couple years now.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
and why is the common Java joke - write once, debug everywhere.
That debugging effort does not come cheap. If people wrote their JVM's right, it shouldn't be necessary.
But it is.
therefore, it is CHEAPER, in the long run, for a developer to write for one platform only - and if they can eliminate all the other platforms through strategic chicanery, they have all the benefits of single-platform development, without the drawbacks (missing large market segments).
Of course, as we all know, this does ignore the needs of the user. Well, who cares about the needs of the user. If they've got a wallet, that's all the developer needs.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Wow, that's cool. I didn't know that Apple gave Xerox stock. I understood that Xerox (this was at the PARC center, I know it's redundant, it just sounds stupid otherwise) was letting pretty much anyone use what they made (this is comming from the biography on Steve Jobs, I forget which one)
You'll have to do a bit of searching, but if I remember correctly, Steve Wozniak discusses this at his site -- http://woz.org. He started getting a lot of emails when Pirates aired, and I believe he covered this topic in at least one email that was posted to the site.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
This was an MSNBC link, right? Not Segfault?
Are they serious? That has such a Austin Powers, "hilariously frozen in time and don't know what's going on in the rest of the world" sound to it. I can just picture Gates in his silver Dr. Evil suit, explaining to his assistants the potential of the (making quote marks in air with fingers) "commands line" and the "laser".
I've always liked the flexibility that OS/2's WorkPlace Shell afforded me. I could modify the right-mouse-click menu to include links to all the apps I used. This menu popped up anywhere I did a right-mouse click. No need to move the mouse pointer to some silly dock or to the start button on a start menu - always right there wherever my mousepointer already was. Schweet.
I'd rather not have any screenspace taken up by a dock.
Considering all 3 are still vapor, it'll be even more interesting to read an article like this in a year, and compare it to this. Why, that's actually a good idea. You guys get dinged a lot for seemingly "recycling" articles from time to time, but you've identified a legitimate reason to do exactly that.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
Wow, so 95% of the users could get by with a one-button mouse?
Some company should come up with a one-button mouse.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
"Creating the interface for the Mac was like being in a jungle with a compass that worked one day a month, not knowing if you were headed for a river or a mountain or a snake pit," Jobs says now. "And thinking there might be a pot of gold at the end, but also not sure if it wasn't a pot of fool's gold."
..
sounds like the old Atari 2600 Pitfall game
Why does everyone keep making these GUIs look so much like damned cartoons. And why incorporate so much unnecessary shit? What ever happened to a simple GUI that is functional and doesn't look like it was designed to entertain 5 year olds.
Sorry, that's a little cruel. But whenever I see a piece by Stephen Levy it always starts out with a rant about how Jobs et al. changed the world. Whereupon my eyes glaze over and I have to go do something else.
I mean, even if it were true, I'd be a little tired of hearing it.
__________________
Having tried Nautilus myself I can say its very usable already, if you ignore the slowth and occasional crashes that is. I've also noticed that Nautilus' performance and stability is increasing week by week (yes, more so than with Mozilla), the only thing I'm hoping for is that they put in some more threading.
As for .NET, that is indeed barely a framework-in-progress though their MSN browser already exists though I doubt the ``universal type-in line'' will ever work... it will certainly not be welcomed by Microsoft's target audience, the people who want pretty things to click.
Monkey sense
Who ISN'T a member of least one small minority of users that find feature X in application Y useful to them. It's bound to happen in any application/OS with thousands of features and millions of users (no bug count jokes, please). WTF should we chop it out?
(end comment) */ }
(end comment) */ }
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Here's the deal...although the interface now may look clunky (which I admit it does), the .NET strategem includes XML. And what does this mean to you? It means that the whole damn interface will be extensible through just some simple (or not-so-simple, depending on your preferences) editing of XML configuration file(s). This means that your entire GUI, not just the window hangings, not just the widgets...the WHOLE thing, will be extensible to any document format that's supported under XML. I know Apple has got XML configuration down in Mac OS X, but I don't think it's as widespread throughout the OS, as in Microsoft's case. And since ALL MS products are moving to the XML base, theoretically you should be able to click on a link, see your most commonly used Office documents, and then have one of them "materialize" on your desktop, workspace, whatever, SEAMLESSLY. Imagine having several programs/documents open at the same time and be able to seamlessly operate between them, as if they were one program.
.NET frameworks get ported to other OSes (think Linux), this same extensibility will be there in all .NET platforms, with the same commonality features. No more Windows, Linux, or Mac specific GUI's. One person's interface on a Linux box will be able to be used on any other platform. Just copy the XML config files (and the appropriate extensions) and you're done. No porting necessary.
.NET frameworks on your platform, the app will work.
.NET and just having it run on your Linux box...no modifications needed.
And you think Enlightenment is customizable? Heh. MS isn't playing here. This is gonna be a BIG thing.
And think of this...once the
They're going for COMMONALITY here people. They realize the money's not in the OS any more, it's in the applications. As long as you have the
Period.
Imagine going to the store and buying Microsoft Office
This, I think will be a very exciting thing.
-Kevin, MSCE+I, MCT
My posts don't reflect the opinion of my employer, and my employer's opinion doesn't influence the content of my posts.
You think after the rash of virii this sort of thinking has already spawned, they might rethink it? Not a chance. Just wait for the next level.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
So, you will be more productive in an office loaded with people yacking at their computers? You will like your environment more when people have to chatter at their computer? Noise, noise, noise and lots of distraction.
Send private emails via voice. Eh? What's the point of making them private then if you are going to broadcast the content to the office/coworkers, etc by yacking out loud to your computer?
Ever work in a scientific lab? Want to try to do scientific data manipulation, paper writing, etc, by having to talk out loud - along with all your fellow labmates? Wont work and totally undesireable. We have 3 computers per lab bay in my bio lab. They are used constantly. I don't want to be distracted with the constant chatter that would be required to handle a primary voice-driven interface. I would have to yell "SHUT THE F*CK UP!" all the time so I could think and get my research done.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
The article appeared in this week's issue of Newsweek. (Unfortunately, if you go to www.newsweek.com, it takes you to MSNBC.) The interesting thing I noticed was that the screen capture of Nautilus is completely different in the print version, while MacOS X and Microsoft .NET are the same as in the online version.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
This is simply untrue. You can download Nautilus PR2 and test it and the Eazel services out. In addition you can download hourly RPM builds of Nautilus. I've been running these for a few weeks now and it's coming along nicely.
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
OS X is NOT vapor you moron!
;-))
Server has been out for over a year (okay, not relevant to the GUI discussion) - and X consumer has been in beta for two months with tens of thousands of users. Nothin but screenshots is vapor. Actual CD's is substantial.
An uptime of 3 weeks for a beta - is phenomenal (disclaimer - I'm used to Windoze and Classic Mac OS; my new e250 at work is doing pretty well too
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, you took the words right out of my keyboard. As much as I like linux - unless I want to play some game linux is the only thing I use for EVERYTHING else - it is NOT innovative. Don't get me wrong, I like it and it is nicely functional, but everthing in it is cloned from old unix or copied from windoze or the mac. The Gimp? A clone of photoshop. KDE and Gnome? Both borrow heavily from windoze (and one could argue from OS/2 Warp). You can even make KDE pretend to look like Aqua OR the old MacOS.
As I think about it, I can't bring to mind ANY innovative design or software package that is really something only in linux and not preexistent in windoze or the mac world.
I will keep on using linux, that is a fact, but I honestly cannot say there is innovation there. It is a good game of catchup, but not of "catch ME!" with linux. Certainly not yet, at any rate.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
No.
You do not understand the purpose of GNOME and KDE. They are not intended to be good GUIs! They are not intended to be revolutionize the user experience. If you go into them expecting that, then yes, you are going to be disappointed.
Listen to Miguel some time, and he will tell you exactly what he is doing with Helix, and his reasons really apply to all the GNOME/KDE stuff. This software is intended for infiltration. They are deliberately intended to be like Win9x, so that Win9x users will feel at home. The purpose of these GUIs isn't to make Unix easy to use; it's to make Unix familiar to former Windows users.
Once you understand that, then you will appreciate GNOME/KDE more for what they are. And yes, you will also become restless and wonder where the real innovation is happening. And I can't help you with that, because I don't know either. But KDE's lameness doesn't prove anything, except the obvious: software that deliberately attempts to be lame, will succeed at being lame very well.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
They need to be able to see what things are. Right now, our system of icons just doesn't work well enough -- see the iloveyou, which apparently was partly perpetrated by the fact that the text icon looks similar to the script icon. (At least, that's what I heard.) Documents often have the same icon as the related executable. When the icons are small, they're had to identify. Etc, etc. One person suggested that they'd like a color-coding system: for instance, all text/word processor documents are green (or shades of green), perhaps along with an icon to identify exactly what type it is. Executables are red. A directory window full of music might have a blue border around it, but the documents folder has green. Nautilus makes a big deal of quickly seeing what information is where; perhaps this will be a good step.
The other thing they want is application integration. For instance, if they go to file/open, and open a text document, they want an editor. If they then open an MP3 file, a player should show up. You should be able to click a button in your spreadsheet program and have it sent via e-mail to everyone in your address book. This, of course, runs counter to the unix way of doing things in a lot of ways -- lots of small programs that each have their seperate task. (Disregard that if you use emacs, of course :) It seems that M$ has the jump on everyone there, with the mentality that every program should do everything. (I think it makes for shoddy software, but apparently a lot of people like it.)
To make the unix way of doing things more attractive to these people, I think the best move is to make sure that all programs work together in a standard way. Right now, we have the GNOME and KDE projects that try to set standards, but what if we think a bit bigger? For instance, a body could be chosen that could set exacting standards for how specific applications work. (For instance, an e-mail program can be invoked like so, reads a global address book from such-and-such, etc.) Then, I can imagine (for instance) a toolbar or global menu that has a send e-mail button on it. If you press it, the system tells the current application, "The user wants to send something via e-mail." The application returns what it is they want to send (for instance, the current document.) Then, it's sent to the e-mail program for processing. You could switch from one program to another and continue to use it in the same manner you always have been.
I don't know if that's the best way of doing it, or exactly what kind of interface and technical details would be needed, but it's definately within our grasp. (And here I am, the one who usually says that we don't need to pander to the Windows users, but ... hey, I think this would be useful too.)
Finally, about this stuff about getting rid of the files/folders analogy: all the people I've talked to say "don't." As has been pointed out, there's a lot of data on a computer. Some sort of hierarchical method of organization is necessary. I've heard suggestions of organization based on type of data, rather than by what's related to it (like we generally do now), and that may be doable, but the folders analogy makes sense to them. Until someone can give a convincing alternative that makes more sense, we should hold on to it.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
It's beta, I've used it. Anyone can purchase it. That qualifies as vapor?
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
I suppose this quite usable beta's of ASP+ and the .NET stuff and C# im using are just my imagination... yes thats it... I hate bias like that without obvious and ismple fact checking
Jeremy
I've been using MacOS X PB for a few months now and I still for the most part don't like the interface (too much fluff). But... I really have started to loose the sense that I'm running individual applications.
The windows from any 'application layer' can be interchanged (I can have a browser window from IE, then a terminal window, then my Macster window, then another IE window, etc.)
I rarely end up using the 'desktop' to search for applications anymore as I've but 99% of my most used Apps in the dock...
Anyway... strange sensation...
Not to make a federal case of it, but should the browser be an adjunct to the interface--or should it become the interface itself?
God help us.
and maybe the results will infuse new energy into the aging PC itself
sarcasm.start(cluelessauthor); What we need to do is replace PC's with a better - more NOW! - interface... yeah! Video, Sound and Text dont cut it anymore... we need a new paradigmn man - we need to think outside the box...sarcasm.end(cluelessauthor);
What a load of crap. Dont get me wrong, I love change, I love to see new technolody and real innovation - but does anyone else get the feeling that there is a force right now in computing pushing 'change' for change's sake? I dont get it, Im pretty convinced that the PC 'idea' is still a pretty good one. Other 'technology devices' have value for specific functions, but its pretty hard to argue that the power and adaptability of a PC. A PC has a lot to offer to those devices in order to 'empower them' to some degree. Short of creating all 'tech devices' equal (making them 'self-aware' and 'self-discovring' in an adhoc 'peer-to-peer' network) I cant see the PC being replaced any time soon.
As for the first quote above - what a horrible prospect... havnt these people ever heard of XWindows? I mean, isnt the browser a replacment for the 'network portability' of an X App? How much 'easier' would life be if a browser was an XServer - or tech of similar mind... just an idea...
MSXML.
.NET exists on other platforms, it will be to lure people into dependence on .NET. Then, when .NET achieves dominance, they will slowly decrease cross-platform parity. Certain features won't be implemented on non-windows. Performance and stability on non-windows will lag. The disparity will ramp slowly, until people who may have been on other platforms, slowly migrate to windows to mitigate their own support costs. Cutting development costs on MS's end is the main goal, but dominance is a sweet side benefit.
'nuff said.
no. not 'nuff said. The money is not necessarily in the OS, and never was. It's in control. Domination. The middleware. The platform. Sure, MS may port to other platforms, to get seats - but don't believe for one minute that that will not be used as a migration tactic. Cross platform development doubles the developer's costs. Even with Java. If
Same shit, different day.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Really? I guess the definition of "crude" is subjective, but I don't know where the "no one was willing" bit comes from. I guess both the Gnome and KDE folks are trying for a barely mediocre interface, too fearful of what the fame and fortune of being "world-class" might bring them....
And, just my opinion, but I felt that particular prototype of .NET looked damn dumb - very busy, much like a poorly laid out web-site or magazine.
I'm really curious to hear other opinions on this... I've never really heard a really good argument as to why every damn window needs to look like a browser, or why some people have this driving desire to get away from "simpler" GUI layouts.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
The point the article was making is that Eazel is a "revolutionary" GUI. We all know KDE and Gnome, while they are "world-class" GUIS, are basically trying there hardest to replicate the Windows 9x look&feel.
The other thing they want is application integration. For instance, if they go to file/open, and open a text document, they want an editor. If they then open an MP3 file, a player should show up. You should be able to click a button in your spreadsheet program and have it sent via e-mail to everyone in your address book.
I know how elistist this sounds, but you pretty much just described OpenDoc. It was a document-centric application technology that shipped as part of some previous versions of Mac OS. There were container applications that could open spreadsheets, word processing docs, graphics, etc. There was even a component-based internet client called CyberDog. It became apparently that the world wasn't really ready to take this concept on yet, though.
Now, from what it sounds like from reading this article, an ex-Apple guy is championing a similar concept at Microsoft.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
I don't know about the rest of you but I'd prefer a more basic user interface. It might not be pretty, but it gets the job done...
How about an HAL 9000 style interface?
Capt. Ron
crazy dynamite monkey
not trying to troll, just trying to point out that Microsoft did NOT invent the GUI, that was Xerox, but Apple had the first commercial one.
And furthermore, Apple had Xerox's permission to use those concepts, contrary to the way it was depicted in "Pirates of Silicon Valley." Apple gave Xerox tons of stock to be able to work with their engineers. I suppose that aspect was not dramatic enough to be included in the movie. Unfortunately, now most of the country has a distorted version of history implanted in their minds.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
You can download nightly builds of Nautilus at nautilus.eazel.com. Hardly vaporware.
Sensual: Running a feather down your lover's body
Kinky: Using the whole chicken
It's a very dark ride.
Interface Should Be Invisible
Only recently have I encountered this concept starting to surface in places like the Enlightenment WM. If you're running pure E without Gnome, there is no start menu, no status bar, no obstuction to the task at hand... If you're not running something, all you see is the background, fullscreen. The menu comes up when you click. That has its PROs and CONs, of course... If you're running lots of windows, it is too much easier to click what *is* there than what *isn't*.
Instant Readiness
"I should be able to pick up my MIDI keyboard and start playing. I should be able to draw five lines on the tablet, at the computer should know it's a staff for composing music." None of this wait-ten-minutes-as-I-boot crap either. BEOS lowered the bar on unnecessary boot times. MS Windows swears that Whistler and whatever follows will boot in 20 seconds and 10 seconds respectively. (I gotta SEE that!) But these stupid enumerations and initializations are not what a computing appliance should be wasting our time doing. Today's sleep and suspend modes are just a hint at *the right thing*, at the ready, and even those aren't as instant as they should be.
One of the best lines in the video was his description of the Amiga applications of that day. (Like most older European software...) "Some programs were really bad... I mean, CREATIVELY bad! You'd have a maze of buttons, all alike, and somewhere in the center, is the exit!" We've come a long way...
Hundreds of millions on dollars spent on GUI redesign and they came up with the command line.
Dave
Andamooka: Open support for open content.
the .NET beta does have the new gui you know, so it isn't vapor..
If by describing OSX as Vapor, you mean freely usable in its Beta form, then I guess you're right. Somehow, I'm thinking you're not, tho.
.NET is barely a framework-in-progress...
I mean, come on, Eazel's entire existence is a collection of screen shots thus far, and
What does it mean to wake out of a dream and be wearing someone else's shorts? (BNL)
What does it mean to wake out of a dream
and be wearing someone else's shorts?
BNL, Born on a Pirate Ship (1998)
Current GUI's are not all that awful. Sure, some of them are confusing -- but there are others that are not. I can't make heads or tails of a Mac interface (then again, I've never really tried) -- but sit me in front of a CDE or Windows or anything else and it's as comfortable as the command line.
Keyboards, mice and their current alternatives, however, suck much ass. Cramps, slow input, wilting eyesight . . . The few alternatives that exist today are just as likely to disappear from shelves tomorrow and even when they work, they are either expensive or difficult to operate.
---
seumas.com