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 ;)
Try making him learn to administrate his computer a bit better. There is no reason winXP shouldn't be as stable as something like Linux if adminstrated properly. This is mainly because of Microsoft's improved quality and driver testing facilities since XP.
Funny, that desktop pic looks an awful lot like the one I'm using... on OS X.
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
Just so this post isn't totally devoid of content, there seems to be a contingent of Linux advocates (mostly on usenet although I'm sure there are some here), that believe efficiency > usability
That seems like total bunk to me, just because something is easy to grasp doesn't mean that it's less efficient.. okay so there are certain things that are, but using it as a coverall dismissal at any remotely useable UI seems more like "I HAVEN'T GOT IT SO YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER!" paddying.
I am a longtime Linux user. I do not work in tech. Here is what I think:
efficiency > usability.
But for me, efficiency != economy of thought, but rather, economy of required action. This is why I use Linux. Because no file manager will ever come close to matching the speed with which I can manage my library of personal files (100+GB of photos and word processing documents which are chapters from my books or articles or research) in Linux.
There are a lot of people who will never invest the time necessary to learn to use Linux or UNIX at the shell prompt, or learn to use the integration features in desktops like KDE which really link the desktop to the shell effectively. There is nothing wrong with not learning this stuff; it's definitely harder to learn and involves a larger investment of time than learning how to click around OS X.
HOWEVER, don't begrudge those of us who do use the power of UNIX operating systems. I can type a single line at the shell prompt that will search all of my 100GB of files for the word "wasabi", repace each occurance with the words "hot stuff", send each document with a match to my printer (taking care to output separator pages between each file), then compose a sorted list of these filenames and e-mail the list to all of the people in my 'Sushi' e-mail address book. Again, not four hours of click, click, clicking to get this done -- just 5 seconds or so of typing a short string of commands on a single line.
Granted, this is an odd, overwrought example, but it's still real: such things are easily done with shell commands in Linux. Things like DCOP in KDE and scriptability in Nautilus help to bring the desktop to the shell and vice-versa; with them, you can not only harness the power of the command prompt, but you can provide it with more "usable" GUI-based integration, so that shell processes can provide interaction with and accept input from the keyboard, mouse and display.
To perform task of significant complexity across 100GB and 20k files using a Windows or OS X (with its tendency to "hide" UNIX rather than exploit it) would require significantly more work than it requires in Linux. In fact, there is an entire segment of products -- file organizers and document managers, etc. -- which exist to try to make "housekeeping" tasks and tasks which act on large volumes of data less painful in Windows and Mac OS. These operating systems are really caught up in a "single file" mentality -- the ease of use and functionality is all associated with working on a single file at a time. But in the new millenium, as our digital lives grow, few people have only one or two files to deal with. More and more people live their digital lives like authors and photographers have for some time now: with volumes and volumes of files, data and information to manage. This is where the efficiency of Linux and the Linux desktops improves quality of life considerably. I manage my entire photo library using KDE and my own shell scripts (a system that took about 4 hours to construct). This "system" is more efficient and well-designed for the subjects I shoot and the way I sell than any mass-market application ever could be (not to mention that I didn't have to pay $$$ for the software).
I guess I'm saying that you shouldn't knock efficiency until you've needed it and made use of it. Because some of us have, and sacrificing efficiency to gain "usability" would represent a significant loss of functionality. In fact, I would imagine that there are those of us at Slashdot who would feel comfortable asserting that efficiency is indeed the ultimate form of usability...
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Cheers,
Ian
Can I turn off themes in XPde? Or can I at least install a KDE theme?
THAT would be the coolest thing to ever happen. Since OS/X is based in unix, I can see no reason that it can't port to the Intel (PC) platform.
Many here say that the Mac platform is what people want over Windows...and I happen to agree with them. OSX on intel would be the best of all worlds...Cheap hardware, a bulletproof OS and a bundle of money for Apple.
Mickysoft's XP designers did a mediocre job surely not worth cloning. In designing their newest public interpretation of the consumer desktop, they've resorted to garish colors, plastic-y widgets and even more silly and time-wasting animations. Do you like the little Duplo people representing users? The rest of the iconography is equally retarded.
There's really no worthwhile innovation in XP's UI, it looks more like it came out of Willy Wonka's Lego Factory.
While OSX Aqua looks cute, it also fails to innovate - same old tired metaphors, reduced consistency, candy gimmicks over functionality, resource hogging shading tricks and severely reduced accessibility. The weird thing is, Apple recently had the most sensible, consistent and universally accessible implementation of the traditional (albeit tired) Xerox folders-and-documents metaphor with MacOS 9. Why all this candy fluff?
Innovation is what is needed to get ahead; candy is for kids. Mimicking the dead ends of evolution and soon-to-be desktop dinosaurs is futility.