Gnome 2.8 RC1 Released

Too much like MS? by TheUnFounded · 2004-09-01 16:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'll probably get blasted for this, but like it or leave it, MS is known for making an interface that's usable to the masses. Want Linux on the desktop? That's the way to do it.

Re:Too much like MS? by MarcQuadra · 2004-09-01 16:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

I disagree, I run WindowMaker, and most kids who come over and sit at my desk figure it out quickly enough, they really dig the dock, and they LOVE the 'start menu whenever I right-click the background'. Almost everyone figures out the multiple-desktop thing too, when they see the pager with eight screens that shows a mini-screen for each one.

It helps that my menu items are named after the FUNCTION rather than the application that provides it. When you see 'music' it runs juk, when you click 'web' it opens firefox, etc.

The Windows-style taskbar interface is pretty weak if you intend to keep your session running for days or weeks instead of hours.

Everyone remarks how 'clean' and 'simple' my layout is, and the geekier note that 'it takes a lot less mousing around to get stuff done'.

The trick is that every corporate desktop needs to be uniform and MANAGED by someone who does the stuff like rename menu items to functions and remove all the excess cruft that the heavier desktop environments populate interfaces with.

--
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Re:Too much like MS? by InfiniteWisdom · 2004-09-01 17:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think button 1 does something, button 2 does something else is a lot more intuitive than button one does something if you press it for a short time and something else if you press it for a long time, and yet another thing if you move the mouse while you;re pressing it for a long time
Re:Too much like MS? by 10101001+10101001 · 2004-09-01 18:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

On that note, why should a click, two clicks, and a double click be treated differently? It's actually the third that's the issue, since with all the things that in Windows were made to require double clicking people double click on hyperlinks because they've come to understand a double click is what you use to activate a stand-alone widget (and MS stole this idea from Apple, clearly, who probably got it from PARC).

Fundamentally, a mouse is a pretty horrible tool to do a lot of things. Things like a second or third button and adding a scroll wheel all only attempt to overcome various limitations in control design inherent in trying to use a pointer in a 2D space. It's also a core reason why people are so attached to their keyboard, as it's often the case a lot quicker to just type a number into a spinbox or type in part of a url and arrow down to the right one (or finish it most often since your history has deep urls). Anyways, enough of that rant. :)

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:Too much like MS? by prockcore · 2004-09-01 18:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

accesible? if you're using the provided one button mouse (and i know very few people who do), you just hold down one key, and you get your context menu.

I'm not sure which context the parent poster was using when he said "accessible". When I read it, I thought of accessibility.

Which makes your response hilarious in the context of, say, people with one arm. Just hold down one key with your nose, then use your good hand to click the button, boom your context menu.
Re:Too much like MS? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-01 18:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

The thing that has always peeved me about the right-click-on-the-desktop-to-do-stuff is that sometimes I have, yanno, windows open while I'm doing things. I don't want to interrupt my flow of work to get a menu open to launch another app.

Virtual desktops are somewhat overrated too. What happens if I want to be notified of an incoming IM, and I have sound disabled, while working in another desktop? I don't want to cost myself time flipping back and forth between the two in order to check.

That said, virtual desktops *are* nice for being able to switch between two tasks at your leisure with an odd arrangement of windows. But the PITA of my normal working conditions precludes it. Whether I like it or not, the Windows UI does wonders for my working style.

On the other hand, I've come to love the Mac OSX desktop in the last week and a half that I've been using it in a class. The way that everything is organized is absolutely wonderful, except for the fact that I lose windows if I don't minimize them and something else is on top. I think I'm going to buy an iBook sometime. Between OSX and the battery life of the 12" screen, I can't lose.
Re:Too much like MS? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-01 21:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

> No one's making you use a one-button mouse

Unless you have a laptop.
Re:Too much like MS? by node+3 · 2004-09-01 21:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

No one's making you use a one-button mouse.

The two button mice are in another section of their store, and must be bought seperately.

Which is to say no one is making you use a one-button mouse. Besides, all Macs ship with a two-button mouse--the second button is on the keyboard (ctrl-click brings up the context menu).
Re:Too much like MS? by adamh526 · 2004-09-01 23:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're forgetting that Apple tries to sell you a simple but complete solution. Their idea of the simple PC solution includes a one button mouse and when you buy an Apple system thats what you get. You're free to alter their idea of the Apple solution, but they'd rather you do that once the computer is at your house, rather than changing their ideas while ordering. Thats probably why its easy to use a two-button mouse with an Apple system, but still harder to order one to ship instead of their standard one-button mouse.
Re:Too much like MS? by Tim+C · 2004-09-01 23:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

It helps that my menu items are named after the FUNCTION rather than the application that provides it. When you see 'music' it runs juk, when you click 'web' it opens firefox, etc.

That only works for the case where you have a single application that provides each function, though. For example, were I to rename the shortcut for Mozilla to "web", what would I call the ones to Opera, IE and firefox? Sure, I'm a special case, but everyone working in the web is (or should be) in terms of using multiple browsers.

The Windows-style taskbar interface is pretty weak if you intend to keep your session running for days or weeks instead of hours.

My machine at work goes down for power outages and office moves only, and so is up for weeks or months at a time. I run XP, and have noticed no weakness in the taskbar interface based on length of uptime; would you care to elaborate?

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Too much like MS? by Lumpy · 2004-09-02 00:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

Which is shy we chce Gnome over KDE or any other here.

I can lock down and migrate changes to 400 user profiles in 10 seconds. something 100% impossible under windows and a PITA in KDE.

It's great, pushing a upgraded app to over 100 desktops or the extremely simple task of backing up a user's profile and migrating it to another machine takes no effort unlike windows... and with a thin-client setup like we have in the learning lab I set up at my church the kids can sit at ANY computer in the lab and their desktop and files magically appear when they log into any machine. (something else that is actually possible with windows and Citrix but it will cost you an extreme amount of money.)

i find the windows style taskbar to help the user transition to Linux and Gnome. to the point now that it's almost weekly that I am giving out Mandrake 10 Cd's to people that now WANT to run linux instead of windows at home. And yes they are aware that you can not buy software at the store for it, One Sales manager put it to me in an interesting way... "so it's like owning a Mac? you cent get mac software at most places."

I just hope that mandrake 10 Rpm's of 2.8 show up soon after it's release... .hell, i'd love some 2.6 rpm's for mandrake. I love Slackware's 2.6 gnome install over the 2.4 install that is default with Mandrake.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Too much like MS? by swv3752 · 2004-09-02 01:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is another school of thought that says: Design for the upper tier not the Lowest Common Denominator. Who wants something designed for fools and morons?

One must learn to drive a car, ride a bike, row a boat, swim, operate power tools, et cetera. Why should one not have to learn to use a computer?

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Re:Too much like MS? by Cochonou · 2004-09-02 02:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why do almost all the cars in the US have an automatic transmission, then ?
Re:Too much like MS? by OmniVector · 2004-09-02 04:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

do you have to learn how to open a door with a nob? how about telling the difference between a pull open door and a push open door? do you need to learn how to use a light switch whenever you see a new style light switch? do you have to relearn how to talk when conversing with another person?

the ultimate goal of any interface is to be so intuitive that you look at it and say "duh." just because we haven't reached this level of design in cars, or boats, etc doesn't mean that we can't strive to achieve them. computers shouldn't be hard. what so many of the "computers should be hard" people fail to realize is that all the human factors studying we do, benefits the power users just the same. the goal of most all interface designers is to reduce complexity, increase memorability and learning, and make the system easier to use for everyone not just beginners.

--
- tristan
Re:Too much like MS? by @madeus · 2004-09-02 04:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is another school of thought that says: Design for the upper tier not the Lowest Common Denominator.

Here is another school of thought (this happens the one applied in Mac OS X, and also in classic):

Design for people who *don't* know how to use a computer AND for those who do, at the same time. That is not exactly a huge relevation...

Mac OS follows this principle - Macintosh computers do not come with one button mice but why the operating system inherently supports context sensitive menus for multi button mice, throughout Apple's own applications too (this is true of classic Mac OS, not just Mac OS X).

Many Apple power users and developers like multibutton mice and context menus too, that's why they just plug them in and use them with Applications like the Finder, Mail and Safari. OS X even supports additional buttons like scrollwheels and backwords & forward buttons too. Just plug an appropriately equipped mouse in and they work with no need for additional drivers.

In my experience people who design software that they claim is aimed at 'advanced' users typically design software than even 'advanced' users bawk at, but they use the caveat to cover up their own lack of ability, and because they can't be bothered to find an intuative way to handle something non trivial they give up or don't even try and just do what's easiest for them (at the expense of the user base).

If a developer can't design a reasonably intuative interface then they are not up to the job. Making software easy to use is hard - especially with non trival software. It's not uncommon for people who write software for a living not to be able to design software that's very usable and some of those people fail to grasp the effort required and choose to belittle the effort of those who can and do develop powerful yet easy to use tools (to mask their own lack of ability).

Regarding your analogy, any home appliance (microwave, TV, DVD player, stereo, radio, cooker, washing machine, or powertool (physical safety precautions aside)) that you need to read a manual to use is badly designed. None of these sorts of things do anything especially complex that some manufacturers have not been able to design very elegant versions that are perfectly intuative (thus proving it's possible and clearly focusing the fault on those manufacturers who design unintuative goods).
Re:Too much like MS? by firewrought · 2004-09-02 06:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Software ought not to require users to use context sensitive menus to perfom an operation - if it does so then it is badly implimented because most users will simply not figure this out (and if and when they do, it won't be until after a significant of time wasted searching for the way to do it). Context menus... should never be the only way to perform a given operation.
While we're carelessly slinging UI philosophy around, let me mention that context menus seem very much in line with the philosophy of "direct manipulation". When the user wants to know "what can I do with this object?" they can right-click and find out.
Now... let me ask: if you don't put the operation in the context menu, where are you going to put it? You could make (i) a gesture (as in drag-and-drop, delay-click, or text selection), (ii) put something underneath the main menu of the application that operates on that object , (iii) put some buttons in the toolbar, (iv) put buttons around/near the object, or (v) have the user click on the object and get a large dialog box offering all possible options.
These can all be good options in the right situation, but they involve tradeoffs. I would argue that ALL operations that can be meaningfully done on an object should be placed into the context menu (space permitting) and then optionally "hoisted" to one or more of the places I identified.
Things to think about...
The problem with (i) ["gestures"] is that it is even more "hidden" than putting something in the context menu. A gesture will work well when it's implemented system-wide and integrated with user training (such as in the examples I gave). Highly domain-specific gestures can be difficult to discover in a casual application. They are also costly to implement.
The problem with (ii) ["main menu"] is that it substantially more hidden than the context menu. It can be difficult to determine which operations in the main menu apply to which items on the screen, and it gets even more confusing because these items frequently look at pseudo-modes [like "which item is selected?"]... this is effective in a document-centric application (where there is only one global "selection") but difficult in a form-centric application (where each listbox/datagrid has a different selection).
The problem with (iii) ["toolbar buttons"] is similar to (ii) in that there's a context-determination problem (and you loose the benefict of direct manipulation). It is slightly more costly to implement and slightly less costly to use than (ii). A toolbar button is marginally less hidden that the context menu item. I say "marginally less" because the icon for the toolbar button does not convey a lot of information about that button. (Experiments prove that people can use text toolbar buttons better... if you can come up with the right text.)
The problem with (iv) ["adjacent buttons"] is that screen real-estate is scarce. In some situations, this option can be costly to implement.
The problem with (v) ["dialog box"] is that you obscure a large portion of the screen and interrupt the user in order to perform the same task that the context menu performs more succiently.
My point is that good UI must be a matter of practice and economics; theory is useful for proposing and exploring long-term UI possibilities, but theory must be handled carefully by UI-practicioners... it's easy to be too rigid and overapply a usability princple and lose site of what [from the vantage point of the user's cognitive experience] made that princple important in the first place.

--
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Re:Too much like MS? by @madeus · 2004-09-02 06:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think you're point II is stupid. Aside from grandma, most computer users I know use computers all the time

That's most people you know that's quite distinct from the same thing as most people. Most people have a wide variety of demanding things going on in their life (children, work) and only barely grasp how to use their computer. Most people have trouble doing 'fairly simple' things like installing an operating system (because they find it daunting), even upgrading drivers in Microsoft Windows is a confusing process for most people.

Computer literacy will increase somewhat, but not infinately. Most people simply don't care about their computer. If something is too difficult to do, they don't do it. They have what they consider to be "real lives" to get on with and "time at the computer" does not factor in to that. They precieve computers explicitly as tools for things like email, buying things on ebay and 'helping with homework'.

A software developer writing applications for end users should have empathy for others and be able to grasp the 'Begginers Mind'. Without empathy for others, you'll just end up designing software that's horrible to use (and many people won't want to use it) because you won't be able to understand what it's like as user using the software for the first time.

People have more far more important things to do with their life than learn how to use badly designed software. You need to really understand that before you can write software most people will find easy and enjoyable to use.

The same actually applies to good code - it should be self documenting and clear in function as far as reasonably possible. I find the people who can't be bothered to design good interfaces are often the same people who can't be bothered to write good code (it's often poorly trapped, sparsely documented with many areas that are ambigous in function).
Re:Too much like MS? by @madeus · 2004-09-02 10:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

| Most people have a wide variety of demanding things going on
| in their life (children, work) and only barely grasp how to use
| their computer.

I would say this is a baseless assertion.

Not only do I think that's a very bizarre statement to make you apparently go on to contradict yourself later by bemoaning the tolerance in society for those who are less computer literate.

there will always be a place for easy, simple, intuitive tools that can cater to the occasional computer user. However, an enormous percentage of the workforce use their computers as a primary tool. For them, it's more productive for to have efficient tools in whose use they are properly trained.

And you know what's even more productive? Software that's been designed by someone who understands the things it's users will want to do and makes them so easy to do it's users don't need training.

Having an intuitive, easy/simple to use interface does not mean the software is only able to be simple in it's functionality.

Anyone who writes software that does complex things should be able to hide the underlying complexity from the end user and make the task easy to do. That's kind of the point of productivity software in my eyes (and also something that separates good software developers from mere code monkeys).

more like windows? by dnotj · 2004-09-01 16:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Commentary in article submissions now...

Personally (as a long time KDE user) I don't find windows all that much like KDE. I sat down at an XP box the other day to try and accomplish some simple editing in a word document with embedded visio and felt lost. Perhaps Gnome is becoming more KDE like?

BTW: open office has trouble saving (via crashes) documents with a large number of embedded visio drawings. :(

.dn

--
No more Micro$oft bashing from me. Its like bashing at the special olympics.

It's not KDE by steveha · 2004-09-01 16:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

I looked at all the screenshots, and nothing on there jumped out and bit me and yelled "Windows! IE!" I have no idea what FlipmodePlaya is complaining about.

It looks to me like it's just the GNOME 2.x that I know and love, with subtle, very incremental bits of polish. FlipmodePlaya, perhaps you could be a bit more specific?

P.S. I'm really looking forward to some of the new features, specifically Volume Manager and the new MIME handlers. GNOME 2.8's MIME features won't just be easier to use than previous GNOME versions--they will actually be easier to use than Windows's application association system.

steveha

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely

Re:It's not KDE by RevAaron · 2004-09-01 19:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

this is in response to a lot of people talking about this...

If you don't see any striking similarities between KDE and Windows, then you've been using Windows too long. GNOME has a lot of the same similarities that KDE has with Windows, though oftentimes they seem to steer away from the level of borrowing that KDE does. It could be independent thought on the part of the GNOME developers, or they may just be borrowing from other sources, which is fine by me.

A lot of folks don't really see many similarities. Why? They assume that all of these features that KDE or GNOME borrowed from Windows are just the way that any desktop would do them. They take for granted the way things look and feel, first on Windows where they got started, and then on Linux using KDE and/or GNOME. Not all desktops need to look like Windows, KDE or GNOME.

Most KDE developers grew up using Windows first, rather than the Amiga, NeXTSTEP, BeOS, Mac OS Classic or CDE. They associate the idea of a desktop environment with what Windows provides. The Windows desktop is the benchmark for a person who has been using Windows. That's fine, especially when they are targeting Windows converts, making the move from Microsoft Windows to Linux/Windowsish on the same x86 PC easy enough. It makes sense, but it shows. Most regular Windows users- and most regular KDE/GNOME users and a very high percentage of KDE/GNOME developers only have substantial experience using Windows. Most folks have used Mac, but it's Windows that is running in VMware while they try to put together analogous features *not* those other OSes/desktop environments.

P.S. Just out of curiousity, how will GNOME 2.8's MIME features be easier than the Winders way of doing things? From the screenshots in some of the replies to your post they really don't seem much different. IMHO, the GNOME version is ultimately better, as it depends on a MIME type rather than the extension.

Although with our current file systems, it is the file extension that tells the DE what MIME type it is- but down the line, when we are finally all using more flexible databases for data storage rather than random containers of unstructured binary and textual data that MIME type system will come in handy, I expect. Or on a file systems like BeFS or HFS+ where you can have metadata tagged on specifying the MIME type regardless of what goes after the past period in the filename.

But how easier? Both are pretty straight forward- you got a file type. You tell it what apps can deal with it and choose a default. When you double click the file, it opens the default, but when you right click you get the option to open the document up in any of the associated apps. The Windows version seems to add a little more power- that is, you can specify different actions (open, edit, print, analyze, whatever makes sense for that file type) that calls those different apps, etc etc. Perhaps GNOME 2.8's MIME system has that but isn't something I'm seeing in the screenshots, but if not, it's something they should add and I'd expect they would.

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:It's not KDE by CaptnMArk · 2004-09-01 21:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not using file extensions on today's file system is a bad idea. They are the easiest way for most people to identify a type of file. An icon is much worse most of the time and a separate column with file type is often less visible (and in some views not at all).

Most clueful windows people enable file extensions immediately. They are very useful between separating safe-to-click files and unsafe-to-click files. They are also a hint to the user about what will happen when they click on the file.

And if the above is not enough. I haven't seen anyone proposing elimination of .c and .h extensions yet.
Re:It's not KDE by ajs · 2004-09-02 00:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, I would expect that file extension, among other things, would be the way you would determine the type of an object, but once you're past that stage, you really need to manage that more abstractly, and MIME type is as good a way to go as any.

For example, not all objects come from the filesystem. You might get an image object shunted to you by some sort of Web application. The "filename" (e.g. URL) might not have an extension, or the extension might be ".cgi". You have to be able to work with other modes of input.

Another example, Real Media files (some of them) end in ".rpm" as do RedHat Package Manager files. How do you distinguish these?

MIME isn't the only way to classify object types, but it's a reasonable way to go for a modern desktop.
Re:It's not KDE by Bob+Uhl · 2004-09-03 03:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

...with the button order still being the most stupid decision ever...
Never mind that it's based on some excellent human factors research. The Mac OS/GNOME button placement is much, much better for users: faster & safer.

Submissions by entrigant · 2004-09-01 16:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE."

You know it wouldn't kill the slashdot editors to EDIT submissions instead of just dumping them as is into the main site. Especially when one is as unprofessional as this. Flaming does NOT belong on the front page of slashdot. This is absolutely rediculous. First "four of parts", and now this bull? Why, Slashdot, do you feel like you can ask me for money when you pull crap like this?

Re:Submissions by stor · 2004-09-01 17:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

I hate to agree with you but I do.

The snide and brain-dead remarks/trolls/flamebait should be left to the posters, rather than be in full view on the front page.

Otherwise you end up with patronising posts such as this one =)

Cheers
Stor

--
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Re:Submissions by optikSmoke · 2004-09-01 18:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Um, its a copy dialog. Really, it's ok. If they've decided to make it a dialog, there isn't much else to do with it. It looks like they put the progress bar at the top instead of the bottom........ but there isn't much else to put in there, so I don't see how it can be considered "copying" windows. If you take the simplest dialogs as an example, obviously there will be similarities.

Anyway, I don't understand people's outright negative reactions when things "look like" Windows. Some parts of most desktops look like some parts of others, it's just a matter of choosing which parts are best for inclusion, or building something better if that's possible. Windows may not be the best in all areas (I'll be the first to admit my annoyance with some of its behaviour), but in some areas it has good UIs -- and I don't see why making a similarly good UI is frowned upon. However, in no way do all of either KDE or GNOME resemble Windows or Apple, and both desktops have their own pluses over other systems.
Re:Submissions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-01 18:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

tell me it doesn't look as if they went out of their way to make it look like the Explorer copy/download one.

Okay: It doesn't look as if they went out of their way to make it look like the Explorer copy/download dialog.

It looks like a copy/download dialog from any web browser. Like, oh I don't know, Epiphany (the standard GNOME web browser).

It's a dialog with from, to, and progress bar; they added an estimated time until it's done, and you immediately think IE? Throw me a frickin bone here.
Re:Submissions by prockcore · 2004-09-01 18:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look at dialogues such as this and tell me it doesn't look as if they went out of their way to make it look like the Explorer copy/download one.

Looks exactly like the OSX copy/move dialog box. No reason to be different just for the sake of being different.
Re:Submissions by egarland · 2004-09-02 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

No reason to be different just for the sake of being different.

EXACTLY! People seem to get all upset that their "alternative different" thing is becoming just like everything else. Gnome is growing up, get used to it. Gnome isn't trying to be different from Windows, it isn't trying to be the same as Windows, it's trying to do the best job it can at providing an interface. So is Windows, so is Mac OS. Reason dictates that when they all get it right, they'll look very similar.

This is like complaining that a Ford car looks just like a Chevy car. Sure, back in the day they had cool fins and stuff and before that there were all sorts of kooky car designs and I'm sure people bemoaned the loss of each of those interesting design elements. Today, cars all look the same. Why? Because the shapes we have work really well. Why are there no open air hillbilly pickup trucks anymore? Because they suck. Why are there no more giant fins? Because they suck. Why aren't there cars that steer from the back seet? Because it's a dumb idea. Why isn't there some unnecessary other crap in a simple copy dialog? Becuase there shouldn't be.

In every new industry there is a period of great change, of great innovation, immagination, discovery and creation. Then, at the end, the good designs become accepted best practices and comoditization of the industry follows. It happened in electricity, trains, cars, airplains, and telecommunication and it's happening in computers. Things are settling down. Get used to it.

--
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination

Evolution does not belong !! by Qwavel · 2004-09-01 16:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Evolution should not be part of Gnome - it should be added by the people who build the distro's.

If you start adding applications to Gnome, where do you stop? Are they going to add OpenOffice or AbiWord/Gnumeric to the next version of Gnome? After all, a word processor is pretty basic.

The Gnome people should focus on making it easy for distro builders and end-users to add (well integrated) apps. Don't build the apps into the desktop.

Re:Evolution does not belong !! by Eric+Smith · 2004-09-01 17:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

good reason why Evo is being included -- having the contact information centralized and standard in every Gnome installation means that other Gnome applications can use that data.
If having that data is valuable for other applications, then it would be reasonable to include a system component that provides the storage and APIs for that data. Then Evolution and other Gnome applications could use it. But that doesn't justify including the entire Evolution client as a standard part of Gnome.

Explorer Easy to use? by Luineancaion · 2004-09-01 16:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think that microsoft have done a good job of making computers easy to use at all, for a complete beginner it's completely confusing, when my father first tried to use a windows box he didn't know at all what to do with it to get the stuff he wanted done. Since using Gnome he hasn't asked me a single question and has found it incredibly easy to use. Keep it simple stupid.

Re:Explorer Easy to use? by ciroknight · 2004-09-01 18:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Important question: Had he used Windows before GNOME?

I only ask because the skills learned in Windows are easily portable to any current GUI, and visa versa. I personally believe that I could sit down at any computer and figure out the GUI, but then again I was like this when I first started using computers with Windows 3.1 on them. So it's really important to look and see how GUIs are alike and how they are different.

Today, the main functionality of a GUI is virtually the same in any operating system, under any Windows Manager (minus a few frenge ones...); we are getting to the point that we are "desktop-agnostic". The only thing that remains in Linux is to get video accelleration up to Windows/MacOS X levels, and once there, start sprucing everything up with a bit of eye candy (drop shadows rock eye-candy wise, fast window transforms like in Mac OS X, etc). But I do have to admit that Linux, at current, is far more themeable than either Windows XP or Mac OS X, and I believe it will probably remain that way for a long time... (bad for new users, good for established users).

--
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush

Not necessarily bad... by FiReaNGeL · 2004-09-01 16:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ressemblance to Windows / IE goes a long way toward new users migration for Microsoft, keep that in mind.

--
Eureka Science News - automatically updated

I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.. by SpookyFish · 2004-09-01 16:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

I use linux and 'doze both daily, but spend ~70% of my time hacking code on linux. The WM doesn't matter that much to me, because it just needs to be a good way between 4 desktops full worth of bash shells and vi windows.. but both gnome and kde feel weak when it comes to the 'everyday' stuff I usually do on windows .. email, browsing, office apps, etc.
-
the real BUT, though, is this thought - Would it help the (big) open source groups to start being more feature focused?

Look at many dot releases from M$ or Apple.. 90% is NEWNEWNEW and a little is 'does xyz better, zyx works now'

The geek stuff needs to be available, sure, but "higher level" messages might go far to boost adoption.

My thinking is, Average Joe just dipping a toe into 'non-conformist' ways, and sees a big new announcement.. he looks in and sees a ton of stuff he doesn't understand, and a long list of bugs fixed that makes him think 'ugh, this still has too many problems.'

If he looks in and sees mostly "Now imports Word 2006 docs with perfect formatting! .... New graphics engine leverages 3d hardware to be 80% faster! .." he is going to have a very different view.

$.02

Too much like Windows!?!? Oh, Heaven Forbid!!!!!! by ZuperDee · 2004-09-01 17:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE.

Since when does "looking too much like Product X" automatically make something bad? Are you really that much of a zealot that you concern yourself more with how much it "looks like Windows/IE" than with how USEFUL GNOME IS AS A PRODUCT IN ITS OWN RIGHT?

Good grief, man!!! I'd hate to break it to you, but I hate Microsoft just as much as anyone here, if not MORE so... They *ARE* an evil company, no two ways about it. HOWEVER, having said that: it IS possible for even the most evil of people/corporations to have a good idea once in a while. (Need I point out that Hitler, for all his evil, was the one who started work on things like the Autobahn and the Volkswagen.)

If I were to take your argument to an extreme, I would have to say: Ogg Vorbis is no good--after all, the concepts behind it sound too much like MP3 or AAC.

Heh. No wonder Slashdot has so little credibility with some people.

Re:Can I just say... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-01 17:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

They probably make it windows-y because the GUI is easy to interact with and also makes moving away from MS that little bit easier.

Re:Forgot the almost by Bastian · 2004-09-01 17:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think what you meant to say is that MS is known for making an interface that's almost usable to the masses.

I agree that Windows is more usable than Linux, but next-to-worst can still be pretty bad. And Windows is Bad. And there are several better examples out there. There are even a few Good examples out there.

Assuming the goal is to be good (or even mediocre) and not bad, trying to copy Windows (here I'm talking about how it acts, not how it looks.) is totally the wrong way to go about it.

Brave New GNOME by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-01 17:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

The inclusion in GNOME of the improved MIME lookup engine, with configurable renderers, is a tremendous step. Apps should use IPC to exchange data, each handling only their own processing specialty. Transport apps that merely retrieve data per specified protocol (eg. FTP, HTTP, torrent), and presentation apps that merely render data per type, and accept user interaction, with standard APIs among them, make the entire system more stable. And easier to expand. Sometime soon we'll have apps which include layered, overlapping window panes each rendering and accepting user events, calling across to mixed logic components, and down into any data source, whether local storage, network, or sensors. Compilable flowcharts, anyone?

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Yeah by Brandybuck · 2004-09-01 18:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

The big desktops are becoming more difficult and time consuming to customize "just right*.

If XFCE is customized "just right" out of the box for you, then great. Someone must have been reading your mind. But for me and a lot of people, it is NOT customized just right out of the box for the way we like to use the desktop. Frankly, there's way too many people and way too few desktops to expect very many instances of people finding a desktop whose default settings perfectly match their preferred customizations.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but. by Malor · 2004-09-01 19:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Basically, what you're saying is 'open source should be marketed better'. But keep in mind... that is explicitly not what open source projects are about; almost all of them are technology-, not marketing-driven. Most open source coders aren't writing code to extract cash from people's wallets, they're doing it because they love doing it, or because they're solving an issue.

And these point releases aren't meant for Average Joe anyway; they're bleeding-edge and unstable. Joe doesn't want this stuff.

This is where the distros step in; they take the results of the technically-driven development, and THEY market it.

The very last thing you want is for open source groups to 'start being more feature-focused'. We've seen what happens with that approach; bloated, unstable, unreliable software that costs a fortune.

The purpose of most of these groups is to write great software, and I submit to you that, by and large, they're doing a fantastic job. Let the distros do the marketing.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't by Alioth · 2004-09-01 20:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, from the screenshots, I don't think it looks anything like Windows (other than having the features that all GUIs have, so there will always be some similarity).

But part of the problem with Free desktop critics is you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you make your interface look like Windows, these critics will have a go because it looks like Windows. If you make it look unlike Windows, they will criticise you because it's "unfamiliar".

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Re:I agree... by Deusy · 2004-09-01 22:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Now take someone from that environment and put them on Gnome. What does he/she experience?

1) Stuff works.
2) It looks good.
3) Few options available, but most are hidden in the registry. Those few options seem more than sufficient for the teeming masses."

And for the power user...

`4) They find Gnome registry actually isn't a registry, but a nicely organised set of XML files that are easy to navigate and edit, and not swamped with the crap you get in, say, the Windows registry.'

I don't know why people think power users can't like Gnome. It's pretty much as customisable as you want it to be. I genuinely don't understand why so many "power users" bemoan GConf. Does it keep things too clean for them? Do some power users like the clutter that comes with keeping this stuff all over the show ala KDE stylee?

Not that I'm intending to diss KDE, as that's also a cool desktop. But I don't understand the people who diss Gnome because the obscure checkbox they want happens to be a little toggle in GConf rather than on of a zillion preferences in their apps.

--

Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary

Too much like Windows? by 10Ghz · 2004-09-01 23:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Answer me this: Why is anything that even remotely resembles Windows automatically a bad thing? Is this just a case of "Windows? It's made by Microsoft. And since Microsoft sucks, Windows suck as well. And since Windows and Microsoft sucks, the Windows UI sucks as well!".

I don't think Gnome looks like Windows. Well, of course it (and KDE as well) shares some common things with Windows. They all have windows. they have a taskbar. They have a start-menu or equivalent. And they all offer integrated system with similar look 'n feel between apps and tools. Are ANY of those things bad things? Why? Just because Windows has them as well?

Why don't you whiners start your own GUI-project. Call it UTIADFWAP, or "UI That Is As Different From Windows As Possible". Make sure that it doesn't look anything like Windows. Maybe then you will be happy. Who cares about usability or consistensy, at least it would be different from Windows! And it seems that many people think that being different from Windows is the primary feature of a Linux/Unix-UI these days!

Some "anything but Windows!"-zealots usually whine about KDE that "it looks too much like Windows". I use KDE at work (occasionally I boot to W2K for a game or two) and XP at work. I don't think KDE and Windows'es look that much alike. Well, the file-dialog is a bit similar, but that's it. And that's not really a bad thing, since I think the Windows file-dialog serves me well. The one in KDE looks somewhat similar, but it's alot better.

Yes, I dislike Microsoft as well. And Windows the OS has it's share of problems. But it's UI is OK on the basic level. Yes, the UI does have problems as well, but luckily KDE (and Gnome I think) fixes those issues.

repeat after me: just because something can be found in Windows does not automatically mean that it's a bad thing.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

Re:Outsider's Take by ajs · 2004-09-02 00:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look and feel are uninteresting except where they are expressions of unique features. Gnome, KDE, WindowMaker and dozens of minor desktops I've probably never heard of are all themeable.

The real test is how FUNCTIONAL your desktop is. Does it have modern internationalization and accessibility featurs. Does it provide a framework for application cooperation? Does it provide a framework for user management of desktop features that is consistent, even for external elements?

Pretty baubles are easy and relatively universal. Functionality is hard.

Re:Looks more like OSX by arose · 2004-09-02 01:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd say it looks a lot like GNOME...

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.

Any *significant* differences between KDE and MS? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-02 11:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

Parent isn't thinking very deeply about desktop environments - as if placing the menubar at the top of the screen is the defining characteristic of the MacOS desktop!

Spatial Nautilus today and the sawfish window manager in it's day are examples of ways GNOME has, from time to time, been significantly less MS Windows-like than KDE.

48 of 442 comments (clear)