Slashdot Mirror
XPde Makes X11 Resemble Windows
Gentu writes "Here is another way of penetrating the Windows market, which might even prove more successful than the current efforts: XPde is a desktop environment that mimics the Windows 2000 look and feel and behavior. Currently on version 0.3, the team has re-created a number of applications from its Windows equivalents, including Explorer." T. cuts in: It looks like they've made a lot of progress since this project was last mentioned.
cool, now you can run xeyes in win2k.
I hate sigs.
...and certainly there is much demand for this - me, for example, who likes to talk up Linux but after years and years of Microsoft brainwashing, I still use their operating system because, like a abused child, I am have got way to comforable with it. But then again, I have invested in a lot of Microsoft specific apps, but I know there are alternatives. Someday, I will switch.
BUT I fear a giant lawsuit from the monster in Redmond. I hope that this project will be hosted from some fair haven, like Sealand or whatever. I hope that some excellent lawyers will come forth, pro bono. Mmmm, maybe this could be the first open source project managed and distributed by a peer to peer network?
I know a lot of older folks who get really used to the one system, and just want it to run better but look the same. If this runs better than regular windows but looks the same, a TON of people will find it accessible -- so long as program installation can catch up too, so installing a program is (more or less) the same/as easy. When I say easy, I mean click and it's on there.
stuff |
Wow, it bears a stunning resemblance.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
On my XP box, I have twice the physical memory of the system in your screenshot, yet the amount shown as available is nearly the same.
If you want 2000/XP users to feel comfortable, you Linux guys are going to have to make your system far less memory efficient. Or perhaps you could just divide the displayed available amount in half.
Well, that site is mimicking Windows in more ways than one. Anyone got a mirror?
This space intentionally left blank.
i wonder if they are going to include a bsod ???
Re: people complaining about why make linux look like windows?
Because that is what people are used to right now.
So doing this, is embrace, and extend (since as we all know that linux is far more superior and more powerful than Windows). This strategy is in fact, how microsoft brilliantly overran so many other software markets in their quest to world domination. Fitting, now that we come back and use it on them as well.
Embracing and extending Windows, will beat them at their own game. Eventually, once people have moved over from Windows to 'Embraced Linux GUI' like the one in this article.. then they can migrate to (or just let them discover on their own) the good native linux GUI stuff a bit later on when they are more familiar..
That is the only way in fact, that linux will ever overtake the MS Windows desktop. Most non techies cannot easily make the (massive in their eyes) switch to a new desktop and OS. Embrace & extend works, is proven, and is a good strategy, and we should back it up in order to get people off the Monopoly when we can..
http://images.freshmeat.net/screenshots/32217.jpg
Personally, I think the MS GUI peaked at Windows 2000, and went decidedly downhill with XP. That's not to say that it was "ideal" with W2k, but certainly isn't the Fisher-Price-inspired-nightmare that the XP interface is.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
I fail to see why there is so much fuss over what's effectively just eye candy.
I don't believe that anyone will hold up these window managers up as the point of comparison between Linux and Windows which makes Linux the patform of choice. In particular these immitative ones. I just can't see "Use Linux - it's just like Windows" as being a particularly convincing argument.
What does this WM do that I couldn't do in the past?
or even:
What is the problem to which this is the solution?
Sure, it's a choice, and choice is good, but having a progress report on 10 different Linux disties and 10 different WMs every couple of months gets a bit boring after a while.
YAW.
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Why does Microsoft have it's death grip on the OS market? Because they average computer user is just too comfortable with Windows since 95, and possibly 3.x. It's not /.'ers that this is really targeted for.
What we should be really happy about is there is a clean XP desktop for X11 we can load on a *nix box to show to our bosses and managers to try to get them to make the *nix switch. Look how easy it is boss!!!My only concern is will the M$ demon come down and smash this for some copyright infringement or something stupid.
Anyone know what IP/copyright/trademark issues are invloved?
I thought people used Linux so they would not have to deal with the Windows horrid GUI?
Nope. People use Linux because they like the CLI, they like Free Software, they like Open Source, they Hate Microsoft, or they're just Cheap Ethical Bastards.
Very, very few people use Linux becaues they think that it's got a better GUI than Windows.
you're missing one crucial point: theres alternatives, you dont HAVE to use it, but its there for the peeple who might want to. live and let live, my friend.
i personaly think its a great idea for people who want linux for its stability, but not have a gui thats so diferent as to make a seasoned user feel like a newbie.
Maybe they'll manage to build a decent file manager. As much as I hate to say it, for MY USE, Windows file manager destroys all the Linux equivalents (Konqueror, Nautilus, etc.). I'm not saying that either one of those is bad, but both have problems that just put me off. For most of my file managing needs I use Midnight Commander, which sucks in an Xterm. I actually can see the use of copying XP's interface. Unlike most here, I'm a REAL WORLD computer user (that was a joke. Laugh.). The people that I know freak out if one of their icons goes missing. There's no way they'd ever learn how to use Gnome. But if you take a distro like Knoppix and throw a familiar face on it, they might change their minds.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
They screens look gorgeous. I don't know how they can use the copyrighted elements from Microsoft, but they look great.
Here is a real screenshot mirror with all the screem shots included. Thumbnails and full size:
Screen Shot Mirror
The server even help up as well as Win2k (ducks).
Seriously though, Why? If you want Windows, use Windows. Better OS behind the GUI? Hell, 2k/XP aren't *that* horrible, especially just for desktop uses.
Is there a reason so many people are trying to get joe sixpack to use *nix instead of Windows? I'm not an elitest holier than thou 'cause I know a bunch of arcane commands freak, it just seems to me if you want a Windows GUI Windows just makes more sence. Why copy them? Are we going to go as far as to make look alike replacments for most of the more popular Windows apps?
It just all seems silly to me. *shrug*
A lot of people will complain that linux shouldn't be copying Windows, but should be innovating. As someone who spends a lot of time using both systems, I am more comfortable with the Windows GUI than any of the linux desktops I've used. Maybe it is just because I have been using it since Windows 95, and the linux interfaces are all so different. No matter why I prefer it, the look and feel of an OS actually plays a large part in how much I like it.
I love the backend of *nix, but could never stand any of the desktops enough to use it as my primary OS. With this project, I can have an OS with a nice backend AND an aesthetically-pleasing, usable front end.
Sure this isn't innovating, but consider what is required to come up with a good GUI. Microsoft spends a LOT of money doing research to see what people like in a GUI, whereas linux innovation is often the result of one developer deciding, "Hmm, this feature is cool - I'll make a window manager do that". It isn't really reasonable to expect a better (for "normal" computer people) GUI from a group of developers than a company doing actual research.
Unfortunately, the server stopped responding after I got the home page, but the few tiny shots there show things like the Display control panel (an interface I really like and have wanted in linux for a long time), and explorer. If they have a few more control panels (Add/Remove programs, Network connections, and a subset of System), this might really be enough to get me to switch my primary OS.
My server
Now, instead of duplicate sotries, SlashDot will call them "updates." I'd say we should check up on them in a few hours to see how their doing.
I may have a few quibbles with the Microsoft GUI but two things that I seriously lack in Linux is consistent behaviour for copy/paste commands and working (as in "no configuration needed") keymappings/character encoding for my national characters in _all_ applications. This has never been a problem in any windows version (counting all the way from 3.0).
Why doesn't anybody mimic that?
okthxplzdrvthru
I thought that when Microsoft won the Apple v. Microsoft case it set the precedent that you can't copyright "look and feel"? It will be interesting to see what Microsoft does now that the shoe is on the other foot...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
(since as we all know that linux is far more superior and more powerful than Windows)
How so? I admin both (in addition to HP-UX and Solaris), and have no idea what "far more superior" or "more powerful" actually means. If you're talking about remote administration, I don't see the relavance to this article.
and we should back it up in order to get people off the Monopoly when we can
Why? I don't particular care what OS someone else is running. If there was a clear and convincing reason to use Linux instead of Windows, people would.
This could be huge for Enterprise and Government customers who are thinking of switching (what with the economy the way it is and companies/governments wanting to cut costs) and one of the hurdles they might bring up is that switching would require re-training people based on the GUI alone. This essentially eliminates that. There would obviously be some re-training necessary, but when I saw these screenshots, I started laughing! It looks incredibly like Windows! It looks as though it would considerably lessen the learning curve for new users. Great work guys! Keep it up!
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
I read through all the comments about how horrid the Windows XP GUI is... and didn't understand until I remembered that whenever I'm forced to use XP, I set the GUI to 2000/98 mode.
Really, the whole XP GUI is just a theme that takes up a lot of RAM and CPU cycles and slows down the whole damn PC without providing any great benefit.
By the way, for those who care to count, you can add another Windows tech / user who is in the process of switching to Linux.
Most people moving over to BSD or GNU/Linux systems do it because the are SICK with Windows. ;-)
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
What does this WM do that I couldn't do in the past? If you've used Linux for a long time, not a damn thing. If you haven't used it and are interested in doing so, but don't want to learn a whole new way of doing things, it does a lot. Of course, the instant reply is "But it's Linux, not Windows. Everything IS different." To which I say "That's not the point. The point is, not everyone was born with a UNIX manual rammed up their bum. Some people didn't start using computers until AFTER MS dominated the market and haven't used a computer with anything but Windows. For them it's a matter of what they can do NOW, not what they CAN DO ONCE THEY LEARN HOW." Which gets the reply "Yeah.... but... Linux rules all." Then you smack me in the head with a stuffed Tux and run off. What is the problem to which this is the solution? User fear. Some people that want to try Linux are afraid to because jumping from Windows to even KDE is a huge step (and one I did just recently, so I know how it is). And from Windows to Window Maker? Forget it. It's an intermediate level and nothing more. IMO, at least.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
That's cool and stuff, but tell me please is there a Cygwin port of this thing so I can run it in XWin to get native windows look and feel ? Oh wait... :)
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
desktop proeprties
explorer
notepad
start menu
My server
Without reading the article, I have this to say. I am trying to GET AWAY from that look. For me it represents all things wrong and I'd rather go through a learning Kurve than soil my choice of OS.
The developers need to get over the Stockholm effect!
The term "Stockholm Effect" was coined in the early 70's to describe the puzzling, completely unpredicted reactions of four bank employees who became victims of a hostage situation. Specifically, on August 23, 1973, three women and a man were taken hostage in one of the largest banks in Stockholm, Sweden by two ex-convicts. They were held for six days by these ex-convicts who continuously threatened their lives but also showed them what they later reported as small kindnesses during their detention. To the world's surprise, after a relatively short period of time, ALL FOUR OF THE HOSTAGES STRONGLY RESISTED THE GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS TO RESCUE THEM and and WERE QUIT EAGER TO DEFEND THEIR CAPTORS
I'm not sure how necessary the 'look and feel' aspect, in and of itself, is really necessary. What Linux (or, insert favorite alternate graphical OS/desktop environment here) really needs is more polish on the various little un-glamorous things that make the desktop environment, as a whole, sing. I've got my wife happily using gnome 1.4 on RH7.3, and the differences in interface operation don't bother her. What would make life more pleasant for us would be various other things like, oh, just off the top of my head:
(1) as 'root', I install a gnome app, but it goes into some completely *screwball* menu location that I removed long ago, only to show up again, with no choice(s) for me. Contrast with the install-shield stuff that gives me a choice based on currently existing menu layout.
(1a) in response to "but gnome application RPM's don't facilitate this" type responses... maybe that should go on the list too.
(2) as a normal user, a way to possibly install a self-only gnome app somewhere in the home directory (at least for the programs that aren't doing anything that needs root-level authority to do stuff). See (1) regarding giving choice of install location (both in filesystem and on the user menu)
(3) a solid network browser a la network neighborhood.
I could list off a few other gripes too (drag/drop and other non-visual things), and yes, I'm aware that such things Are Being Worked On (tm?), but this has been the case for a while. And saying "have you tried KDE?" isn't necessarily valid here... I've "started over" to get our boxes running gnome (as opposed to win'98) and I've got little motivation to "start over" again... so maybe that makes the above a bit gnome-specific (probably true). All this mainly to say that there are issues that are causing annoying little problems, and they aren't tied up specifically with how closely the desktop / window manager "mimics" the appearance of windows. Don't get me wrong, you'll get linux off my system after its pried from my cold, dead hands. (Oh, and before the "get off your butt and contribute" flamers get going, I do have a project or two in the works, thanks very much.
There's plenty of possible innovation in window managers. Radial menus show real promise, but we don't yet have a decent radial menu window manager, for example. And there are a lot of other examples.
Slavish imitation of somebody else's system is just stupid. If you prefer that system, go out and get it.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Real world example of how a stupid windows theme is good:
I just opened up a new office with a friend of mine. Not one bit of MS anywhere in our office - it's all Linux and open source. Getting to the point - my partner can use a computer for all the necessary office tasks, but she is only a user. She is not even remotely computer savy - installing a windows program would be a nightmare for her!
Anyway, I set up her account to use the Windows XP look-a-like theme for KDE - Fischer Price colors and all. When I showed it to her, she barely raised an eyebrow. The only questions she has asked so far are about changing wallpaper and enabling email notification sounds (and she also wanted to know if Evolution would put little smiley icons in her email like AOL's software). Other than that, she just plugs away.
I wouldn't be caught dead with an XP look-a-like on my desktop, but they serve a purpose. Three years from now, my partner will have lost all recollection of how things work in windows - until then, the windows theme helps gloss over some of the differences.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
as suggested repeatedly above, the point is to bring users who are familiar and comfortable with the windows interface into the *nix fold. whether or whether not it is possible to have a better interface than windows (certainly it is!) is not the issue at all with respect to this project. given the choice between a windows interface on a somewhat slow, expensive operating system and the same on a free, more dependable one, the choice becomes pretty simple. the next stage would be to switch to another interface. (and wow, it turns out to be easy and fast to do this in the new os :)
Not only would it further Lindows' pursuit of capturing the Linux end-user desktop market, it would also be yet another opportunity for him to get Lindows in the news. MS is already suing the company over their us of the name "Lindows"; this would allow him to pool resources with the XPde team and possibly really win big (not just the use of the word, but also the look & feel).
Of course, we'd also have to put up with another article with his mugshot in it. Why does he always do that?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog y/maney/2003-02-25-maney_x.htm
Yeah, i can see it now. My mother calls tech support at [major manufacturer].
She thinks she's using Windows because it looks like the last computer she used.
She's calling tech support because she her copy of Office doesn't install for some reason - yes, she can see the install disk in Explorer, Control Panel's Add/Remove Programs is there, but alas, she can't install it.
Why on Earth would we want to increase the confusion AND admit that Windows is the de facto desktop?!
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
I'm sure a lot of people will love this. I'm not sure it's really the right way to concentrate, though. I know a lot of people don't like learning new things, but I believe that most people are going to care more about the applications rather than the interface. Most newbies I've come across have no problem getting used to WindowMaker or KDE etc.. In fact most of the people I've introduce to Linux have surprisingly preferred WindowMaker to KDE or Gnome. People who have never used anything other than windows.
It's when they realize that they don't have the applications that they love, and the so-called "viable replacements" well.. suck compared to what they use on windows.
I love Unix. I'm an ex programmer and sys-admin. For the past 5 years I worked as both and concentrated on Linux, Solaris and OpenBSD. I'm a guitar teacher now because I got sick of the IT world but I still love technology and Unix with a passion and feel right at home when I'm using bash, vi, gcc etc.
But I use Windows on my desktop.
I use Windows because of applications. I do a lot of sound recording and processing when I'm at home and I just can't find viable replacements for Cubase SX, Fruityloops, Cooledit Pro, Kazaa and not to mention I'm still hooked on The Sims and I like to know that if I walk into a software store I can take anything off of the shelf and bring it home and know that it'll work.
Worst of all I hate compiling software. Yeah I know funny since I'm a coder but seriously I don't have the time in a day to spend 3 hours trying to make a program that I download work on my system. I hate downloading an rpm and having it bitch about dependencies especially dependencies that I can't satisfy.
It's not worth the trouble anymore. When I was 15 and started using Redhat 4.something it was fun and I flew. I picked it up and fell in love and I tried to convert everyone and their grandmother to Unix. But 6 years later I have a house to maintain, kids to raise, a wife to spend time with, a job to work at etc. When I sit down at the computer I expect to click a little button and have things just work. Like magic. I wanna click "download" and in 5-10 minutes be running the program. No compiling. No dependancies etc.
So to wrap all this ranting up. I'm just not sure how important a desktop enviornment that mimicks Windows is going to benefit newbies. I think applications need more thought and work first. If you have to compile it to work then it's just not worth it. If it only works on Redhat 7.2 and not Slackware then it's just not worth it. I know people realize that I just don't want to see that realization forgotten and lost.
</rant>
I know that alot of Linux purists will think that this is horrible, but I really see no problem with it.
Actually this is just one more exammple of how extremely functional Linux can be compared to Windows.
It may not be for everyone, even I would much rather use KDE on X11 rather than XPde. But I would not fault someone for chosing to use it (or any other desktop or window manager).
In the end it all depends on what the user prefers to use. The more options, the better.
-Cnik
Apple threatened to sue over people using the Apple logo in their themes, not about ripping off the aqua look-and-feel. There are still a lot of aqua-ish themes available online, the only themes that are gone are the ones that used trademarked logos.
0 1 - just my two bits
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
"Most non techies cannot easily [switch]" ...
I've heard this claim before but would be interested to see research or evidence to back it up. I've worked with unrepresentative small groups who have migrated to Linux from Windows with just about zero effort. My own organisation does quite a lot of training for people who are mostly Windows users but we put Linux desktops in front of them - they seem to adapt very rapidly.
Now it could be that they aren't the regular Windows user, or it could be that the received wisdom that 'windows users will find it hard to switch' is just plain wrong.
So I'd LOVE to see some hard evidence on this one, not simply assertions that it is so based on gut feel instead of research.
Anyone care to contribute?
This is one of my pet peeves about linux as a desktop OS. None of the developers and zealot users seem to understand that on a Mac or a Windows machine, you can cut and paste images, video clips, sounds, etc. This is what we are complaining about when we say that X11's cut and paste functions suck. I don't mind having two different systems (actually, it's kinda useful) I mind having two systems that both only work on plain text!
Try this:
Go to a windows system
Copy some formatted text in an IE window, and paste it into a Word document.
Copy an image from an IE window, and past it into a Word doc.
Now try doing the same thing on a Linux box. Doesn't work, does it? Put *that* in your X11 is superior pipe and smoke it. X11's cut and paste system is *brain* *dead*! It's not about keybindings, it's not about needing three button mice, it's about moving beyond flat effing ASCII text!
Sorry for the rant, but nobody ever seems to understand that to Mac and Windows converts, cut and paste is more than psting the right plain text into the right place most of the time.
0 1 - just my two bits
I don't think you know what a virtual machine is, and no, cmd.exe is not a virtual machine.
Also, what do you mean by a "true CLI"? Any shell on Unix/Linux and an optional terminal emulator that they may be running under are all programs like any other. They have no special privileges or powers that any other program wouldn't have. Believe me, I once wrote my own shell on Linux.
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
"3) a solid network browser a la network neighborhood."
Sorry I'm too lazy to link (use Google), but what's wrong with LinNeighborhood? I find it extremely easy to use, particularly for what I want to do (finding ALL the file shares on my campus network quickly). It isn't an "all-in-one" solution, but it's perfectly capable of calling up Midnight Commander (which I love even in Xterm windows), or you can just use konquerer/nautilus once the share is mounted. Simple - not quite as easy as the windows Network Neighborhood, but arguably more powerful, particularly if your primary interest in the LAN is filesharing.
I'm the stranger...posting to
You can, there's a whole community of people making shells that replace Explorer in Windows. Some of the really nice ones are Serenade, LiteStep, GeoShell, Sharpe, the list goes on, they all remove the bloat of explorer, then if you want to change borders and such you add ShellWM or Windowblinds or if you've got XP StyleXP. My windows desktop doesn't look like any other OS, it has the great effect of making people say "Ummm, what's this?" when they sit down at my machine, and then a few minutes later, they're asking me how to make their interface the same. Those alternate shells are great because they free up memory(my XP machine went from using nearly 27mb of memory with explorer to under 8mb with serenade) and they eliminate explorer problems.
Links-
Serenade http://www.courtah.net
StyleXP http://www.tgtsoft.com
Just google for the others as I can't remember URLs for them.
Okay - I'll take the troll bait...
My wife has a non-technical background and is actually more of an anti-MS zealot than I am. Her reasons? Things tend not to work in Windows. Under Linux or OS-X things just work.
She doesn't need to install applications contantly.( Hopefully that'll be 1 more reason to keep me around). She doesn't browse networks etc - she primarily just uses it for email, web access and ocassionally typing a paper or playing dvd's or mp3 music. She's even learned how, on her own, to rip mp3's and organize her files logically.
Shifting back on topic now, she much prefers the style and appearance over KDE/GNOME, or OS-X calling windows "clunky". The others are more "artsy" ( her words ) and more pleasing to her.
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
ROX is a desktop manager that isn't about mimicking any "desktop style", but focuses on usability issues - for example, it has (IMHO very good) solutions to the first two problems you mentioned.
In fact, I'd argue that it finally creates a Linux desktop that Joe Sixpack could be happy with. It doesn't spew an application's files all over the filesystem - instead it leaves them all inside the application's folder. In fact, double-clicking on the App's folder runs it! To delete a program, just delete that folder. Program preferences are stored in a Choices folder so that you can keep your preferences even if you delete a program.
And since you don't need to "Install" the program, you either move it to the system's "Apps" folder, or the "Apps" folder in the user's Home folder to install local or system apps. (BTW, as some may notice, it actually works very similarly to Mac OS X, which some people think is very easy to use. =) This makes managing the 'start menu' a non-issue. It also gives the user more power to manage their programs folder (i.e. create their own categories).
Check it out at:
http://rox.sourceforge.net
I've tried KDE and GNOME and while they look pretty enough, I never felt they were usable in the Mac or Windows sense. This desktop is definitely headed in the right direction... It may even convince me to put Linux on my PCs. I'm really surprised that most people haven't seen this yet!!
Sure, it requires apps to be modified (and it looks like many have already been), but sooner or later people are going to have to realize that this is far easier to understand for the desktop user. Linux (and Unix) were designed for server and terminal-based environments, not the desktop, so any solution will need to modify the current way of doing things. IMHO, this desktop addresses some of the most important issues and deserves more attention and support!
osnews mirror, XPde front page, and screenshots page.
The screen shots only are at this place
In that case, you don't know what "CMD.EXE" is; here's a free clue, it's NOT the same as COMMAND.COM. It's a real 32 bit process, which JUST HAPPENS to emulate some DOS commands.
CMD.EXE is a real CLI to Windows, in the same way that "bash" is a CLI to Linux; it's just that bash is more configurable and more powerful. CMD.EXE is most certainly NOT a virtual machine; start one up and compare the running processes to COMMAND.COM, which will start up an NTVDM.EXE process (which is actually the NT Virtual DOS Machine you have heard about).
NTVDM is also commonly found hanging out with WOWEXEC.EXE - this is the 16 bit Windows-on-Windows process which runs Win16 applications. Win64 on Itanium will use a similar mechanism to suport Win32, probably called WOWEXEC32 or similar.
Jon.
I agree with just about all of that. I use linux on servers, and would not consider anything else for myself. They just don't crash, and never give me a problem.
On the desktop however, it's much different. X is slow - it's slow to start up, it's slow to open new apps and it's slow when resizing windows (well, anything more than the terminal). Not just on slow machines either - my 2 workstations here have near identical specs (Athlon 2000XP, 768MB, GF4, different motherboards and HDs), but the XP machine is definitely snappier to use. It starts up in around 1/4 of the time of the Linux box (running RH8.0, modified quite a bit, and only desktop services running). Opening Explorer is instant, whereas Mozilla takes a good 10 seconds to load up the first time, and 3-4 on subsequent launches. And don't get me started with the Nvidia 3D accelerated driver crashing almost every day! The XP machine has yet to crash (though I have resinstalled it once as it started to become slow for some reason - maybe too much stuff installed).
Then there's apps that suddenly just quit and disappear - Konqueror under KDE is a favourite for this. The worst offender is my iMac with Yellow Dog Linux installed. It's an oldish machine now (400MHZ G3), and although the GUI is faster than when OSX was on there (I HAD to get something other than OSX on it, as it was too slow to be usable IMO) it takes 25 seconds to launch Mozilla, and Konqueror will often vanish or sieze up for no apparent reason! Oh yes, and Sawfish will occasionally quit, leaving me with a desktop full of borderless windows (the "fix" is to switch to TWM, then back to Sawfish).
Although I do keep trying with X every now and then (and I'll probably keep playing with the iMac as it's nice and quiet after my Athlons) I don't consider it close to Windows 2000/XP for the desktop user yet. For me desktop=windows and server=linux, and I can't see it changing any time soon...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Likewise if I were to start a clothing company, the first item on my agenda would be to make underpants that are exactly like Fruit of the Loom Y-fronts. Because that's what consumers are used to. It doesn't matter that you can make all sorts of underpants in different shapes and virtually everyone will understand where they're supposed to put their legs and hips, that you put your feet through these holes in this order, and pull them up. Oh no. Unless they look like FotL Y-fronts, people aren't going to buy them.
Otherwise "What's this?" they'll cry, as they see a slightly more roomy pair of underpants, with stitching in the right places for the comfortable, soft, material we'd be using to make them. "I don't understand this, I mean, where are my legs supposed to go? It's not obvious because it's a slightly different shape, and more roomy, and there's stitching in a slightly different pattern! I can't wear these!"
Now, ok, the cloned underpants are likely to fall apart as the underlying material used to build them doesn't actually fit with the FotL Y-front template, but that's a small price to pay. Who cares if Squiggleslash Underwear gets a deservedly poor reputation for making knock-off undergarments that fail even quicker than Wal*Mart's? I mean, the point is that people are DUMB! They're stupid! Just as they would never, say, understand a user interface like Apple's, because it's not like Windows, likewise they could never understand how to put on a pair of underpants that look slightly different to the Fruit of the Loom ones!
And, of course, by introducing these direct clones of FotL Y-fronts, we'll be making the world a better place. We'll be introducing choice. The choice between two identical pairs of underpants. Can you imagine what a great gain for civilization that will be?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I've got my wife happily using gnome 1.4 on RH7.3, and the differences in interface operation don't bother her.
I've thought about this some, and I actually think that as a more experienced computer user, I'm actually the one with a bigger problem switching from Windows to Linux. I think my mom would react pretty much the same way as your wife did when switching. You set her up with a few easy shortcuts, email, web browser, soitaire, and she just has 3 easy buttons to press, the same way she did before.
I, on the other hand, have to relearn just about everything I've ever known. What the hell are all these partitions for? How do I easily install and uninstall programs? Which one of these oddly named programs performs function X? I know that if I actually wanted to take the time to learn all this stuff, I could, and I'd probably be happy using Linux, but to be honest, I really don't want to spend the time. If I could, however transition over to a Linux-based system that looked and felt the same, I'd do it in a second. And by look-and-feel I don't just mean the start menu, I mean the locations of various settings, etc.
I know I can't be the only one who feels this way, and that's why I think projects like XPde are definitely worth pursuing. I looked at the screenshots and so far, I like what I see. I might even take a little time to try to get it setup and toy around with it.
Anyways, the whole point of my post was, it's alot easier for people who don't do many varied tasks on a computer to transition from clicking one of these three buttons in Windows to one of those three buttons in Linux...
If it's going to look and feel just like Windows, why would anyone bother to switch over?
The aim here should be to produce a superior interface over that which windows provides (like WindowMaker, which is superior to both MacOS UI and Windows UI).
However, there are many different WM and DE projects, and it doesn't hurt to try out several different concurrent strategies to try to convert Windows users. Some windows users will want something new, novel, and better, even if it means a little bit of a learning curve; others will want to jump right into doing things the way they normally do, and are probably the users switching over for the stability, security, good "price" provided by GNU/Linux.
So it's fine that we have all of these different options, and it's fine that many of them look like Windows. It's also fine that some of them can provide similarities to MacOS, BeOS, Amiga, and any other interface users may be attached to. However, a big problem is when people start developing apps to "only work" in one environment; e.g., apps which will only work with GNOME or KDE libraries installed. People should write apps to work in any X11 environment, and to fit in with whatever WM/DE they're placed into.
The same application which displays only windows-style horizontal menus in KDE should display only NeXT-style vertical menus in WindowMaker, and maybe only pie-style menus in SCWM. This implies some kind of universal interface for different tool-kits/WMs/DEs, where the programmer codes something equivalent to the following in pseudocode (where MI = menu item):
MI1. MI2. MI3. MI4. MI5. MI6.
MI1a MI2a MI3a MI4a MI5a MI6a
MI1b MI2b MI3b MI4b MI5b MI6b
MI1c MI2c MI3c MI4c MI5c MI6c
MI1d MI2d MI3d MI4d MI5d MI6d
MI1e MI2e MI3e MI4e MI5e MI6e
Where MI1. - MI6. are program menu's 1-6, and MIna - MInb are the submenu's of each main program menu. Now, what we need is something which will take that and automatically display it appropriately, depending on the environment. In KDE and GNOME and most other X11 environments, that would display as a windwos-style horizontal menu. In WindowMaker, it would display as a NeXT-style vertical menu, which is normally hidden but can be brought up by the user. In SCWM, it should display as a pie-menu, where selecting one item would open up a subsequent pie menu, etc. Such a meta-format would also be extended to other aspects of the program, such as toolbars, widgets, etc.
This way, the same program would look completely different, depending on what WM/DE it's run in. This way, the end-user has complete consistency in the look and feel of apps within his/her WM/DE.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
There is a reason for making a desktop look/function like Windows INITIALLY!
A example relates to spreadsheets. Many eons ago Apple decided to commit suicide by closing the box and many of us had to find an alternative to run spreadsheets. (I was one of the original spreadsheet users of Visicalc on a 16K Apple with floppies running $million projects). All new programs were running on IBM PC. After looking at Supercalc, etc, etc, I was able to convince our company to switch to Lotus123. Why? Because it functioned very much like Visicalc and it copied one crucial feature. It allowed formulas to be dynamically built by moving the cursor (later the mouse was used) but all its competitors required typing in the cell references! Apparently, our company wasn't the only one that made the same decision because Lotus prospered until Excel arrived. This problem exists today; I looked at openoffice spreadsheet and I will not use it because it makes all the same mistakes of 20 years ago regarding the dynamic building of formulas. It takes many more key strokes to build a formula than Excel (hit +/- go to cell you want, perform other operations as desired, etc). I will not switch to Openoffice until they make this (and other things) function just the same as they do in Excel.
My operating system is being frozen at Windows 2000 because I won't give permission to screw with my machine or have to beg to install or change my hardware. Currently, I have looked at SUSE (7.1 didn't install properly), Lindows 3.0 (the click and run works well), Mandrake 9.0 (a clutsy install but it works).
The problem with all these is I have to relearn how everything works and I DON'T READ MANUALS! If someone makes a Lindows that functions just like Windows then I am probably likely to switch AND then customize and change things to my liking. If I am required to learn everything (and I am not a novice because I had a Sun server at another job), my choice might be the BEOS operating system or something totally new (Apple fanatics can avoid writing because I find the Mac totally unfathomable).
A Linux desktop should have these features as a minimum:
1. Look exactly like Windows 2000 (or XP),
2. Hide the hideous file structure of Linux from the user (it is a remnant of its time slice past),
3. Have an on line repository of free and commercial software available a la Lindows,
4. Installation of programs needs to be standardized with a Setup.exe equivalent and none of this rpm crap (I'm still trying to figure out how to install Opera under Linux; Windows was a snap),
5. An audio standard for streaming audio and playback is necessary so the BBC and others can adopt it (even KALX at Berkeley, the home of a Unix variant, requires Real player),
6. Hardware drivers for modern audio and video equipment,
7. An office suite that includes a database that can substitute for MSOffice (this is probably the hardest task).
There are probably other items but this is all I can think of at this time.
Finally, every post that I have read ignores the billions of dollars and millions of hours of training that have gone into Windows over the last 8 years. Companies and individuals are not willing to spend the time or money to learn something new IF Windows still works. Start at the Windows base and build up open source software from there. Grade schools, high schools, and colleges can make the switch easily because there is a minimal training base to overcome, but businesses have SIGNIFICANT investment in Windows. Businesses will not switch to a new desktop/applications if lots of money must be spent for training until Windows creates a tower of babel with their DCMA implementations.
People want something that they can customize.
You can customize Windows XP's GUI just as much as linux GUIs. There are entire websites dedicated to XP "Visual Styles" that can change the look of everything from the start menu/bar to window title bars.
P.S. Please don't kill me for defending windows on something.
I run a Debian/Kernel/Knoppix Mirror: (http|ftp|rsync)://debian.ams.sunysb.edu/
apt-get @ > 5MBps == teh win!
Forget copying the Windows UI, that's absurd.
.RPM or .DEB, in which case it is already figured out for you (Mandrake-branded site will default to .RPM, etc).
Someone is going to get on that machine, go to Start -> Programs looking for "Microsoft Excel" and feel like an idiot or be completely frustrated because they couldn't find it.
NO ONE has complained that people stay away from OS X "because it doesn't look like Windows." WHY are we trying to pretend that's the reason people don't try Linux?
If you want Windows people to use Linux, we need distributions to do a few things:
Ditch 3 of the 4 programs that do the same thing. Seriously. Why do I need 4 CD-R burning programs? Just give me the one that works the best, that's *all I care about* - and make sure it's labeled "CD Burner" so I don't have to decipher "gkdesbUISO." Contrary to what people here may think, we do NOT need to include every single Web Browser available. Don't put every alternative in the "Programs" menu - you hide the extra versions, and it only comes out when someone says they are an "advanced" user. Or perhaps a help option that says, "Software Doesn't Do What You Want? Try These:"
Distro installers should have a "I have never used Linux before, but I have been using Windows for 5 years" option. This will offer extra help in the form of, "If you are looking for this, you will now use this instead."
Make sure "regular" users *only* need the first CD. In the case of a 3 CD distro like Mandrake, make the additional CDs required only for developers and/or international users.
When you setup the desktop, be it either Gnome or KDE, you need to include a few "What do I do now?" icons on the desktop. I'm not talking about your "Welcome," because most of these people are illiterate or too lazy to read them, I'm talking about a few icons such as "Games," "Mozilla Web Browser," and "OpenOffice Applications." Do NOT just call the web icon "Mozilla," because these people have no idea what Mozilla even is.
I don't know if one exists yet, but we need yet-another new standard Linux portal. One that can be branded with Mandrake, RedHat, etc, but has software reviews, HOWTOs, special tips, best applications in each category, downloads, news, a forum, etc. And when you click to download a file, it is either a
Apple has the portal down to an art--take heed as it will go a long way to making them feel like they are both a part of something, and that they've just entered a Brave New World as opposed to being made to feel like an idiot because they can't find anything or get anything done.
The thing that most mainstream distros seem to be doing well, is that as soon as they are installed, 99% of the applications you will ever need are already installed and setup. With Windows, you're stuck with installing all of your software off of CD again, downloading everything again, etc, etc.
Prove me wrong now.
Jason Fisher