Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows and Linux User Interfaces

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the something-to-think-about dept.

Anonymous Coward writes "Greg Raiz, Boston based interface designer and former Microsftie takes a look at Linux and outlines key shortcomings and strengths of an OS that could take on a giant."

6 of 566 comments (clear)

  1. Summary. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Make upgrading from windows as easy as possible, Standardize on your widgets, and Make Installing Software Easy and secure.

    I tend to agree with most of the articles comments except for 1 random jab at Apple for choosing the lower ground of loosing functionality for better interface, where I believe that Apples interface is middle ground like windows but it is just better designed so it is easer. But I digress.

    For Installing why can't Most Linux distributions support Loopback files, So they can install Linux on top of a Windows partition and if they don't like linux just delete the ISO file. Also a Non-destructive partition system like Partition-Magic.

    More effort should be put into WINE, and MONO projects. It should be easy to run Windows programs. Just like the migration from Apple OS 9 to OS 10 or from DOS to Windows or Windows 3.1 to 95. People prefer "Optimized" to their OS applications, and will ask for them, but if they can't get it they want to run the old ones. These projects will not make developers think "Well Linux emulates it so we don't need to port it." they will think wow we have xx% of our customers using our product in linux, Perhaps we should make a Linux Version before our competitor does so we don't loose them.

    Standardizing on the User Interface is extremely important. I can't even count the times I have to go to a newbe who is using KDE or GNOME and opens an Application build with the other tool kit or worse a different one like X11 and explain to them that they may have some trouble Copying and Pasting, and oh this is a x application you need to do it this way instead. And your files are by default saved here except for there. It is confusing and they do not comprehend why things are so diverse.

    Installing, I really don't see why Linux can't take a lesson from Apple and improve on it. To install an application drag the folder to where you want to run the application. Have all its files that it needs to run self contained inside itself and uninstalling it is just deleting the directory. And try as much as possible to make the application statically built With Drive space below $1 per gigabyte the extra space lest be a little wasteful to make installation easy. Only spread the files across the OS when you Really-Really Need to.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Summary. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Linux and its concepts is obviously too different for you to grasp...
      Except for the fact that I have used Linux as my primary Desktop OS since Mid 1994, I understand Linux and its concepts but some of them are wrong, and parts of the linux community are just to high up on themselves to realize that there could be a better way of doing things. I have just recently started using a Mac as my primary system, figuring if I don't like OS X then I could put a PPC Linux distribution on it, or just stick with Xwindows support and command line. But I come to realize a Good Interface especially for Desktop applications actually helps productivity.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. To me, this issue always disturbs me by bogaboga · · Score: 5, Informative
    The issue is decent looking fonts. I always have to download the webfonts.sh script http://vigna.dsi.unimi.it/webFonts4Linux/webFonts. sh, and turn off anti-aliasing in order to have a desktop that is a pleasure to work with. Heck ebven the most recent OpenOffice.org release is uglier on Linux than it is on Windows.

    Guys, we need to have an attractive desktop by default in order to make the user experience at least more appealing. In one installation of Ubuntu, I had to tweak the X.org conf file in order to have it display these fonts correctly! And believe me...it took more than 4 hours to get right! Who would have that time in the "real" world?

  3. Re:Maybe true, but not necessarily desirable by cortana · · Score: 4, Informative

    My operating system (Debian) has just such a system (dpkg).

  4. Re:I do NOT think Linux needs an install architect by eln · · Score: 4, Informative

    First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL.

    That's not even what the "GNU/Linux" people think. If you're going to advocate something like that, you should at least get your facts straight.

    Linux is the operating system KERNEL.

    GNU/Linux is the kernel plus the collection of (almost entirely GNU) applications and libraries that make up the OPERATING SYSTEM.

    But, as noted above, even though Linux technically only refers to the kernel, the colloquial usage of the word has long been understood to refer to either the kernel or the operating system, depending on context.

  5. Re:OS X? by BlueStraggler · · Score: 4, Informative
    Indeed. As a switcher from Linux to OS X, I'm starting to get pretty annoyed with the "Mac takes the low road" meme, since it is in every way the most sophisticated desktop OS on the market. The similar "Mac is easier for novices" meme is equally annoying, since historically the Mac has NOT succeeded among casual home users. The markets where Mac has consistently succeeded is among professionals who use very expensive and technical software suites to do their work. It didn't succeed for me in the past because the technical software suite where I do my work is the Unix CLI, a deficiency that Apple remedied in OS X.

    Coming from the Linux world, Windows is so obviously the OS that has dumbed itself down for the novice, whereas the Mac is so obviously the OS that has invested effort into productivity for advanced users on the desktop. But "ease of productivity" for professionals is not the same as "ease of learning how to use a computer" for a novice. Windows has the novice market locked down tight, from the infamous start button, to the desktop populated with application launcher icons, to monolithic applications that want to work in full-screen mode; everything caters to the naive user. The Mac, on the other hand seems to presume that you are working on a large display, with numerous tool and working windows placed where they are convenient to you, and drag-and-drop interoperability between these windows that is reminiscent of using pipes to connect apps on a CLI. That's not novice stuff, and it takes a while to learn to use it. Once you've got the hang of it, though, it's really hard to go back. That's the real reason Mac users are fanatical and loyal, I've concluded, and it has nothing to do with novices. Indeed the whole idea of a fanatic novice is a bit of an oxymoron.