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."
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
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
Remember the Microsoft vs. Apple lawsuit, that Microsoft won. It basically means that ripping off your competitor's "look and feel" is OK. Microsoft set the legal precident precident for this; if they have it invalidated, Apple will no doubt want to revisit its case.
The issue with Lindows is the similarity to a trademarked name (though I agree that trademarking a common word is insane).
If Microsoft can convince a judge that it owns the letters 'X' and 'P' (as opposed to the trademark 'Windows XP'), then the project will have something to worry about.
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.
The Athlon XP neither looks, nor feels like Windows XP.
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
> seems even at 6:30 am the site is getting slashdotted but, for one, i like it.
there are not only americans reading slashdot!
greetings from sweden (1:30pm),
nico
It's a cute idea, but like another response to your post I also don't see it as realistic and in some places I completely disagree with what you've said. Someone else might elaborate since I'm not an expert on kernel development, but I also think you've missed some important points about how things work.
Linux can have a dictatorship and "one way of doing everything" at the kernel level, because by definition the kernel is linux. If someone were to fork the kernel and do things differently, it wouldn't be linux any more. Similarly, if someone forks emacs it becomes something else. If someone forks X11, it becomes something else. And so on.
Nobody's seriously and successfully forked the linux kernel for one reason or another ... or at least if they have, it's not called linux anymore. But there are several other kernels in existence that are available and work significantly differently. Even if nobody bothers to fork the linux kernel, some people may go and work on the BSD kernels, for instance, because they prefer the design.
In essence, as long as enough people disagree about the best way to do something, there will be a fork. It happens with nearly every application available as much as, if not more than, it happens with kernels.
Desktops are a huge area of disagreement. The design of them is mostly about usability, and we're still in infancy when it comes to understanding the best ways to do things. ACM has only been running HCI conferences since the early 1980's, and since then researchers have figured out that designing good desktops is very difficult. Putting rules on it might make it slightly easier to be compatible with or learn, but placing draconian enforcement on a policy that isn't known to be good is more likely just to leave us with another crappy desktop.
Windows is a crappy desktop from a usability perspective. Personally I prefer to avoid KDE and Gnome, both of which seem to want to mimic Windows in most ways, including most of it's bad features. For a linux desktop I prefer WindowMaker, which also isn't perfect, but is has several features that I just like. Having the option to switch and still have all of my X applications work is fantastic.
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.
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