Slashdot Mirror
XPde 0.5 - A Linux Desktop for Windows Users
Nissan Dookeran writes "From the website: 'The XPde Team today announced the immediate availability of XPde 0.5.0, a complete rewrite of the XPde desktop environment...XPde aims to recreate the Windows XP desktop environment on Linux in order to allow Windows users to "feel at home" in front of a Linux computer' Full announcement of release here with screenshots here. Might be a good transitional tool for Windows users looking not wanting to give up their eye-candy interface initially. The main page also has a good PDF document regarding legal issues when developing software that emulates Windows functions. A StarOffice version of the document also available."
hey, it's the secure WinXP release! (duck for cover)
This is a cool project. Windows is awesome. It is good to finally see Linux users realizing that the Windows UI is the best one there is and adapting to use it.
No comments and it's already loading dog slow! Someone mirror this fast!
John Susek
g1powermac already created a livecd using Morphix that has xpde5 inside. Just boot it using desktop=xpde5 boot parameter. It will default to 0.4.2 since xpde5 is still lacking some of the features. Sourceforge download
Pretty much all window managers-themes look /horrible/ on linux, this looks nice and might just make it more attractive for people to switch.
It's easy to use and very fast! (I tried 0.4) but it lacked essential DE stuff. If they keep up the good work and more developers join the team, that could become a good xp looking-like DE.
Shouldn't that be a Windows desktop for Linux users?
having an ugly old gimp in their only newest screenshot is probably not the nicest way to show your job, guys ! in another story, gimp 2.0 released
How about an open source alternative to explorer for windows...maybe someone can fully port KDE/Gnome?
if MS can take down "Lindows", they can definitely take down "XPde Professional".
some of the icons are so similar that it looks like they've changed maybe one or two pixels at most.
Isn't this similar to the reason why Apple took Microsoft to court over the similarities between Mac OS and Windows? Or similar to the reason why Apple took some folks to court because they copied the look and feel of their Aqua GUI?
... look at a screenshot ... Start button is named Start, My Desktop is My Desktop, etc. Watch the headlines here in a week to a month for the cease-and-desist letter from MS to the XPde folks. Makes me glad I have a friend going through law school ... heh.
I don't mean to piss in anyone's Corn Flakes, but damn
Even superheroes once were losers
Slashdotted already? aargh now i know which server they run windows xp for reference with
Is there any legal issue with this? As I remember Apple always threatens those who reproduce the Mac OS user interface. Would Microsoft do the same?
I tried this out one night when I was planning out a desktop for a person I knew who wanted to try out Linux. On a visual level, it was very well put together, and one could forget they were in Linux until one tried out the control panel, or wanted to get any work done. Menus and things still had to be assembled manually also, which didn't mean too much to me, as it was still 0.31 at the time. It wasn't ready for my friend's system, and I ended up putting Gnome 2.2 on there which they were more than happy with. I'd say this project definitely has a future, from what I see their mock-up of the Win2K desktop was pretty right on target, behaviors and all. The lack of some key features are what kept it from being ready, but I imagine much of it will be dependent on the distribution, placing icons in the start menu, etc when one installs a .deb, .rpm, or runs an emerge.
.
If XP has eye candy then I'm superman. The first thing I do on any install is take away that snot green interface and replace it with the classic interface.
I think that one of the areas that linux can really beat windows given enough effort is with it's desktop environments.
Given this, wouldn't it be better for people migrating from windows to become acustomed to the more powerful desktop environment of linux, rather than one which sacrifices some good features for the sake of making windows users feel more at home?
Also, if you shroud the differences between windows and linux behind a look-alike gui as soon as something goes wrong, or the user trys to install something the os will likely throw up a very un-windows like error, which will most likely confuse the user, leaving a sour taste about linux in their mouth.
You may claim my $0.02 via Paypal or Direct Credit
Man, the more I watch the Linux world from the outside, the less i'm beginning to believe in "the revolution". It would be funny if it wasn't crushingly dissapointing - Two sides that "just don't get it".
*Sigh*
I liked the last version much, even though it was far from complete. But IIRC it was based on Kylix, and there was no good way to run it on any other architecture than x86.
So can I run this completely rewritten version on our Sun boxes?
Mirrors
xpde.qadram.com
xpde.holobit.net
xpde.tech-critic.com
xpde.abenks.com
xpde.debian.co.nz
toxic-systems.de/xpde
xpde.linuxring.hu
xpde.gaesi.org
xpde.jt-webservice.de
I have mixed feelings about this. At first I thought "if linux is better than windows, why try to be windows". But then I realised, that this is exactly what I'd show people whom I wanted to convert to linux. For most people, the GUI is Windows. They don't know about kernel stuff or hardware compatibility issues (if it works). If they saw this, with a properly wordes sales pitch "free, no viruses, cool geek factor" etc, I think a "sale" would be easier.
I do have concerns about the legal side of the project, but other posters has already made good comments about that.
Yep, in emulating the Microsoft look and feel, they're also emulating the Microsoft design methodology... :)
Very few people have made a conscious choice for Windows and its UI, and few people will really base their future decisions on this.
95% of the angst most people feel from using Windows comes from one single thing: security. I find it remarkably easy to switch people to a distro like Xandros by telling them: it is safe and will protect your photos and documents from viruses, trojans, and worms.
All that is needed is a reasonable level of compatibility so that people can continue to make their documents & spreadsheets, download their photos from their digital cameras, and email their friends.
Not a single person ever says: "but it looks nothing like Windows!" - the only counter objection is that "certain things do not work".
Emulating XP safely may be an intellectual challenge but it is not part of the Linux sales argument. Distributions like Xandros - which install easily, and handle smoothly - are.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
In my expirience with advocating GNU/linux there is enough Linux hype going around to convince some-one to take a look, and the KDE/Gnome desktops are in themselves easy on the eyes. The problem is to convinvce someone to work at learning the new system.
GNU/Linux is diffrent then windows! I hope it will always remain so, but when talking about user friendlyness the problem isn't with switching windows or what your icons look like, it is more about setting up programs.
In the GNU/Linux world people still open a text console on a every day basis, Somw of us find it the more convinient way of managing the system.
I have several times tried using some automatic configuration tool(usually by Mandrake) and quickly found myself opening emacs in a split window with a man page and a config file.
In many cases the problem is with the GNU/Linux gurus not being able to help with GUI tools. On several ocasions my brother came to me with linux questions how do I do this or that and I knew my way of doing it(Typing in a console window) but I knew very little of which GUI tool will do the job and how.
These are the major issues in GNU/Linux UI
Me
As long as there is choice, there will be no breakthrough. One more choice won't help either.
Sure, starting in various ends will perhaps give a Darwinian process of development, but now with a plethora of applications developed on the different desktops, incompatible with eachother, there will be no survival of the fittest. All the desktop technologies seem doomed to live side by side forever. sigh.
Moderate parent +1 funny!
"Windows is awesome" whoo, needed a good laugh!
seems even at 6:30 am the site is getting slashdotted but, for one, i like it.
i know microsoft is the devil and all that, but i've grown accustomed to the XP interface at work. i use SuSE linux at home, and i like it. however, at work i use xp and find its interface better in many ways.
if only we could integrate all the hardware settings into the main gui like xp does for display settings and such, then linux would really take off with a window manager like this.
there's also a lot to say for copying OS X, or developing our own little gui interface altogether, but that's another post...
Emory: Uh..we're still..beta testing that.
Oglethorpe: What you're testing is me and my patience!
Does this mean that for "Windows users", Tux will be replaced with Tinky-Winky?
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
I mirrored the screenshot:
Screenshot
A shot of the 0.5.0 release, the rest of shots are from the previous release.
Hmmm...were's the registration dialog? It's not good until it has that.
A familiar interface (for Windows users upgrading to Linux) is a good idea. I constantly see people bashing the desktops that emulate Windows rather than using an innovative new interface. I see it as a good transitional thing.
Once a users are more familiar with the underlying OS I think most would switch to one of the more powerful desktops available. The overly-simplistic Windows interface definate becomes a hinderance after a while unless you are sticking to fairly basic usage.
The problem is that your typical microtard needs something familiar to navigate with playskool colors and buttons and an ultra-simple start menu.
Very few people have made a conscious choice for Linux and its usability, and the majority will base their future decisions on this.
95% of the angst most people feel from using Linux comes from one single thing: usability. I find it remarkably easy to switch people to Windows by telling them: it is easy to install and use. You will never have to touch a command line.
Nothing is needed - it already has a reasonable level of usability and people find they can make their documents & spreadsheets, download their photos from their digital cameras, and email their friends without help.
Not a single person ever says: "but it's not as difficult to use as Linux!" - the only counter objection is that "everything works".
Emulating the Linux nightmare is not part of a sane Windows experience. Stand-alone distributions like XP - which install easily, and handle smoothly - are.
Just because something's utterly legal doesn't mean a megacorp isn't going to sue you into the stone age for potentially hurting their bottom line.
Only mindless Windows users are going to want to use this distro! Oh, wait...
xpde.qadram.com
xpde.holobit.net
xpde.tech-critic.com
xpde.abenks.com
xpde.debian.co.nz
toxic-systems.de/xpde
xpde.linuxring.hu
xpde.gaesi.org
xpde.jt-webservice.de
Jonah Hex
hexagon.tk
Xpde.qudram.com
I spent years getting away from Windows and its interface has made its way to Linux. What a horrible idea!
Does it run Linux?....Wait a minute...XP? Linux XP??? *Runs away*
Should use this DE when they come out with there own Debian based distro and name it lindows XP....
That it works is the main reason that I refuse to dump Windows. I could not care less about the look - so long as it feels good and is not a pain in the ass to set up.
I have a hardware firewall. Ports are closed, I have email filters, I use Mozilla, I don't run strange applications, I run a virus scanner, I run a spyware scanner. I run Windows Update once a week. I have no problems using and working with Windows.
Windows has an ultra-high level of performance. It supports all my hardware correctly and driver updates are very easy to install. Screen refreshes for applications are blisteringly fast. Hardware accelerated games simply work. Suspend and hybernation just work. My UPS desktop power meter just works. My MP3 player just works. iTunes just works. Commercial and free development environments just work. I last saw a bluescreen crash about 18 months ago due to hardware failure (my network card died).
The last time I tried Linux (a mere few months ago) - it didn't fucking work. I tried one of those bootable CD thingies (Knoppix) - and it kept crashing after a few minutes and resetting the machine. I gave up, threw the disk in the trash - and went back to work on Windows.
Linux needs to work on the following:
* Unify the desktop - one API, one coding standard. I'm not going to bother otherwise. GUI libraries go in and out of fashion. Windows API knowledge from Windows 3.1 is still applicable with XP - it was well worth learning.
* Easy installation.
* Hardware support that JUST WORKS. I don't care if I have to reboot - if I have to read a text file or use a command line - it is TOO COMPLICATED.
* System updates that JUST WORK when vulnerabilities are discovered. I want to click one button and have it do everything else. I don't care if I have to leave the machine on overnight, I don't care what the problem is, just fix it.
* High performance drivers. Going from Windows to Linux shouldn't feel like I've downgraded my computer.
* Keyboard shortcuts that work - shared desktop clipboard that is as easy to use as Windows. And no stupid mouse "I can never fucking remember which button combination to press" shortcut to copy & paste, please. Select text. Right click, choose "copy". Click to place cursor. Right click, select "paste". Simple.
And probably a bunch more stuff that I can't think of right now.
Seriously i think it is good linux to look like Windows XP. XP is the most used interface in the world and if any OS looks like it, that OS is going give XP a run for its money. I do hope Redhat and Novell standardize on this stuff.
I haven't been able to find a working mirror in this list... (And I tried about four of them)
In a lot of cases, what you say is true. Then you get stories like these two.
I have not had that particular cups problem, but quite a few linux UIs are really pretty arcane. Then again, I was trying to configure XP's networking for a friend last week and did not manage to get communication with the client going.
He then tried reconfiguring his client himself and ended up being locked out of his system altogether. Neither XP nor linux has a monopoly on problems.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
to be the same as Windows. But why would people switch when it's exactly the same? You my say, the price son, tell them the price son! But as we all know, those jeans you are wearing cost quite a pretty penny.
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
"I know quite a lot of users that I would like to convince switching to linux, but I won't bother because I know they will give up frustrated becaus ethey don't feel at home and don't have the time/will to learn."
And this is bad how? If we were in caveman times, this whole "I don't wanna change" thing would mean extinction. But no we've gotten complacent (and fat, physically and mentally). Quite frankly lets hear it for one class (let's call them the survivors) moving to a non-MS OS, and another class (let's call them "extinct"), sticking with the status quo, and pray that no computing meteor strikes.
How will there ever _not_ be choice? What sort of "dictatorship" do you envision? I assume you are mostly talking about KDE and GNOME. I can perhaps imagine a consensus by Novell, Red Hat, IBM, etc that they will all use the same desktop, which might accomplish what you want, but it doesn't mean the other project will go away.
maybe once there is a 100% -completely- Microsoft-tracking GUI around, maybe there won't need to be so many of them for Linux, and some truly innovative GUI advances can be made ...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
What's so funny, anyway?
Have you ever mentioned this to someone involved with Mandrake? Idealy it seems like this is one of the main things they'd be interested in hearing about, given their focus on trying to remove the need for command line use if the user dosn't want it. Though I recognise that the ideal isn't always reality, and companies don't always behave in the most logical manner.
Everything will be taken away from you.
Who was it said. "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"? Does it have PnP and the same builtin drivers? I might try this one. No...wait! I've got the real thing.
Just wait till MONO is mature. Makes you want to run to either the BSD's, HURD, or even AmigaOS. At least no one is trying to make a WinClone out of any of those. Who knew that saving Windows users from themselves would have such a high price? World Domination indeed.
- http://xpde.jt-webservice.de/ shows version 0.4.0 (beta)
- http://xpde.gaesi.org/ shows version 0.4.0 (beta)
- http://xpde.qadram.com/ shows version 0.3.0
- http://xpde.holobit.net/ shows version 0.3.5
and the others don't work---
Computers are like air conditioners.
- They stop working when you open Windows.
I really don't see the point. People claim that users will be "comfortable" with a Microsoft work-alike, like aping Microsoft's interface will somehow ease the path for regular users.
Fast flash: Microsoft breaks all of their UI conventions with every major rev. Everything from the start menu to common control panels to file managers are all wildly different from one rev to the next. A slavish adherence to Microsoft standards will only put you behind when they move on to the next mediocre interface, wasting a lot of effort that could be geared towards making a better, friendlier, easier-to-grok-than-Microsoft interface that "Joe User" will take to like a fish to water. Kinda like, you know, how Apple does with the Macintosh? And no, this does not mean to mimic the MOSX interface. Get creative and think everything through to the logical end, and you'll be all right. See the earlier article on ROX.
Aping Microsoft won't steal users, it will just confuse them when stuff breaks because it doesn't precisely match up with the way its Microsoft analogue works.
SoupIsGood Food
How the hell did they manage to clone the registry into this? Or maybe a better question is; WHY create a clone of something that only power users actually use, which does totally not reflect the inner workings of the OS, and, even in the case of an OS that actually DOES use a registry (windows), is the number-one user-unfriendly admin tool ever made?
This fake-linux-registry is going to confuse people while enabling them to bugger up their system without having a clue what happened.
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
What's to explain it? A combination of egocentrism, vanity, and fear of the command line. Newbies don't have the first two, so they can usually get along fine with installing Linux. MCSEs have three strikes against 'em, thus they are utter failures with Linux.
I've used windoze on my machine since win3.1. I've done the 3.11 thing, 95, 98, 2000 and now xp. I'm an engineer and did tech support for my department. I grew up with computers, I remember playing with a sinclair when I was like 6 or something.
I tried redhat 5.2 when it was current, got it installed as a dual boot, got X configured manually, got on the internet with it. Couldn't do anything else, thought it was a neat thing but not of much use, and removed it.
Tried redhat 7.2, and while the install was SO much easier, I simply didn't have the patience and time to learn how to recompile the Kernel, compile my apps, and become a command line wizard just to get anything done. (I knew a bit about the command line, I had used sun boxes at work for CAD)
Flash forward to this year, I seriously wanted to get linux to work, I want to have a fast, streamlined system with lots of good, free software. I installed Mandrake 9.2, and I *am* seriously impressed with this thing. I got so much of it working, the way it handles the rpm's is great, the desktop is great, the install was great, but why am I still using windows?
I can't figure out how to maneuver around X to update my video drivers and I can't get Firewire working. My goal is to have a killer video editing machine, and I gots to have firewire. The hoops I jumped through to get the video capture software working was dependency hell, and in the end I couldnt get the 1394 subsystem working.
Again, I don't have the time, I can install windows and have it all in just a couple hours. Maybe later... I promise, I will try again. I AM a power user. I AM competent enough. I HAVE programmed. I just don't have the patience and time to have to make things work that take a SINGLE CLICK and work OUT OF THE BOX in windows. Here's my point: Either give me to a single, difinitive guide that explains these problems or make it as easy as windows. I WANT To use linux, and I'm not alone. Help us.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Secure as windows and user-friendly as linux, yeah, that makes sense :)
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
...if you were to install it on a marketing droid's computer
What about Internet Explorer?
there's a difference 'tween linux users and windows users (for now): the linux user knows that the gui/window manager/whatever is just an interface, the windows user thinks all the windows and widgets are the operating system. an older windows user, someone who remembers that it took a command from the dos command line to start win3.1 may also know.
my point is: the gui (how it is) way is not the right way to move people from ms to linux. the power of linux is the kernel, the sockets and the huge base of free software available. and the freedom of choice, which includes the choice for your favourite window manager. this is something average windows users don't even know about: the gui is just a graphical layer in front of your os. this is something that makes linux and other unices extremly powerful from my pov.
the only way to move people to linux is to make them understand the real power of this operating system, not to make linux mimick the windows surface.
but i think about this like linus does: why should we take effort in moving people from windows to linux? there is no war, choose what you want, and if it's winxp, fine. not my prob.
... where is the OSXde that allows me to move to a Free operating system that's actually usable?
What's to explain it? A combination of egocentrism, vanity, and fear of the command line.
I think all these things play a role to some extent. There is also the fact that they have a vested interest in seeing Windows succeed. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people in the IT industry that aren't qualified to do anying other than maintain Windows machines.
Don't get me wrong, there are Microsoft Certified professionals out there that are incredibly smart and that will do just fine if Microsoft falls off the face of the earth tomorrow. But over the last couple years it's become so easy to get an MCSE without having any experience in computers. There are tons of schools around here that have "guaranteed to pass" crash courses for MCSE certification. If you have the money, you can pretty much buy the MCSE certification.
Then these idiots are unleashed on the IT industry. They quickly find jobs because they'll start at entry level salaries and have that piece of paper. Otherwise, they're resume never gets past HR.
I know because I've had to train many of them to do the most basic stuff once they're hired.
Don't get me wrong though--people that have studied and earned their MCSE's legitimately are generally pretty sharp and quick to learn new stuff. It's the ones that bought the MCSE certs and are along for the free ride that freak out and can't handle it whenever they encounter something new.
Of course GNU/Linux is different than Windows. It contains no graphics and no desktop: just a console to enter commands and a few basic programs/utilities.
I can happily inform you that KDE 3.2.1 runs just fine on OpenBSD, and feels/looks pretty much the same as on Linux. It's what I'm using typing this post.
A KDE user would not see much difference between KDE on *BSD and GNU/XFree86/QT/KDE/Linux, nor should he.
Time that some GNU/Linux proselytes give credit to other projects than GNU as well.
There is already Lindows.....which must have an XP and then there is the KDE.
Since when was XP eyecandy? Looks like they haven't looked at enlightenment recently... You get multiple desktops *overlapping*, the bottom of the screen ripples and waves with a watery reflection of the windows, windows slide in smoothly rather than just appear, the list goes on!
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
I have a new laptop which dualboots Windows XP and Linux. Until I get around to getting linux sorted out (wifi and power management) and get VmWare (mainly so I can edit Word for Windows documents natively) I sometimes have to boot it with XP.
How embarassing!
Of course I have the classic not the 'snot green' theme, Firefox browser etc, but what I would really like is theme for Windows XP that looks like KDE, so that I am not so easily caught using the Evil One's operating system. Having a few cygwin bash shells and Xwindow applicatons helps obviusly, but could I get rid of the windows logo in the Start button?
Mimicking is art
.. he finds it too intimidating to swap his XP to Linux.
Good for the soul
Anyway tis VERY wrong to criticize these guys work
Again YOU dont have to download it!
But I dont care about a few zitty geeks, I care about the masses. And ANYTHING that might bridge the gap of them jumping on top of Linux - is a boner (oops).
My boss is lazy, my boss gets infected with viruses, loses stuff, everything. But just like moving from FrontPage to Dreamweaver
Stuff like XPde (which I've been following before) - is kinda fun and might entice ppl like him.
I mean looks like XPde is a threat here, when maybe its my naivity I see it more like a plaything. Did we get flamers when ppl did FVWM95's and MS-Windows Themes? It's all about freedom of exercise and fun.
Seems like FEAR is prevalent on both sides of the field.
Exactly. There's choice on the desktop area because people disagree! Forcing one implementation down everyone's throat will make about 50% of the userbase unhappy. Do you really want to pay that price just for the sake of avoiding potential confusing?
The top parent post is yet another example of critics proposing the wrong solution to a problem.
What we need is interoperability and compatibility. Don't try to make a dictatorship, encourage effords like Freedesktop.org instead.
Luckily interoperability is improving more and more. I don't know about KDE but both GNOME 2.6 and ROX have adopted the Freedesktop.org MIME standard. All desktops have already adopted the Xdnd standard quite a while ago. KDE 3.0+ has adopted the clipboard standard. GNOME 2, and I believe KDE 3.2 too, have adopted the menu vFolder standard. This list goes on and on.
What people really want is to be able to write software that can integrate in every desktop. They want to write for one standard and work anywhere.
That's exactly why we need interoperability and compatibility, not a single implementation.
Ummm...shouldn't that subtitle be a Windows desktop for Linux users?
I'm reading at +5, so apologies if this is redundant.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
Whilst the idea of making something familiar to people switching from Windows is all very nice and that, there are some issues:
1) It doesn't need to be exactly analogous in order for someone to know what is going on. Windows users appears to handle the change from classic interface to XP interface without suddenly dying!
2) I can see that they have recreated some of Windows' worst aspects as well in the name of familiarity. I saw the old 16-colour drop down box in one of the screenshots, surely a relic from the 80's or something! Sadly this also means that Windows' nasty way of having configuration utilities spread everywhere is recreated - whereas a single configuration utility like KDE's is much better overall, especially if it was simplified.
I really don't see why they have to recreate the frustrating aspects of Windows! Shouldn't they be striving to improve upon Windows whilst retaining familiarity?
End users always say that Linux's desktops are complicated. They expect stuff to work at the same as Windows: icons at the right position, menus, etc. When they try out new desktops such as KDE, they don't have the motivation to learn since it's too "complicated". However, end users' base user interface complexity on Windows. If it doesn't work like Windows, it's too complex.
XPde may be a short term solution for Linux migration. End users need a little bit of training and exposure for new desktop environments such as KDE. In my university, we train end users: old office staff, encoders, etc. They don't have much time for training. Imagine if they come to work and surprised that their computer changed to a weird environment with a K instead of the Start button. Now, if they are rushing stuff and meeting a deadline, they will have a hard time getting used to a new environment. That's where XPde may kick in. Fool the users that they are using Windows and explain to them gradually why the sudden shift to Linux/KDE.
I don't think desktops like XPde is beneficial for Linux. Why go back to Windows' bloated interface when you have KDE? Linux applications should foster creativity and ingenuity. If we continue copying stuff from Windows, we are just trying hard copy cats.
That's an interesting idea.
Now someone should write a clone of COMMAND.COM for Linux, for as we all know it's The Superior Command Interpreter(tm).
Sure it may look like XP, it may even ACT like XP, but when aunt martha wants to upgrade Real (or Winamp, or Internet Explorer, or Mozilla, or Flash) she's gonna pick the XP version to download and the app will fail.
She'll either call her service technician (you), or take it to CompUSA, where the tech will blow a gasket trying to figure out why his windows based diagnostic tools don't work.
I'm not saying there aren't linux equivalent apps for most windows XP things, but there isn't a 1 to 1 correlation, and the Devil is in the Details.
Case in point: I got my mom an iOpener one year. It worked well, it did what she needed, but she always felt there was stuff she couldn't do because the device couldn't accomodate 100% of the things her church buddies could do. (Quicktime? Windows Media? Get infected with Gator?)
Granted, that's not all bad - especially the inherent security features, but it IS an issue that will arise.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
The point of the Windows GUI is not that it looks nice, it's that you can do everything in it. If this project provided a functional Add/Remove Programs, Device Manager and Control Panel then that would be a good thing. But it doesn't. To be fair the authors didn't intend it to do anything but recreate the look, but I think that will be counterproductive. It will only serve to make the limitations of a GNU/Linux system in terms of ease of installation and configuration of hardware and software more obvious.
The day you put the driver or software CD into your machine, click "install" and it Just Works(tm) - your new printer appears with an icon along with the rest, your software appears in the menu, the control panel lets you configure your new graphics card - is the day ordinary folk will switch to Linux.
The project has set out what it intended to achieve - a Windows XP look-alike. So well done on that front. But I think the authors are wrong if they think the look of the GUI is what's stopping people adopting GNU/Linux for the desktop.
Intellectual Property
Intellectual: of the mind
Property: that over which one has control
>breakthrough. One more choice won't help either.
Are you insane? Almost the *entire* reason why Windows is as much a security nightmare as it is, is because of it's homogenous nature. Sure, maybe it makes life a lot easier for end users, but have you ever stopped to think how much easier it makes life for virus writers and crackers as well?
Having only one system has it's pros and cons, the same way having choice does...but from where I'm sitting, choice has a lot more advantages. An example...I don't like KDE as an overall environment...it's bloated, buggy, and slow. However, there are some individual K apps which I like, and so I use Fvwm with the Gnome dock and Enlightenment, gtk/gnome libs, and K's libs as well. My RAM-resident windowmanager (Fvwm) is tiny, Enl gives me enough eye candy to satisfy without being too huge itself, and having just the libs from the other two systems means that they get loaded in on a single-app basis only, and thus don't cause instability and bloat.
I can already hear you arguing about how much initial effort that would take to set up...and yes, it does. The effort is spent only once however...and then the system works far better than Windows could ever dream of doing. What you're advocating is that we all accept a single, lowest common denominator, with all of the inherent problems that will bring us. What I prefer is my own setup, and for everyone else to have theirs...that way I can run what I want, and they can do the same.
Freedom requires effort...and the worst thing anyone can do is advocate that everyone be chained to one thing so that they can also be lazy. There is no way around it. If you want a good result with anything, you need to work.
OK, they mean well. They want to 'translate' XP to the Linux-platform. Not an easy task. But: while translating they better try to copy also the 'illogicalities' and plain bizar things that float around in the Windows-world : they will have to do this because the regular windows user expects these things to behave exactly like the real XP. (E.g. push 'start' button if you want to stop etc...). All this time , (money?) and resources would be much better spend if they would work on an open source project right-away. For instance contributing to KDE or Gnome to augment the 'eye-candy' factor , since this seems to attract people as is implicitly stated in the posters text.
less is more
I am glad you mention fascism, because you might know what it means. As mussolini said: fascism is merging the state and the corporation.
Now who is calling who fascist?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
What you people don't seem to realize is that Linux is not about "beating Microsoft". It's not about "marketshare". The majority of Linux developer don't give a flying rats ass about that.
When you start developing an Open Source program, 99.999999% of the time it is because you're scratching an itch. That basically means, you're writing it for fun.
And most everyone who remains in the Open Source community is doing it for fun. They're not doing it to get rich, they're not doing it to "Beat Bill". Developers just don't v\care about this type of nonsense... sure I think it's good when I read a news story about some company embracing Linux... but guess what? If those stories would all stop tomorrow, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I as a developer know *I* am writing good software, and I know many people enjoy using it. That means a whole lot more to me than marketshare.
No one who is really involved in the community gives a flying rats ass about Linux marketshare compared to windows... the only people who do are the 13 year old zealots at slashdot. Real members of the community care about wirting good software, and encouraging Open Source ideals like freedom of choice, a lot more than "marketshare". And if that freedom of choice results in less people using Linux, well, so be it, those people can be happy elsewhere. It does not affect most developers in any way since they are not paid to do this anyways.
In conclusion, the only people concerned with bringing "Linux to the masses" are those who stand to make a profit by doing so, namely the Linux companies. And this is great- don't get me wrong, all the power to them. But people, please stop confusing the agenda of RedHat, SuSe, IBM, etc. with the agenda of the majority of developers, and of the community itself. They are not one in the same.
In the GNU/Linux world people still open a text console on a every day basis, Somw of us find it the more convinient way of managing the system.
Well, if you're not opening a text console on an everyday basis, you probably aren't using GNU/Linux, since the GNU/ part refers to the GNU command-line tools. If you're managing your files in Konqueror instead of using GNU ls, rm, mv, and cp, reading documentation in KDE Help instead of GNU man and info, and launching applications from the KDE menu instead of GNU bash, and editing documents in OpenOffice.org and programming in KDevelop instead of using GNU emacs, then it's hard to see how the GNU tools are so fundamental to your system that they deserve to be part of the name.
On the other hand, I do consider myself to use GNU/Windows, since the GNU tools (via Cygwin) are just about the only way I manage to get any work done...
This whole idea of copying the Windows desktop is one of the reasons I get turned off Linux. If I want to use a Windows like interface why wouldn't I just use the real thing? People in the Open-Source community do a lot of talking about being innovative but I just ain't seeing it with projects like this. The post yesterday about ROX (even though it does copy an older RISC type OS) is at least a fresh idea in the Linux world and I give cudos to the author for trying something different. Sun also deserves cudos for their work on a 3D desktop as mentioned last week or so. It's innovative directions like these that Linux needs to go to differentiate itself from the Windows and Mac OSes that are already out there. How about working on a graphical and gesture interface like in Minority Report? Now that would be cool and would interest me in Linux. For now I'll just stick with my Mac.
I am running Internet Explorer with Crossover Office. You should be able to run it by tweaking your Wine config yourself, but I took the lazy man's way :-)
Morality is usually taught by the immoral.
My question is, do we (yes I use Windows)really want our desktops to be prettier, or would I just like something I can install out of the box? The last time I tried linux (with my new computer about a month ago), it took me almost 3 weeks just to get my network driver to work and I still haven't gotten my ATI drivers to run.... (damn your closed minds ATI...). I really just want something I can install, and it'll run flawlessly (for the most part, crashes are common where I come from :)).
Point of the matter is, work on getting us better driver/manufacturer support and linux would do alot better with us neophytes.
w00t,
As someone that provides support for a large Linux-centric network, I would say that Linux is definitely harder to use than Windows (for an average user). It's not surprising, after all it was designed and built with the power user in mind.
Things like network transparency and a rich and powerful shell are great for me, but terrifying for most of the people who I support (who are moderately computer literate, but not power users).
As for the security thing, well I know tons of Windows users who are perfectly capable of running a virus & worm free Windows installation, but not capable (or geeky enough) of getting their head around the Linux way of doing things.
I'm getting tired of open source projects just copying ideas from commercial software.
Linux -> Unix,
KDE, Gnome, Nautilus -> windows, MacOS,
Open Office -> MS Office.
After a while it gets tiresome. I'd like to see something from O/S that is newer/better rather than just copies and maybe some refinement but no real new ideas.
We witness not a fallen world, but falling every day - The Call.
Why Europeans hate Americans
see parent
While I do understand your point, there are some issues which make that difficult. Take OOo for example. MS doesn't make Office for Linux. So, what do Linux people do? Contribute to something which will give them a good office suite. To some extent, the measure of 'good' is MSOFfice itself, because of its installed base. However, you do get things like 'export to PDF' which MS Office doesn't have, nor likely ever *will* have. If MS ever put that in Office, they'd risk pissing off Adobe, a huge partner who may very well start porting their apps to other platforms (instead of dropping support for other platforms as of late). And by (re)supporting other platforms, they'd make it easier for people to justify moving away from MS. So, in short, you *do* get new/original features. Some are big, some are small. The small ones sometimes you don't/can't notice without using the software for awhile.
creation science book
.... out there. Not on any tech website, but on "other" websites where you might get a truer cross section of what people are running. I have a sneaking suspicion it is win 98se, because that was the breakthrough era for a LOT of people getting online,and it's what came on their computer, and they have never switched, just patched, cleaned, re installed, etc, and now it's working more or less well for them. Products like zone alarm, and the spyware removal tools and anti virus whatnots and suchlike have managed to get that OS running "good enough" for most people, and they won't really use any other OS until they purchase a new computer, which might be some years hence, even now. Surfing, listening to tunes, email, etc run well enough on older boxes with small amounts of ram. Even there, I bet a huge number of people are still only online with 32 megs. Which is another point, modern OSs require such a large amount of ram, we've had GUIs that ran on single digit amounts of ram in the past, now it seems you need more ram in megs than hard drive space was on average machines just a few years ago, more or less. I think that has lagged badly, on all platforms and modern OSs, using ram efficiently enough to get the job done. I work on old clunkers, and still amazed that they work as well as they do with oddball small amounts, 8 meg sticks, 32s, etc. That's always my sticking point on trying to upgrade the OS, simply finding the old compatable RAM sticks, usually it's fruitless. And without a serious maxing out of these old machines, modern OS's just ain't happening. I've borked several machines using non compatable. (yes I know that's my fault, ya try what ya can get your hands on).
Anyway, back to my original question, webmasters, what say ye, am I close, is 98se still the dominant OS on the intarweb??
... my make sense limit. The reason why I was asking this is probably obvious,if not here it is, imitating XP won't be as useful as imitating 98se if I am correct. People running XP have a modern enough OS and powerful enough machine under it that they probably won't even think about switching any time soon. What's needed is a distro and window manager that can run with smallish amounts of RAM and look n feel like 98se, and has a super easy graphical install. Maybe, dunno, but seems logical.
I think instead of copying XP interface, we should copy Longhorn instead? I know Longhorn is still 2 or 3 years away, but by the time Xpde goes 1.0, will longhorn be in beta already?
What do partial differential equations have to do with the Linux desktop? :)
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
I would settle for a linux desktop for linux users.
At first I thought "if linux is better than windows, why try to be windows".
/. readers are either operating exlusively in Windows or have a box they can boot into.
While the OS has seen some dumbing down in recent years (mainly XP), Microsoft has spent a lot of money developing as well as copying from those who have also spent a lot of money developing a good User Interface.
Window Manager writers don't have to reinvent the wheel -- there are a few things that are simply good ideas that should be implemented. A central control panel where UI and system tweaks can be done without forcing the user to resort to editing text files is a good idea. Universal COPY and PASTE context menus and a backend smart enough to know the capabilities of PASTE with the different objects you might be COPYING (e.g., pictures or text) is a good idea.
The thing is, the more I think about what Linux really needs in terms of UI, the more my mind settles on OSX. You want your shell? You can have your shell in a window, no problem. You want fancy eye-candy for Grandma and the Children? Got that, too. I'm glad Apple took the plunge, because God knows it'll take the open source community years to get it right.
Even after a million articles like this, with people clamoring for better a better UI, there are still +5, Interesting comments about why it's not of fundemental importance to integrate the graphical subsystem into the OS itself. No, it makes much more sense to require users to install it themselves. Kind of like Windows 3.1 over DOS.
People like graphics. They have proven it by making Microsoft one of the richest companies in the world, and perhaps more tellingly, one of the most pirated software companies in the world. Even if you're not buying it, you're still using it, which is good enough for Microsoft and good enough to prove my point. I'd be curious to see how many
Hmm, a rewrite just after all the source code was leaked?
I've been trying to find a reson to completely switch to Linux since 1998 and this DOES NOT provide a reason to do it. (I still run RH 6.1 on an old Pentium 200)
Why does the linux community insist on continuing to "remake" the desktop? This isn't going to win over users.
We don't need yet another desktop environment or yet another linux distribution.
The real questions to ask the linux community need to answer for end users are the following:
1. Can it run the same games? If I can, will I lose the any features?
2. Can I buy the same software? If I can, it is easy to install?
3. Can it use any printer I buy at the store?
4. Can it use all the same sound cards, video cards, peripherals I can buy for windows?
Aside from OOo, Firefox, and Thunderbird, the current answer is a resounding "NO" to all those questions. Additionally, when I am purchasing or building new computer, Microsoft does add cost, however, is worth it because I now have compatibility software and hardware available, especially from the gaming market.
I want to completely switch, but If I do, I can't run Battlefield 1942, I can't run Battlefield Vietnam, I won't be able to run Half-Life 2, my All-in-Wonder card won't have all the features I've purchased. I will lose features I've paid for on my OfficeJet G85. I will have to fix all of my word, excel and powerpoint files to work with OOo
Instead of focusing changing the desktop, why not work on Open Source projects that make it easier for vendors to port applications to Linux?
If porting applications isn't feasible, why not simply continue to focue on what Linux does best... run servers.
I've head the Microsoft basing since the early 90's and the rhetoric is getting old along with the Linux promise to take over the desktop.
Without portability of software, the promise of beating Microsoft on the desktop will continue to come out the other end of a Crack pipe.
.. "competing against the Windows desktop" is not a goal of anyone except pre-teen slashdot zealots.
6 1046
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=102820&cid=87
I don't really care what people use, whether it's windows, mac, linux, but if you want to do video, do yourself a favour and check out your nearest mac outlet, see how it works, see if you like it.
... - and you'll never have any driver problems.
The good news: you'll still get to have command line interface if you want, you can still run thousands of free open source packages - you can run Gnome, KDE,
Serious, if you need video power, all you'll ever need is a mac and iMovie, Final Cut Express or Final Cut Pro - depending on your budget and level of expertise.
Seems you've already settled with Windows, but thought it was worth mentioning...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Only NT has the true BSOD
I'll give you that "Please insert the disk:" is not a blue screen of death, but if you claim that Windows 9x blue error screens aren't BSODs, then why do people refer to the "An exception 0E has occurred at blah:blahblah in VxD" and "This computer is busy or has become unstable" screens as "blue screen of death"?
"Take it away! Take this green user interface away! Could be cryptonite!"
Super heroes ain't what they used to be.
Has anyone ported X/unix window managers to run on win32?
The only thing I've found along these lines is TweakUI from MS themselves -- which really only addresses pointer-focus.
I'd be real happy to be able to run anything even remotely like enlightnenment running on win32, retraining fingers to the incredibly low function interface on w2k/xp is just plain painful on a daily basis.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Because very few will be installing it.
If the goal is to convert as many as possible from
Windows desktop to Linux desktop, it will fail.
Why ? Average Joe will never ever put it on his
computer.
As I see it, the only way for Linux to gain some real markedshare on the desktop, is when shops start selling Linux preinstalled. Here in Denmark there's XP on almost all sold PC's, and the rest has no OS. Hopefully this will change soon. Maybe Lindows can make a difference.
Martin Andersen
First I know that no one is going to red this, sad but true, to late for that... :-(
I don't believe that imitation is the way, if you try to closely imitate one environment the more the smiplest details that differ will matter. The end result an insatisfied user, because of trivial problems.
I took the road of doing something that is assumed different, it can use the same ideas, it can be similar but is definitly different.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
but what about those of us who find XP completely unusable?
Oh, right. We continue to not give a shit.
Some older XPde.com mirrors, are available HERE, HERE, and HERE
This title had me going for a few seconds. Shouldn't it read, "A Windows desktop for Linux users?" Don't get my hopes up for installing KDE or Gnome on my Win2k box!
I've gave myself XPDE a try for fun and honestly I really cannot see why this could be in any way positive to mass migration to Linux... Sure it is fun to see how similar to windows it looks and playing around with it for a day and show it to your friends for entertainment sure is amusing...
But let's face it... A new Linux user that has no clue about the power and advantages of Linux over Windows will just very quickly jump to the conclusion that "Linux sucks"! Why? Isn't it obvious? For example, one of the greatest things that Linux GUIs have to offer over windows is the virtual desktops. XPDE just dig deep down this feature by trying to "look" like Windows... So too bad cuz I think virtual desktops are a major feature that can help convince people the benefits of Linux (Personnaly that's one of the things I found most frustrating when I have to use Windows now, the whole windows all stuck in the same desktop, eww, awful!).. Anyways, that's just an example...
The main problem with this sort of GUI is that new users will try it, quickly find out that yes it's similar to Windows, but they cannot do half of what they can do under Windows. So they think "What's the point of using Linux? Windows looks just the same and I can do much, much more with it... Why would I switch to Linux? I tried it, I cannot see what more Linux can offer to me at all..."
To me XPDE is just bad news for Linux... The cool things about Linux are actually the differences, the choices, Gnome, KDE, Windowmaker, Enlightenment... Everybody has their favorite and that's what makes Linux fun and interesting! Personnaly I chose Gnome cuz it allows me to have the best of all worlds all-in-one... The virtual desktops, the windows style start menu, its intuitive drag-n-drop interface and last but not least the Mac OS 7-8-9 style "finder" ("Window Menu" in Gnome). I think that's a shame they dropped that feature in Mac OS X as I find it much more convienent than "Expose", which, imho, is sort of just a slow, eye-candy gadget that doesn'T really save that much time after all... I'm not a mac user but I do use macs sometimes and when I tried OS X although I thought its pretty nice I really missed the finder feature... it made it quite fast to find an "hiding" app..
Anyways, I think Linux has LOTS more to offer than Windows and it's not by hiding its power and differences under a limited copy of a Windows interface that we'll get new users to switch to Linux at all... There are a LOT of people that switch from Windows to Mac, and is it because the Mac looks like windows?? No, it is rather the opposite, it's more because of a totaly different and fresh approach that people just end up being seduced by after playing around with it! That's why I chose Linux anyway, because I just got seduced by its power and its differences, not because I felt like "I'm at home", in a stripped-down, lame copy of Windows!!
Alright, that was just my 2 cents...
It barely looks like XP.
XPde 0.5 - A Linux Desktop for Windows Users
I was hoping someone ported over KDE to a Windows theme! It would be cool to use Gnome/KDE on my Windows box, to make it feel more like home! Although, when it blue-screens, it will be a harsh reminder of the underlying OS.
Anyone know of a good KDE theme for Windows? Maybe using WindowsBlinds or Litestep?
A Linux UI that's slightly better at exactly copying Microsoft's designs than all the other common Linux UI's that are also almost exact copies of Microsoft's designs.
Wow. Innovation from the Open Source community at last...
the MSN icons I need on the desktop after a clean install? How else am I supposed to get on the internet?
Jesus H Christ, you're on Slashdot. Wake up and smell the geeks.
so i wonder how long it will be before the developers are sued so thoroughly the break apart into their component molecules...
"You can dream but as long as Linux geeks continue the UI religious wars you are going to end up with an ugly hodgepodge of applications that look inconsistent and behave inconsistently."
Funny, people said the same thing about evolution. Standards! Standards I tell you, flippers on this one, wings on that. Why can't we all just be alike (might do wonders for race relations)? Besides if you can't tell the difference between strong disagreement, and a religous war then you have no business doing commentary on the subject.
"Now we have this wonderful prospect that Miguel de Icaza has declared all existing toolkits obsolete and is presumably going to develop a new one from scratch and start a religious war in the Gnome/GTK camp when he decides he wants to switch existing apps over with all the devastating consequences. The one plus here is KDE will just ignore him and maybe he will sufficiently screw up GNOME for a year or two so that GNOME will fall behind and fail and then we can unify on one desktop."
What if Miguel declared a "war" and no one came? This isn't commercial development here, and it doesn't play by commercial rules. Besides you're too busy predicting Linux's future to get sucked into that.
"Just do what I do and try to run OpenOffice and Evolution on a KDE desktop. It puts a massive suck on memory because there are three sets of software doing all the same things but differently. You have to shift gears everytime you move between them because everything about the UI's in each is different. I have utter contempt for people who complain they don't like the "look" of KDE and GNOME. The "look" is insignificant compared to consistency."
256Mbytes and I do it all the time. Maybe you should ditch the 386? And yes for all people's faults "looks" do matter. Welcome to human 101. hope you're not ugly.
"I don't even consider using Mozilla because then I would hate the massive inconsistency so badly I would just give up on a Linux desktop. Konqueror has its quirks but its really important that its small, light, fast and fits with the rest of the desktop. I'll drop Evolution and return to kmail as soon as the HTML editor in kmail works. I need to start evaluating koffice to see if I can get off OpenOffice or I need to buy a whole bunch more RAM. The time it takes OpenOffice to load is reason enough to want to get rid of it. KDE is using some major tricks to get apps to load quickly and to circumvent the major overheads in dynamic linking. When you load OpenOffice you benefit from none of this so you wait an hour for it to load."
Oh gee. Exaggeration is going to convince people yours is the sound argument. "Don't use Windows, like it's so slow it takes hours just to pull up the start menu". "Oh no the "yes" and "no" are reversed. Whatever will I do?" [faints dead away](1)
"Let me spell it out for you. Mac OSX and Windows have a consistent look and feel, all the applications behave consistently. This is especially true of OSX. Thats why ordinary people like it so much. If you use one app you can switch to another and use it with equal ease. This consistency is a hundred times more important to users than all the "innovation" you see in Linux applications. If you want Linux to win on the desktop the application suite HAS to be consistent, and I mean really consistent, as in how menus are laid out, how accelerators are defined, how tools work, how things look etc."
Wow, someone apparently missed the whole "metal theme", and Quicktime discussion, and what do you know MS office isn't consistent, and hey lets hear it for that WinAmp. People are sure going to stop using it just because it isn't like everything else.
"If you want Linux to continue to fail on the desktop just stay the course. You might win some enterprise support because big companies want free. You don't have a prayer with most average users with the current state of things."'
Apparently not only are you bad at predicting the future, your bad at learning from it. In case you'v
One reason I still use Windows is the ease of organizing files with it. All the work can be done from the keyboard and can be done quickly. If I change to a new folder, the time to display that folder is minimal. When I need quick access to a folder, WindowsKey+R brings up the Run dialog and c:\blah\blah\blah<enter> gets you there. Dragging and dropping with the appropriate (and by now well-learned) keyboard accellerators is fast 99% of the time and just plain reliable even when it throws an hourglass at me. But as I said, the instances of explorer UI freakout and extremely low on my systems (more on this below) and the UI is more responsive than I've ever felt Konqueror to be.
Of course, Microsoft has gone out of its way to ruin the Win95 explorer's big advantage: Responsiveness. In a modern XP install, I need to go to Windows Classic explorer, turn off every toolbar but the Menu Bar, remove the sidebar, and change about 10 options (don't hide system files, show all extensions, etc.) before it really resembles the old Explorer. Then... load up TweakUI and ditch any of the animations associated with explorer (fade-in menus can be awful on poor video cards, yet it's on by default). Okay, no wonder it's fast. All the MSCruft(tm) has been dumped for the standards of 1995!
The one thing that has not gotten better in years (and is considerably worse in my install of Win2k) is the ability to use a non-standard icon/display size in Explorer. I can make List the default for my current window. I can tell Explorer to make all folders like my current one. But every new folder created defaults to Large Icon view. And I can't find an obvious way to solve this (though another run by Annoyances.org says there might be a registry key deletion in my future).
Yes, I already know that Win95's Explorer UI sucks for things like discoverability and crimes against humanity. But I got used to it a while ago and it's the standard no Linux file manager has surpassed yet, in my eyes. Sad, but true.
Because it's better than XP, duh, moron.
Have a nice day, troll.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Okay, if you're boss is walking by your cubicle you might not want him to instantly realize you aren't running Windows. But other than that, is there any sane reason to use this?
.NET propaganda. Or it supports their hardware. Or any of several other dozen reasons. But they ARE NOT using it solely to get a specific appearance.
If Windows users are so completely hostile to changes in their working environment's look then WHY aren't they still using Win98 or Win2K? Windows XP brought a huge difference in look, feel and layout to Windows, but people don't seem to have a problem with that. In fact, now that I think about it, the ONLY people who say Linux needs to look like Windows are Linux people!
The reason people stick with Windows is not because it looks like Windows. The look and feel differences between 98 and XP should be ample evidence of that. The reason they're sticking is simply because it's Windows. They use it because it runs the software they need. Or they're more comfortable using what everyone else is using. Or because they've bought into the
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
For a .5 release, I'm surprised it's as incomplete as it is (as far as features are concerned). Several things of note:
- a complete file browser (file dialogs are lacking)
- an integrated browser (using khtml wouldn't have hurt too much, would it guys?)
- a MIME editor
- no Quicklaunch bar
The only really noticeable change is that it's a bit faster - and still pretty doggish, I might add. I don't personally notice any UI changes since when it was first anounced on slashdot some (6+?) months ago. Seems either their code is pretty bloaty, or their development suite is crap (Kylix).
This is certainly a project I'd like to see succeed, as it would make a very good drop-in replacement for a basic Windows desktop for the average user - to the point where they might not even notice the change, if they're already using things like OO.o and Mozilla.
I personally think that the file manager shouldn't "bother" to impliment things such as Unix permissions, but to abstract them to "Windows standards", if you will (maybe with an option for Unix permissions?).
I'd say it's VERY VERY important to impliment the Quicklaunch bar and make it so that the taskbar's position is "customizeable" as it is in Windows. Aside from the complete computer retard, it seems nearly everyone has their own "custom" taskbar setup (auto-minimize, double-deep taskbar w/ quicklaunch on top, quicklaunch on bottom, on the left side, on the right, no quicklaunch, multiple quicklaunch, quicklaunch to the right, to the left, etc.)
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Regarding virtual desktops -- there're probably tons of teensy virtual desktop managers. Microsoft's own "Powertoys" include one. My Geforce included one. This isn't something you can't easily have on Windows; don't know why it's so ...optional.
.. why they needed a registry editor!?!? If you can hack at the registry you aren't that far from hacking at your .files
Yes... or at least "kinda", not sure. I only used it once, and only to try out Freeciv, so I have no idea how well it works. But they do have screenshots of Windowmaker and and a few other window managers.
And then there're native shell replacements like Litestep, among others.
I have installed Linux 2-3 times over the last few years (Mandrake 7.?/RedHat 6.2/RedHat 8.2). I really want to be able to use it and leave MS altogether.
/etc/X11/XF86Config and switch from 16-24 and vice versa" ......HUH?...... I am sure that makes a lot of sense to a Linux expert but you will NEVER get the casual user to learn it well enough to understand what the hell that meant.
It usually stays on my comp. (dual boot) until the boot manager crashes or something then I reinstall Windows and decide to try again in another year.
Reading these posts I am thinking maybe I'll try it again. I wanted to see Wine's support list to see if I could run my fav. games. Looking up "Diablo 2", yes it's there, great! A little lower on that page, a help listing, "In case that something's wrong with the screen size , that's due to the default depth , just vim
I am the local computer expert in my circle of friends/family/work but that part of Linux gives me a headache. Guess I'll wait another year.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Hey, lets take Linux and make it look just like Windows XP down to the icon naming just to make it easier for Microsoft to find something to sue us over!!!! Because lets face it, this SCO thing is just too much fun!
Come on... How can this be a good idea?
Anyone been able to find the sources to this yet..? It's gpl I thought, but I can't find the sources...
"Nice anonymous coward rant. You apparently lack the guts and conviction to say it with your name attached."
Fortunately for me (not you), your "I've been denied the opportunity to go "La La La I can't hear you" fallacy has been shown to be load of bull. But you do get points for sticking with the basics.
"I'm running on a 1 GHZ Pentium 3 laptop with 256 MB of RAM. Sure you can run them all but OpenOffice in particular is a complete and utter slug to start. You should try doing a head comparison with Windows starting IE, Outlook and Office. It dusts Linux on startup time versus Mozilla, Evolution and OpenOffice. There is an inevitability in it. Windows is sharing one set of DLL's. Linux is loading pretty much 3 completely different set of libraries."
You apparently mised the news on Slashdot, that MS preloads behind the scenes. Actual time hasn't changed, effective time however has you snowed.
"OSX and Windows may not me completely consistent but Linux isn't even in the same ball park. If people are adopting Linux on the desktop its in spite of the terrible application consistency and more likely because of the price, and the fact security is better mostly just because no one is targeting Linux because its desktop share is so low."
Oh we're in the ballpark. Look over in the bleachers. And I see your goodie bag of "fallacy" is full. Apache is just one of many that proves the "If only I were popular, the script kiddies will go out with me" to be false.
"Just keep telling yourself Linux is going to win the desktop without fixing the screwed up UI and usability problems."
Results speak louder than predictions.
"I love Linux, I pray for its success on the desktop, I've been running it on my laptops for years."
That would be the P3, right?
"Its just a simple fact of life that UI and application consistency is its Achilles heel, mostly because geeks like you would rather rant, justify the situation, fight religious wars, pretend its a plus instead of a problem and generally stick your head in the sand."
As opposed to your overblowing the situation, AND insulting every "average person" between here and the gold coast. "Why I'm sorry ma'am. I hope my moving the trash icon over to the right didn't confuse you?" I can just see them rushing to your defense.
"Thats not going to solve the problem."
As opposed to your overstating the situation, overuse of logical fallacies, deemphasising the deficiencies of your choice of platform in an attempt to make Linux look worse.
"It appears Linux is just going to fracture in to people only using KDE apps, and others using only Gnome apps, and geeks using a bunch of quirky splinters."
And let's pretend to ignore the reality, ON ALL PLATFORMS. People use a mix of software NOT ALL OF IT CONSISTENT. PEOPLE SURVIVE, oh no, wait. They don't [checks the obit. page]
"As long as I stick to just KDE apps the consistency and interoperability is pretty good. Maybe I could just stick to GNOME apps though the consistency there is not as good. Its just unfortunate you have to ignore two thirds of Linux applications if you don't want to cope with a hopeless hodge podge."
"
And you could ignore a lot of apps on Windows and Macs if you're going to be that "religious" about your UI.
I have been a windows user for quite some time. I have toyed with different versions of linux for quite some time (at least four of them over several years).
The point I would like to make is that I like Windows and Linux symbiotically. I like Windows because it's easy: I can install software with a double click, I can troubleshoot my system very easily and effortlessly, and the interface is straightforward. Linux (well, actually I use FreeBSD) represents the other half of the spectrum: I have trouble installing software (although that is beginning to change), I have no clue how to troubleshoot, and the interface for maintaining my computer is all commandline. Despite all of that, I really like it: it's stable, it does what I ask it to, and it's very cheap (i.e. free). But as I have said before, the reason I can appreciate both is by using both.
Windows has plently of games, all the games I could ever ask for. I will keep a Windows computer until games are made for *nix systems.
Windows supports my music software http://www.buzzmachines.com - I can't install this on *nix. Wine doesn't help either.
*nix is optimized for older computers. I can't just expect XP to run on my pentium 100, but I can install flavors of *nix that will work perfectly (FreeBSD, for instance).
*nix requires a higher technical proficiency, basically making every experienced user a hacker. A nice little benefit. I want to be a hacker.
My point is that it's symbiotic. Both sides offer me something I want, and both sides make me really appreciate the other.
The end.
Every point you raised is redundant:
* Unify the desktop
Linux is about choice. Gnome and KDE are easy enough to pick up. Choose one. Learn it. It's not that difficult.
* Easy installation.
SuSE is easier to install than XP in my experience. It can also auto setup a dual boot system and resize NTFS partitions automagically.
* Hardware support that JUST WORKS.
NVidia graphics drivers JUST WORK when you run the installer. Some dists will auto-install all hardware drivers, and even download them if they are not allowed to re-distribute them. Again, SuSE and others have mastered this. It's not a distributions fault if a hardware manufacturer doesn't want to provide drivers. In many cases, people are left to reverse engineer them.
* System updates that JUST WORK when vulnerabilities are discovered.
Debian's APT will do this for you. SuSE has it's own updater. Others do to.
* High performance drivers.
I have tried both ATI and NVidia drivers on Linux and Windows (dual boot system). Both perform exceptionally well. The NVidias had a higher framerate under Linux for me. If your hardware isn't supported, ask your hardware vendor why they haven't provided a driver.
* Keyboard shortcuts that work - shared desktop clipboard that is as easy to use as Windows. click, select "paste". Simple.
Choose your GUI and learn it. Simple.
For some history about the "peculiar" action of dragging-to-Trash on a Macintosh, see http://www.mackido.com/Interface/TrashingDisks.htm l
While my first encounter with this behaviour was in 1987, I still remember that fleeting "but won't it wipe all my files?" feeling. But I soon learned it was just a (non-destructive) shortcut, albeit a memorable one!
While I agree with most of what you say, you obviously didn't read their FAQ. it clearly states that it's not really about users "choosing" to switch to XPde, it's more about sysadmins choosing for their users. http://www.xpde.com/faq.php
Might be a good transitional tool for Windows users looking not wanting to give up their eye-candy interface initially.
I'm not sure that's the salient issue. Windows user who are savvy to Linux know about the great eye candy that is available for Linux. Frankly, if it came down to eye candy, projects like Enlightenment offer no advantage over ObjectDesktop, WindowsBlinds, and StyleXP. And so far, Microsoft's ClearType anti-aliasing technology is subjectively better than anything I've seen on MacOS or Linux. Note, this is an admittedly subjective evaluation. I found a Q&A that speaks to the technical quality of ClearType that is beyond my comprehension. The fact is, my eyes have never been happier! I work heavily with numbers and text. Show me how to anti-alias old Linux apps like xv and rxvt, and I'm yours!
As a longtime Windows user who does appreciate Linux, what keeps me from making the switch are three common issues that I and the thousands of Linux advocates and zealots still haven't resolved:
1. I, like most Windows users, spend a lot on Windows software. Windows software typically costs about $40-80 online or in stores. That's quite an investment. In order to let go of Windows I would have to write off my investment in software as a sunk cost. But what if I want to keep using that software? What do I do, toss it out? Maybe I should sell it all off on eBay? This is why Linux is an easier sell to first time computer users; there isn't an established dependency. There is a good amount of good software that doesn't run on WINE or any of the WINE spinoffs. Testing to see if my apps will work under Linux can require that I pay good money for Win4Lin or VMWare. WINEX is a gamble since I have to pay before I can try it out, and according to the site, none of what I run works!
2. I like my a Windows apps. I don't abandon my apps just because there's a new operating system in town. I still use a few DOS and Windows 3.1 apps. I also have MacOS and Amiga apps sitting around. Why should I abandon my favorite apps like MS Office XP or The Sims (I've bought all the expansions) just because there are shiny new alternatives available on Linux? At the end of the day, I bought my computer in order to compute, not so that I can fight a revolution. Being a Stallmanista is kinda cool too, but I want to use what I want to use... ultimately isn't Linux and open-source about freedom of choice?
3. I need to use specialized proprietary applications like SPSS, and I happen to use some hardware that isn't support under anything but Windows. For some apps, I just can't use an alternative. And for the hardware, I'm not talking about winmodems, I''m talking about video capture devices and software that rely on the current DirectX and DirectShow. It doesn't matter whether an alternative exists, I won't use it for reasons other than stubborness.
So far, the only solution has been dual-booting, which has its own problems, and purchasing a second computer.
cygwin/xfree would be nice but I need native, if X worked on this worksite I'd jsut use bsd :-).
I'll try some older versions and maybe write the maintainer.
so close, yet so far
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
I would have to say the biggest impediment besides just desktop compatibility is GAMES!
It's the reason I stay with Windows... games are built for it, games run well on it and the selection is ENORMOUS!
Yes, you can emulate windows from within Linux, but at what performance hit? Any hit at all is too much, I don't want my gaming performance to suffer just so I can have the joy of using an operating system that still doesn't quite just 'work' with all the peripherals and programs...
So, that's why I don't move to linux.
"Might be a good transitional tool for Windows users looking not wanting to give up their eye-candy interface initially."
Yup, just to tide them over until they realize they actually wanted that ugly hard to use garbage of the typical xwindows desktop.
Cracks me up.
Get the facts straight, MS invested $150 million in Apple and among other things as part of the agreement they settled the icon dispute.
/ 08 /11/story2.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/1997
XPde is probably within the crosshairs of Microsoft litigation as we speak. The cheap settlement of the Apple icon suit was a real coup for future copycats like this. XPde IS NOT PROTECTED BY ANY PRECEDENT.
The original recent technology, if you'll call it one, that utilized the XP was eXtreme Programming. I believe they used it for about 15-20 years before Windows XP came out.
Coincidentally, Microsoft started using XP about the time eXtreme Programming was in its heyday.
Windows XP Reloaded anyone?
I mean, before that all they could come up with was NT or "New Technology."
I don't know where they're getting these Microsoft guys, but they are seriously the least original ripoffs of names ever. Nevermind that NT technology, if it isn't redundant, is actually ancient VMS technology from decades before.
How do you wean someone off of something if you're giving them what you're allegedly weaning them off of?
I cannot believe anybody would even waste the time to emulate the Windows GUI. "B-but people won't switch because it's 'what they're used to'!" Um, no, people will switch if you come up with something better and easier. I work in tech support for my company. You don't think I can't bring up a hundred examples off the top of my head on how people are confused by Windows every day? Don't even get me started on the failure that is the "taskbar."
Yes, and they lost.
They lost on a technicality. Why do people not know this?
So, if Microsft copied Apple (and don't forget Apple copied Xerox), what is wrong if somebody copies Microsoft?
Apple had a legal right because they made a deal with Xerox to tour the facilities. Unlike the Hollywood-esque Pirates of Silicon Valley movie, it wasn't like Steve Jobs swept in with his band of rogues to steal their ideas. It was a standard business deal.
Apple will shut you down if you try to make, say, an Aqua rip off.
One thing I am impressed with is that this copycat fully emulates Windows XP's desktop simplicity. By that I mean, look at some of the screenshots--just a gray bar at the bottom with a Start button, and a few icons on the desktop.
Default installs of Gnome and KDE give me one or two gray bars (top and bottom of the screen), tons of buttons, an extremely crowded "start" menu, two or three applets on the panel, etc.
I think that one of the areas that linux can really beat windows given enough effort is with it's desktop environments.
I really doubt it, and here's why. The OSS community doesn't seem to have any of the artistic types that Microsoft and, more specifically, Apple employs, and there is no real focus on the "feel" of the desktop.
KDE developers will talk about adding more buttons and sidebars and crap, and GNOME will talk about fixing a Save dialog and such. Meanwhile, they're still using Start menus and taskbars--complete ripoffs of Windows (amusing considering the vitriol toward "M$"), but more importantly, the taskbar and start menu are horrible interface decisions that had their time long ago.
Taskbars are not spatial, they get crowded too easily, and are very bad design. They still confuse non-techies. Start menus are worse--and they get so crowded on Windows as it is, but fire up KDE and you get redundancies like "System," "Control Center," and "Preferences," not to mention bizarre subgroups like "More Programs" that I still haven't figured out the purpose of.
I'm looking to Y-Windows--not only are they finally ridding the world of the failure that is X11, but I look foward to the opportunity to completely revamp desktop design and implement something that is different and innovative, in the vein of MacOS and BeOS. To me, KDE and GNOME feel like hacks on top of XFree86 and have always felt that way. I despite how similar they are to Windows.
Hopefully, something else comes along, but I just don't see the push for it in the OSS community. I've offered ideas, but they get turned down because "users want what they're used to," which means we get crap like this XPde thing--a complete rip-off of the Windows XP desktop. Do you honestly think that's beneficial at all to the cause?
Reasons that is not pretty:
* If I had to stare at that font rendering all day, my eyes would hurt pretty bad too. Hell, look at those lowercase "w"s in your top menu.
* The "shadows" beneath the menu items, hacked into KDE 3.2, are embarrassing. They are godawful ugly. XP's actually fades out gracefully. Those are just blocks of dark shape that abruptly end and simply garble the shapes all the more when I glance at the text.
* The text of menus is too tall, and the menu items are too close together.
* I don't know what to think about being proud that your Linux desktop completely rips off the look and feel of another operating system without actually coming close to its usability. Let's INNOVATE, people! We could come up with our own original ideas...but we don't. I can't believe you even stuck a Dock-alike in there. Jeesh!
What desktop linux needs is ONE desktop to replace them all. That is; one set of widgets, one way of doing everything, and one interface for developing gui apps for linux.
Y-Windows--and Mark Thomas' paper there describes all the reasons. I have yet to heard anyone validly refute them.
They are aiming for a 1.0 release within a year.
We don't need one implementation, we need implementations to be compatible and interoperable! Instead of trying to make a dictatorship, go support effords like Freedesktop.org.
Goddammit--get it through your skulls, it's not always good to have multiple choices. It's not a "dictatorship" to have one interface--it's call interface consistency . Who the hell is going to write for your system if you have 20 different environments all half-adhering to some standard on a website? It's too many moving targets.
This is absolute crap. Every time a story like this someone comes along and posts a "What Linux needs is Unity!!" post, acting as if they were some sort of prophet sent to lead Linux to the promise land.
.NET? How about Cocoa? Developers are raving about those solutions--and they're not complaining, "Oh, I wish I had five other toolkits to choose from so I could have CHOICE! My whole world revolves around CHOICE!" No, their world revolves around getting the damn job done, and their jobs are made a lot harder when there is no stable platform to target.
And then some "tough guy" comes along insulting them because they dared suggest change. You fear change. That's a mighty big chip you've got on your shoulder. Don't whine and complain when Linux doesn't make any desktop headway.
Why does Linux need this one singular desktop? Who is going to benefit from lack of choice?
It's called interface consistency.
Do you really expect developers to give up their choice in what to develop with, just because you think it will help more people adopt Linux.
Oh, I see--Linux desktops are all about the developer. The programming weenies are all that count. Meanwhile, bitch some more about the lack of mainstream Linux acceptance.
Where on kernel.org do you see that goal of "Get everyone off of windows and onto a Linux Desktop"? Where on KDE's site do you see the goal of "Being the ONE TRUE Linux desktop." I like having a choice in my desktop, and I like having a choice in my development tools.
Whoopdey-freaking-doo. That doesn't make Linux desktops suck any less.
First off, this isn't the kind of dictatorship that is used in kernel development, the "top-down" management you speak of doesn't exist.
I don't know why you keep referring to kernel development.
Linus doesn't decide by himself the roadmap for the kernel
Yes, he does.
he doesn't dictate what the developers should use
Yes, he does.
or how they should code
Yes, he does.
he just makes sure that anything put in the kernel is quality.
And yes, he does. Sometimes stuff gets in that doesn't follow those previous requirements 100%, but he does dictate Linux's roadmap, coding conventions, what tools people should use (i.e., Bitkeeper), and the quality of the code.
Next.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. As long as there is a choice, there will be no breakthrough?
Yes--absolutely, 100% true.
Perhaps we should all ditch Linux, OS X, BeOS, BSD or whatever else for Windows, because having a choice is apparently bad for innovation, and as long as we choose to fight over what OS to use, there wil be no breakthroughs.
No, we should just stop offering two desktops, 10 toolkits, and 20 millions window managers as the choices for new Linux users instead of offering them one really good integrated solution that is so great it gets everything done.
How the hell do you expect commercial vendors to write for your system if it's 10 different moving targets? Ignorant people like you are the precise reason Linux has such a lack of commercial support when compared to the application base that Windows and OS X have.
Have you ever programmed in
Where the hell is all this incompatability you speak of? Right now I'm running fluxbox with several KDE and Gnome apps open.
Congratulatuions, you have two ENTIRE DESKTOP ENVIRONMENTS installed along with a third window manager just to run those apps, when you should have just needed ONE. Thanks for proving the point.
They don't tell me "Fuck you, I'm not gonna work if you have those other guys' libraries installed!".
Actually, they tell you "I'm not gonna work if you DON'T have those other guys' libraries installed." It's called incompability with what you're running.
And please exp
that would explain the normalizing of automobile design. everything looks like a bean pod these days.
There are a LOT of people that switch from Windows to Mac, and is it because the Mac looks like windows??
It's because the Mac, like Windows, has a uniform GUI, on install, that doesn't look like a dogs breakfast and all vital settings are accessible via the mouse. Sadly the transition to pocketprotector checkshirted dork linux user is much harder than the transition to holier-than-thou fashion-slave flat-broke Apple user. I think I'll stick with being a Catatonic Window-licker. Until all my stuff gets wiped out by the next Win32 virus anyway.
Only one of those has a nice unixy OS. Hint: It's not the Sun.
HAND.
How do I connect to the internet? There is no icon that says Internet Explorer or The Internet. I mean, everyone knows that Bill Gates created the internet, how can I get on it if there is no blue e icon on my desktop? And what is the picture of that thing with the big M in it? And what is up with the Start Menu? Looks like an old version of Windows to me. Everyone knows that XP has a blue start-bar with this big pretty blue menu that pops up, and superhuge buttons so we dont go blind when trying to close a window. And whats a Registry? Will my CDs still autorun? I just do not know how I can live without Autorun! Does Norton Antivirus come preinstalled? I saw no virus software running down their in their task bar! For that matter, what is Linux, and who are all of these Slashdot people anyways?
Given that the preferred way to eject or unmount disks was to choose "Put away" or "Eject" from the File menu, ever since Mac OS 7.0, and the "drag to trash" thing was undocumented and only kept to avoid annoying long-time Mac users, just how out-of-date does that make your Mac knowledge?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I distinctly remember receiving some XP after my 12th level mage killed that Cloud Lord in the battle of McKoh-Zoft. Haven't all RPGs used XP to mean 'experience' since like the EARLY 80's?
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
The following post is all in my opinion:
:)
"The point of the Windows GUI is not that it looks nice, it's that you can do everything"
Is that why I find myself doing much more in KDE than in WindowsXP?
"If this project provided a functional Add/Remove Programs, Device Manager and Control Panel then that would be a good thing. But it doesn't."
If I wanted such things, I'd use Windows. But I don't.
"It will only serve to make the limitations of a GNU/Linux system in terms of ease of installation and configuration of hardware and software more obvious."
With easy distributions like Mandrake and Xandros, I feel that anyone who continues to whine about difficult Linux installations & hard/software config should really take an IQ test before proceeding. It's really not difficult at all. Maybe it's just too many W1nD0wZ people have had it so easy, locked into someone else's controlling vision of how a computer should work, that they've forgotten (or never learned) how to use a computer in the first place.
"The day you put the driver or software CD into your machine, click "install" and it Just Works(tm) - your new printer appears with an icon along with the rest, your software appears in the menu, the control panel lets you configure your new graphics card - is the day ordinary folk will switch to Linux."
I've been using computers since the 1970's and I see what horrible state the net is in because of the "ordinary folk" who wandered into the world of computers with their point and click retardation. If ordinary folk never switch to Linux, fine, fuck em. I could care less. They're the reason why the state of security on-line is so fucked up and polluted to begin with. I would rather they don't switch to Linux. Let them keep their stupidity limited to their stupid OS where they point and click at their little simplistic GUI and pretend that they know something about computers when in reality they're within the sandbox of a commercialized vision.
I'd make these dimwits pass a test in order to be able to use a computer on-line (similar to the ham radio testing) and give the fuckers a read only live-CD until they prove they know how to use a computer and understand security.
It wasn't until W1nD0wZ n1n3 d33 f1v3 that the true lamers appeared, and now they're bitching about wanting to use Linux, "please dumb it down for us retards!" Before this the internet and dial-up BBS world didn't have to deal with such stupid bullshit.
"Ordinary folk" are worthless when it comes to using computers. I tire of setting up their computers, fixing their computers, listening to their simplistic turkey gobble wanna be cpu guru parrot speech, reading their 100's of forwarded joke e-mails, and on and on and on. I'm tired of reading and hearing from these people. What the fuck is wrong with them? I had to learn about computers when I started using them, why can't they? What is the big fucking deal? Open a book, read, (or learn to read) and if you want to use Linux, learn it! Otherwise, STFU! These people then say "Well see how bad/elitist these snobby Linux users are?" After awhile some of us tire of a neverending supply of stupid fucking questions that can be answered by the wonderful documentation online, on your hard drive which came with your Linux distro, in the library, etc.
Mark troll if you want to soften the tone for the w1nd0wz users as I know you will, but you know I'm right.
^^^^ This post was all in my opinion.