Slashdot Mirror
XPde: Cloning the XP Interface
An anonymous reader writes "Over at XPde.com, a clone of the Windows XP interface is progressing. They aim to copy the XP interface down to every last detail- with exceptions for text that specifically mentions Windows XP or Microsoft. Their project seems to be coming along well, and assuming they meet their goal, nobody can complain about Linux not being enough like XP. Here is the screenshots page." Depends what you like, I suppose ;)
This seems to directly address the complaint that new users won't have a conceptual base to start on linux. While this is a good idea, I still think that new users should get some sort of introduction to the open source and its ideals. I know I know that users simply want to use the computer for work, but as we head off into this new digital age where everything can be controlled, perhaps they should also learn that switching from windows to linux, means that they are the ones in control and not business.
any way, thanks for readinging
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Why does this seem to me as another occurence of Embrace and extend? The only difference is it isnt Microsofts doing this time.
Before we get a million posts about how Microsoft is going to start launching lawsuits, it's worth pointing out that Microsoft has zero history of using lawsuits as a weapon. You'll note that Wine, Samba and a million Windows lookalikes already exist.
And no, the Lindows thing has nothing to do with killing Lindows. That's a legitimate trademark infringement. You may not agree with it, but it's not a nuisance suit. Personally, I wish Lindows would just find another name. That name sucks (but I digress).
If you want true Lawsuit Evil, look at Apple, but Microsoft is clean on this issue.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Why the hell are these people cloning the Windows UI?!
Because it's a "local maximum". It takes effort to go from one local maximum to another. This XPde is designed to teleport the user directly from a local maximum on Windows to a corresponding local maximum on *n?x, so that you can separate adapting to the OS and adapting to the UI into separate tasks.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This is ONE "project" out of thousands and thousands of others on the net (which anyone can start) which happens to use the Linux kernel as their basic platform. No, this is not the official "Linux position." The only reason this project exists is because a group of people have a "particular itch" in this particular area, and rather than bitch about it on slashdot (and get modded up to 5, no less) like some wannabe news editorial writer, they construtively did something about it. This, in no way, prevents you from creating a similar project to make Linux look different, and many projects exist to do just that, but you will never know that because, just like many other /.'ers, you are too lazy to do a little research before posting. Why should you when the moderators are too lazy to think for themselves, anyway?
I realize you probably still don't understand what I am talking about, so here in an analogy. There are some women in this world that think all men abuse and beat women. They complain and they talk down about men, but they always seem to get in a relationship were they get knocked around. Me, being a man and having never beaten a woman, know this is a falsity. In fact, I assume the majority of men do no beat women. However, these particular women have certain choice parterns which constantly expose them to the same kind of man. Believe me, saying "men" encompasses as diverse a group as saying "Linux users."
My personal analysis is that you (and the moderators that modded you up) have been constantly exposing themselves to the same type of Linux user/developer/slashdot info. There are many more projects that make Linux unique than that make it similar to XP. However, like the disillusioned woman I mentioned earlier, you only know how to get information that reinforces your prejudice. Articles posted at slashdot about projects that make Linux "unique" probably go unnoticed by you, as you immediately scroll to the "XP look alike" article.
Believe me, you are not describing Linux users, just your stereotypes towards Linux.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
They say Microsoft sucks but then they waste their time copying it.
"They" used to refer to the monolithic linux community, which has one uniform set of opinions and makes sure that all public commentary "they" present in a consistent and unified manner. And saying "they" to refer to linux users ("us" for win32 users) ignores the well established fact that a great number of installations are dual-boot with windows.
Why would someone want to "migrate" to something that looks the same and can't run most software?
Lower cost would probably be the most likely reason (obviously someone hasn't see the $200 wal-mart PC and hoards of governments and companies switching or considering switching to lower costs). And, most software that is commonly used is available for linux in some alternate form that's good enough for most (IE-Mozilla, Office-StarOffice, Outlook-Evolution, etc).
This time could have been used creating something better that would give Linux (and its users) an advantage. Instead, it was wasted making Linux look more and more like Windows.
Once more, the paradigm of a team consisting of a fixed number of salaried programmers is applied to free software. HELLO, wake up call. Obviously someone's slept through the revelation that free software is developed by a large number of only loosly associated programmers, and the number is very large and highly variable.
He's not getting paid to work on "something" and they squandering that paid time developing something that doesn't advance linux as a whole as much as something else. He's doing something he finds interesting. It's not wasted time. It's time well spent, from his perspective. That is what matters.
It's also possible that others will want to use it. I can see how it could be used to overcome much of the "learning curve" objections to switching for some people.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Does this mean the clipboard works across all programs?!?
Because that is the one thing I really wish worked properly in Linux. If nothing else, MS has the clipboard available throughout ALL programs I run. If I select something and hit CTRL-C, in Windows I KNOW it will be available to me when I open (Insert favorite application here) for a CTRL-V.
Is the clipboard built into the kernel of Windows? If so, maybe thats an option Linux needs to copy?
And don't even get me started on printing...
You keep going until you die..."Me".
Well, I have some very large experience on using several desktops. And I think I know enough about them to say that people will not change systems just for the desktop. While this thing is very important, the problem on using one or the other desktop is the range of services such system may offer and the way someone gets used to it.
During the middle of the 90's I saw lots of people that considered the Windows desktop as "horrible". But you would be admired to see that they used some highly primitive and simple apps made on DOS. Sysadmins linked all these apps with small batch files and highly primitive menus. And people were happy with it. When things started moving into Windows95, these people got lost. They couldn't get used to this new system for quite some long time. And most of them, till now, don't know what is the "Start" menu. They launch their programs from the icons laying in the desktop. And they don't give a Hell if the program is Internet Explorer or Mozilla if it carries the same interface (yeap I saw this funny thing some time ago). And not because it is better or worser but because it allows the same mechanical, routine movements without thinking about what's behind the GUI.
On *NIX, most of the choice around an interface is made on what you are offered at first. Most Mandrake people prefer KDE, Others give preference for Gnome. And, they rarely have seen they could have a choice. Due to the fact that they got used to these things, they rarely change sides. I, during my work on several interfaces in the very early ages of Linux, got used to the AfterStep interface. And I have noted that, today, I naturally prefer something like WindowMaker or BlackBox. This brings up an interesting effect. In two works, due to certain constraints, I use KDE or Gnome. And, for me it is pretty clear that 90% of these systems offer, are completely superfluous for me. But a mix of necessity and lazyness to change interfaces, keep me having them there.
Will people change to Linux because of the XP interface? No. They will change when you offer the same mechanics of using their machines everyday. And that means copying not only the interface per se, but also making all the horrors that people do with it and making every application look similar. When someone brings up that mess, people will change the OS. But not because it is Linux. Frankly, they will not note a difference.
Note. In certain cicumstances, it is possible today to offer systems carrying a range of services very similar to what Windows offer at start. I did that in 1999 with stations that were used only and exclusively for Internet browsing. When KDE is configured as much as possible as a Windows interface, a good mass of people do not give a hint about what OS they are working on. And this things was damn popular. While in Windows NT, these University classes had only 2500 users. When on Linux, there were no less than 7000. And just because the Linux was solid stable and fast... as the interfaces were nearly the same... And only after a talk or some weirdness on some program, people realised that they were not working on Windows.
However, I would not recomend to any sysadmin to see the horrors these people did with their desktops... Most of them looked as happy hippy vans...
I have to admit, I was getting ready to hate this project after reading the summary, but before following any links. But after I saw it and thought about it a while, I love it. I'll never use it myself, but I thought, "what better way to help in the process of using those poor lost windows-only souls than make an environment which is so much like what they're used to that they won't notice the difference?"
From my own anecdotal evidence, I find that computer users can usually be classified in one of three groups:
Experts: these are the people who eat, sleep, live the technology for whatever purpose (hobby, professional choice, curiosity, whatever). They are typically curious and will be delighted by anything that does The Right Thing, or works well, or is just plain cool regardless of the source. These people typically have no problem running two or three operating systems on as many boxes (or more, or even less) under / on / in / near their desks / racks / etc. They are the software engineers, the curious hobbyists, the sys admins of large organizations (e.g., universities), the folks that learned how to program at age 12 "just for fun", etc. In the early industry, these made up most of the user base of computers (large and small).
Intermediates or Power Users: these users are typically very familiar with the end-user features of one (maybe two) OSes. They could tell you all kinds of tricks like how to re-order your Apple menu (anyone remember Mac OS 7-9?) by copying and pasting carriage returns into the first part of directory / file names and how to "unstick" Word when it won't load without having to reinstall Office. They know enough to be dangerous on a network, but not enough to properly care for other users. These are typically the most active in the OS religious (flame) wars. As personal computers became more accessible (enter Apple II, IBM PC, etc.), these users began to dominate the population.
Beginners: these are what BOFHs call lusers. They are the most ignorant of the bunch, and typically have an attitude of, "I just want the damned thing to work, I don't care how". These folks know just enough to do what they want to do on a daily basis, but aren't very good at troubleshooting problems when they occur without help. These make up most of the computer-using population today.
There is nothing inherently superior or inferior about any particular group. It's just how things are. To date, it has been extremely hard to convince members of the last two groups (beginners and intermediates) to go outside of their respective comfort zones (i.e., try new operating systems). I believe the middle group is nearly impossible to convert as there are as many emotional ties to their underlying choices as there are knowledge ones.
However, with this project, I think the conversion of the beginners group just got easier by several orders of magnitude. They don't care, as long as it works. If it looks and acts very similar to what they're already used to (and by very similar, I mean exact for day-to-day use and similar for more infrequent tasks like network configuration, etc.), then they are much less likely to notice that they are running Linux vs. Windows. This is a very good thing. Intermediates and experts can still use sawfish or twm or the console or whatever they choose, but beginners now have hope for a viable (and understandable) interface. This is truly wonderful, as an increased user base will help legitimize the efforts of Linux on the desktop. Kudos and respect to the xpde team for some truly outstanding work.
moto411.com
Not There Yet in comparison to OS X -- and they never will be until the Linux world stops chasing a goal that's not worth reaching in the first place, the shitty Microsoft interface.
I agree with most of your underlying points. The Mac OSX interface is functional. It's ugly in color scheme, of course, and I'd say down-right reupulsive. But it's quite functional and it does "FEEL" right.
Where I disagree with you is that Microsoft's interface is shitty. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even though Microsoft's classic 9x/2000 look is steril, it FEELS right. Hovers, Drags, Movements all feel like they work as they should. Even context menus and icon behavior feels like it works, even if (as someone else has said) it feels that it's working when it actually isn't.
In that, Microsoft's interface could be said to be "ugly" too, and the XP Blue theme is definately high in gayness points. XP Silver look nice, in my opinion but then that's what the LOOKS boil down to. Opinion. I haven't seen too many interfaces that I think LOOK nice, but as long as they feel right, I don't care what they look like.
Both Mac OS X and Windows FEEL right. They feel like they function, and dispite what other problems some people may have out of XP, I have a rock solid system that I've configured to look rather nice (and minimalistic) by disabling all of the stupid shit, an option I'm glad I have with Windows. I am, after all, a Shell person first, and a Minimalist GUI person next.
KDE and GNome aren't "Quite There Yet", but XPde looks like it might be worth following. So they've managed to make it look like Windows. If it doesn't FEEL like Windows it won't matter one bit in the end. I shall give this a try, but since it is based on the XWindow System I have very low expectations from it. X is the problem, in my opinion and a whole new ground-up desktop is what is needed. In that respect, yes, something more like OS X.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Um, what about the change from Windows 98/2000 to Windows XP? It looked somewhat similar, and acted mostly similar, but there were a LOT of changes.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
I respectfully disagree.
The Ms Window interface is not 'crappy'. It is composed almost completely of "borrowed" elements from competing interfaces. If those elements are now crappy then they must have been crappy also in their original forms on Unix / Linux / OS2 / Macintosh desktops. I don't think they were then or now. Though if you are saying that too many spices can ruin the stew then I would agreee with that, though KDE is more guilty in that respect I think.
Having an interface available which will require zero retraining for end users will save businesses so much money as they transition from MS lock-in to the more diverse, less expensive, more robust, equivalent Free Software. Regardless of whether an XP inspired interface becomes popular on Linux there will always be new, different, innovative, experimental interfaces being developed and available for Linux, so having one more which is perceived as familiar and intuitive to trained office drones is nothing to worry about.
You say we should not emulate what you consider a bad environment becuase people should be shown that it is not an industry standard? With all due respect, that is nonsense. Linux will never get that chance unless it can continue to grab desktop marketshare and that cannot happen unless the transition is seamless from one environment to the other. Linux must achieve parity before it could ever hope to lead people in a new direction. And due to the diverse nature of Open and Free software Linux can never force people to go anywhere; like a liquid, they will find their own path.
Lastly, the recent 'M$ FUD about the OSS community being'... essentially copycats is meant to make people like you fear being called a copycat and spending your time developing lots of new, unproven, and impractical, but innovative, and possibly occasionally successful, user interface enhancements which would make Linux an ungainly albatross but from which they could cherry pick the gems for their next platform. If you fall for this cheap psychological trick then you become MS's unpaid alpha version developers.