Slashdot Mirror
Windows and Linux User Interfaces
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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Perhaps there's some truth to this. If Linux is to gain more widespread adoption, then maybe that would help. If so, then I personally hope Linux remains a niche OS. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that some of us would rather remain true to the Unix ideals and philosophy than to chase mass market popularity. I want to just be able to extract an archive and run a binary contained within. I don't want to have to inform the OS that I've done so, and have to "install" the software. I want to be able to compile an app and run it from my home directory. Why should I have to register it with the OS in order to do so?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
I have been reading about Linux being "ready for the desktop" for like 8 years now.
I for one am sick of it.
I use Linux every day on the desktop.
Yes, at first it was a bit confusing, but over the years it has matured ten-fold.
My parents use it, my grandmother runs Fedora, and I convert others on a daily basis.
ENOUGH already with this GUI/desktop debate. It is over and done and we have done it.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Linux should stop copying Microsoft feature for feature and embrace the differences and features that advanced users love.
I would disagree. What about enlightenment, fluxbox, openbox?
This article doesn't really make much sense overall.
That's why I'm still booting CP/M on my Commodore 128!
What?
Sun seem to be dropping GNOME as their Desktop
http://www.gnome.org/~gman/blog/02112005
Read more on above link!!!!
So does this means M$ core mantra is "Over complicated and flashy in everything we do, but give me a command line so I can get shit done post-BSOD" ?
Don't anthropomorphize computers: they hate that.
"The core mantra should be: "Simple and easy in everything we do, but give me a command line and I can move the world.""
I'm guessing he hasnt spent a lot of time in OS X then. Especially since he says in the article that Apple took the simplistic (ie not technical) approach.
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.
The logical question to ask is: why should Linux (or the Linux community) care if it's more and more widespread? What's wrong with the way it is now? This is not a flame, I'm asking because I'm looking for a good answer, believe it or not.
For the second point, the photo system would be entirely dependent on the window manager and basic shell suite, and I know that Gnome has thumbnailing. I personally almost never use the default photo management stuff, opting for better software than baseline, but I can understand the author's argument.
The productivity suite one is a difficult one, as it'll require unrelated projects to have some kind of common backbone that may require extensive editing. It also won't be consistent to web-delivered rich-text editors that are common in forums that allow fonts and formatting. Even more annoying would be if it were difficult to remove or supplant with a better productivity suite.
As for contacts, while I'll agree that a baseline system would be nice, I'm inclined to specifically avoid something that's across-the-board for privacy and security purposes. I'd rather not have some malicious software that gets in through some exploit manage to retrieve my entire list of contacts and their types, only to then try to spread to them or to spam them.
The thing that the author doesn't address is that these responsibilities are the job of the distributions moreseo than the application developers. The distributions could very easily hire their own developers to take a project or application and modify it to meet these requirements. It might cost some money, but that's where RedHat or SuSE can 'value add' their part.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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?
While it's true that the summary mis-characterizes the article as being about the UI when it's really about the whole OS, it's also true that the article contains a fair amount that really is related to the UI -- specifically the section on common controls, which are much of what comprise the UI.
--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
That was a pretty good article but the one thing that struck me is that he starts by talking about how much people fear change. Then towards the end he is writing that Linux should be "different." I think it would be pretty difficult to achieve both of those goals. I think right now that the fact that Linux is different is just feeding this fear of change. I'm not advocating that Linux follow suit with Windows and give it the same look/feel but if it becomes too unique, good luck getting people to switch.
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux.
It is a good commercial idea. But will any FOSS programmers bother implementing VB under Linux? On a more inflamatory note do we even want those VB programmers to develop for Linux?
This probably won't be a popular comment, but I think Mac OS will eventually be bigger on the desktop than Linux.
1) Easier Support - your computer breaks, you know who to go to
2) Less of a learning curve.
3) Less confusing in terms of options (there are a lot of types and kinds of Linux, or so it seems).
4) Media acceptance. Macs are more well known than Linux, which isn't Linux's fault, it's just the fact that OS X has Apple behind it.
5) Application Support - Things are ported to Mac quicker than to Linux usually. Apple also stands to get more software compatibility when they go to Intel computers.
::Braces for "-1 Flamebait"::
___ In the words of Gen. Douglas McArthur: "I'll be right back."
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
- Create a single music solution that is consistent and flows easily from OS to music applications to TV experience.
- Create a single photo solution that is consistent and flows easily from OS thumbnails to previewing full screen to editing in a photo applications.
Actually, these are both there already. Sound in general, as well as video, are all handled byty a group of libraries common to most Linux platform audio and video software. I do think, for example, that Kaffiene and amaroK could be integrated, but their functionality is so disparate that I don't think its necessary. Meanwhile, on the back-end, Kaffiene uses xine. As does Totem. (why all three come installed in Knoppix is beyond me; maybe they were just trying to find ways of filling that 4G of DVD).
Right now there are dozens and perhaps even hundreds of different Linux distributions. Each one has its own quirks, bugs and issues. Linux is currently an idea it's not a brand. There doesn't seem to be a central floodgate to dictate the standard interface. Each distribution creates its own icons, interface elements, configurations and sometimes even their own shell. To gain momentum some level of standardization is necessary to be called "Linux."
Linux is the name of the kernel. I run Debian, and the specific distribution is Knoppix. Some people run Gentoo, some people run Red Hat, some people run Slackware. Each distribution, like you said, has it's points and problems. Most of these points and problems have to do with the preferred method of software management. Apt works for me.
Part of the fragmentation problem for Linux is that the fragmentation forces a problem for software installation. Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software.
Again, Apt works for me. I haven't had to untar and compile anything except my own software (and its dependant libraries on occasion).
Just.. I realize you're not actually asking much, but it definately seems you're asking from the wrong context. Desktop linux is not a windows replacement. It's a windows alternative. It seems strange, but we're not actually out to kill microsoft... just to not contribute to them.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
I don't see much new here. We even have the traditional misspellings.
The speed of innovation in any software can be both a boon and a bomb.
It's easy to drop in the word "framework": with a well-designed framework, you can extend and reuse existing tech. This is why the underlying pipe mechanism in Unix derivatives is so powerful. It's also why it's hard for many to master.
There's also a point when the framework - which should be strong-yet-supple - can instead ossify, like so much old glue that's set up and cracks easily.
Ultimately it is real work to take the time to design something that meets both current *and* future needs. While many working in the kernel and the distributions realize this, there remain the folk who just want to sling code and do the sexy, fun stuff first and fast and loose.
SUPPORT.
.ZIP up files on Windows or do other simple things such as send an email, etc.
:)
As a Linux developer you and I often deal with companies that will not publish open specifications regarding their hardware.
As such, it is necessary to "break the law" and reverse engineer these devices in order to create decent Linux drivers that interface between the device and the application/user level software on the GNU/Linux kernel and operating system tools.
Some say that if Linux slowly gains market share of say 20-30% that manufacturers will stop making Windows-specific devices.
Another benefit would be support: all of us Slashdot/Linux guys would instantly become experts on people's home PCs if everyone ran Linux.
As it stands now, most of my friends have trouble figuring out how to
It is funny/amazing to watch them because they write code like protein-folding applications in Linux but on a Windows computer all they can manage to figure out is how to start Solitaire
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
As a corollary to the first rule, users don't like installing applications. Part of the fragmentation problem for Linux is that the fragmentation forces a problem for software installation. Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software. To gain momentum Linux needs a central installation architecture that all applications must use to properly install and run. The OS should ensure that applications are installed before they can be executed.
Wow, I couldn't have described apt or emerge any better. Isn't it common that those who review Linux OS's vs. Windows almost always head to the biggest vendor (Redhat) which is exactly the wrong idea: directly motivated by Microsoft's position on the closed source market? Biggest is best is necessarily a universal philosophy. Also, there are rpm managers in Redhat that do the same thing as apt, I think you can even use apt on Redhat without too much trouble.
Sure one might say, "How would the avg. Windows user know to apt-get install ?"
I would answer, "They could figure that out long before they understood how to dl and compile source code, and would certainly require less user knowledge and decisions than going apt-get install , which rarely asks for user input"
I see a ton of skilled Windows IT folk that are scared away from Linux because they try to compile everything. Apparently they haven't heard, and/or common linux knowledge doesn't include important tips that would make Avg Joe Windows user's first Linux experience much more enjoyable.
It's implicitly assumed he meant it was a niche OS among the Windows/Home PC crowd.
While I agree with your comments for the most part, to say that the majority of all new servers are slated to run GNU/Linux is typical of the naive slashdot groupthink and is not remotely true. However, I'm in the middle of installing FreeBSD 5.4 on a Sun Blade 100 machine so I'm doing my part!
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
Microsoft has put most its eggs in the .NET platform and has abandoned tens of thousands of VB developers by pulling support and further development on VB6. There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux. Such an IDE in conjunction with WINE could bring not only applications but also developers to the Linux platform.
so basically the strategy here is to take the shittiest developers from the windows platform and get them to write garbage code on linux?
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
After a few more days I'm probably going to wipe my linux partition unless I can get my Linksys wireless PCI card working with WPA encryption. Who knew it would take an act of God to configure correctly?
Fedora Core 4's network configuration gui is worthless. Ndiswrapper hung the machine. And it took me hours and hours to find that I needed some WPA supplicant something.
I think he makes a good point that the clean solution is always better than trying to support older decisions that turned out to be less than ideal. But the problem is, users aren't interested in details. Details don't matter. They only want something to work, and keep working.
Most modern interface elements are implemented by most toolkits. I think a solution would be to take the concept of the X server, which implements low level functionality available via byte stream communications, and implement much higher level concepts using the same idea. Rather than linking in libraries (and tying your graphical concepts to one language - C for GTK, C++ + custom weirdness for QT) have an X server analog that can speak in terms of Menus, Canvas w/ Scrollbar, Button, Text Input, Text Output, etc. Instead of Xlib (or clx in Lisp) you would have a much, much higher level communication protocal. Language bindings for C, C++, what have you would build on the primatives and higher level widigets provided by this X-server plus, and themes and other details would no longer be different because of what language binding you happened to be using. Translating code between languages would also be much easier, since concept names in different languages could all build off of the standard in the server.
Look sometime at the problems people have writing Python bindings for QT. I think the idea of a high level graphical object server with server side theme configuration would take us a long way towards a common desktop look and feel.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
To take on Microsoft, you'd need an OS that is nearly as easy to install as Windows. It needs to find and auto-configure for common hardware, make reasonable assumptions and continue with the installation without pestering the user unless it's absolutely necessary.
According to this insider's blog, Microsoft has stole Gorm, among other open source software.
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || http://AdTerrasPerAspera.com
He makes it sound so simple, doesn't he?
Writing a complete VB clone isn;t as simple as writing an IDE. VB 6 worked because of the underlying Windows infrastructure — ADO, Access, COM, and all those other acronyms that could be glued together with VB to make an application. VB provides a great environment for hacking together in-house and vertical market applications. It's good for rapid prototyping, too.
The Unix world has some very strong biases that make cloning VB difficult, not the least of which is a general prejudice that all VB code sucks. I've worked in shops with VB programmers (I'm a C++ guy), and saw some darned ugly code; the anti-VB prejudice has some basis in fact. Be that as it may, VB is a powerful force that locks many developers into Windows. If any of this code is to move to Linux, we would need to replicate the entire foundation of acronyms used in VB programs — a daunting task that most Unix-oriented folk will find unpalatable.
In part, Mono was trying to accomplish Windows-Linux interoperability, albeit using .Net as the foundation. Mono, however, does not address the vast quantity of VB 6 applications. And Mono's viability is still open for debate, given Microsoft's proprietary attitudes.
A while back, I was tried to sell the idea of a FOSS Access and VB to several major Linux "players", without success. Perhaps my pitch just wasn't that good, or maybe, just maybe, Unix people really are letting their prejudices get in the way of a Really Good Idea.
All about me
It's apparent that Greg Raiz doesn't "get" Unix, and so his choice of language is open to criticism. Unix is not a monolithic black box intended for narrowly defined use. It's an extensible workbench written by developers for developers.
That said, Greg has made an intuitive connection with an idea which is very important for any modular operating system, and that is that it should be possible for the modules to be managed in a structured way, taking into account authentication, dependencies, versioning, installation, and removal.
It's not like this is a new idea. Package management has been in Unix for a decade or two at least, and for example in Solaris the entire operating system install is managed in terms of packages. We don't have a package standard that is common across all Unix and Linux variants, though we have several candidates. I often wish we could converge on one of them because it would be very helpful for site management, especially at heterogenous sites.
Greg is profoundly misguided in suggesting that such package management must be (a) centralized or (b) mandatory. Those are classic weaknesses of the Microsoft approach which Unix developers have prudently managed to avoid. On the contrary, package management should support a distributed model which sites can define to suit their particular requirements. And certainly it makes no sense in a development environment to mandate that all software be "installed" under the same restrictive conditions as might be desired for production software.
The reason we have Linux is because it turns out that the world is not just made up of software "consumers". Some of us actually prefer to work within a development environment. We'll tend to choose development tools that give us more, not less, control over our systems.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
The article stated: As a general rule most people do not enjoy switching, upgrading or installing anything new. Ummm I for one don't agree. I think people don't want to be made to spend hours and hours doing it..ie MS security patches farmed out to server after server after being tested for 6 mos to make sure they don't mess everything up. People dont want to have to install new versions of applications over and over and upgrade documents and databases, ie Office version whatever now. People don't want to have to re-install applications over and over because they were written badly again ... Office version whatever. Ask my wife who has to learn Word because it is part of her college classes.
People don't want to have to endure feeling like they are being watched and have everything they do and download and run checked for license, authenticity and if its updated everytime they run it.
Some good ideas, but Greg is really out of touch with Linux and free software development in general.
He seems to miss the idea that (a) we can't throw out diversity of applications. It's confusion, but it's also a fact. (b) There *are* different distribution brands, though they try to lean on the common Linux name (RedHat Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, Gentoo Linux). (c) Most importantly, it's up to independent distributions to make the system into a cohesive user experience, and the success of GNU/Linux systems is precicely *because* of the ability for lots of independent developers to create software packages for it, not some central Linux authority. Linux *is* just the kernel,. It's up to other people to make more complete systems. He makes the very common mistake of confusing "Linux" with "OS consisting of a Linux kernel and GNU libraries and other tools with some user-oriented desktop environment".
There can be no Linux Inc. creating The One And Only Linux Desktop System. It shouldn't happen, and it fundamentally *can't*. There can only be a variety of Desktop Systems that are based on GNU/Linux.
This is yet another article saying that "If only Linux was a single unified force, it would be good." with a few sentences about interfaces at the front.
Let me dispell some of the myths. First, people don't want things to change. It's wrong.
If that were true, no one would have moved to OS X. "iPod, what's an iPod? I listen to music on my walkman."
People aren't going to change to GNU/Linux for no reason, but once they make the switch, we don't need it to look and behave like Windows. We have our own interfaces, and they work. OS X doesn't look like Microsoft Windows and people don't have that much trouble using it.
Some of the interface integration ideas he presents are allright- some of them are already in place, and others will take more work.
But the idea we need to drop KDE or GNOME, and drop distributions is old and tiring.
The simple fact is that when you consolodate for the sake of a unified force, you remove what makes the Free Software world great- competition.
If we'd all consolodated with Slackware in 92, we wouldn't have had packages. If we'd consolodated behind, say GNUStep, we wouldn't have had KDE, or GNOME, and so on.
The idea of lots of distributions and lots of interfaces and lots of every app is to let them all go, find which work best, borrow ideas, and, in the end, everyone benefits.
If we'd decided to "consolodate" and make an incompatible change, then that change would have to be left out. Once that happens, progress stops, and then someone else comes along and steals the rug from right under us.
Even "Consolodated" OSes like FreeBSD are, like GNU/Linux, collections of programs from other places.
I can't believe these articles still make it to Slashdot. They're old and tired.
There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux.
TFA is OK up until this point. Is this guy off his rocker? No self respecting Open Source geek is going to implement anything for VB. He would get laughed off of slashdot, sourceforge and every OSS community on the net in seconds.
Find coupons in Greeley
Time for the FOSS community to start working on OpenOSX.
"The MAJORITY of all new servers today are slated to run Linux.
This is not going to change, I repeat, it will NOT change."
Right, because nothing better than Linux at running servers will ever come along. By the way, what OS always has the best uptimes? Linux right...
"How can you call Linux a "niche" OS?"
Because all of the estimates I have found place Linux desktop usage somwhere between 3 and 6%. If you need to ask now, it's because you don't understand what "niche" means.
"First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL."
Man, you lost that battle years ago, give it up already.
"But more importantly, it is hugely successful and I am personally offended"
And NOW, FINALLY we get to the crux of the issue. YOU are personally invested, so rather than accept honest criticism, you get "offended" because someone spoke unfavorably about your hobby, and you feel that criticizing Linux is equivalent to criticizing you.
I'm feeling snarky, so I'm tempted to say that's patheitc. But I won't.
What I will say is that of that's the best argument you have, then Linux had better have someone else arguing for it. Luckily it does.
You're wrong on all points.
If Microsoft stole its UI from anyone, it's Macintosh (Lisa, 1983 and Mac OS, 1984).
Windows 1.0 came out in 1985 (MS-DOS 1981). The X Windows project started in 1984, and the public X11 we're all familiar with didn't come about until 1988. X Windows isn't even a UI, it's just a UI protocol.
If anything, modern desktop environments for Linux borrow heavily from Windows, which is a common complaint actually.
Yay, more misconceptions. Can I flame now, mommy?
``For years the open-source Linux community has been competing with Microsoft to become the dominant desktop operating system.''
Some have, but more have been writing great software regardless of what Microsoft did, and Linux has moved into several domains where Windows isn't a realistic option. The Linux community is not just about toppling Microsoft, and I don't even think that's the most important goal.
``Progress has been quick to match features with Redmond but this type of progress will only allow Linux to play catch-up, never to lead. In order to break away Linux has to do the things that Microsoft hasnt done or perhaps will never do''
I don't know how one can write that down without spontaneously disintegrating. Linux has done things that Microsoft won't do from the beginning, and has had features Microsoft has been copying for a long time. Sure, if you come from a Windows-only world, you probably see only how Linux performs worse or better on the features that Windows has, but if you look at it from the other direction, you can see the lead that Linux still has.
Shell scripting? Ability to run software originally developed for Unix? Open source options for every part of the system? Ability to absolutely customize anything and everything? Ability to have multiple users work on the system at the same time? Ability to adapt to any environment, no matter if it has keyboard, mouse, display, or anything of the sort? Need I go on?
``New Operating Systems break old applications''
Maybe new Microsoft operating systems do, but it seems to me that Linux can still run a lot of software that was developed for other Unix systems before Linux even existed, and I certainly don't know many applications that worked on Linux 2.0 that don't work on 2.6 anymore. This is all about standards; Linux can run old Unix software, because it the same APIs that have matured over the years. Microsoft tried to roll their own, and the need to go back and correct the mistakes is what makes new releases break old software. That, and the fact that no recompiling is done.
``This means users cant be expected to untar, unzip and burn ISO images, they also cant be expected to properly partition their hard drive.''
That suggests that this is currently expected of them. You can get Linux on CDs for free (from Ubuntu, among many others), and you don't need to manually partition your hard drive; you can use a live CD, or use any of the distributions that have an automatic partitioning option and use that.
``Creating compatibility through Wine and similar efforts is a great way to bootstrap an operating system with existing application but its not a long term solution. Linux not only has to migrate applications they have to migrate application developers.''
As if Windows is the only platform that applications are available for and that developers are writing for. Linux can stand on it's own with the applications it has just fine; it's just the types who want to run the exact same software that runs on Windows that WINE is good for. There are plenty of developers who write software for Linux, or did anyone think that Debian got their 20000 or so packages from Santa Claus?
``There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux''
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather have no developers than the whole VB crowd, much less only those VB devs who will only work with something that is exactly like what they already have. VB offers a low barrier entry into programming, which is great, because that's what enables a great hacker culture from forming around a platform; but if people won't use the tools that Linux already has to offer here, I'd say Linux is the better for it.
``Microsoft will struggle to innovate because its competing with previous versions of Windows (not linux.)''
Yeah, right. That's why they have those shared
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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.
"How can you call Linux a "niche" OS?"
Because a tiny tiny fraction of people use it as a desktop OS?
"First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL."
I think it's generally assumed that one says Linux in this context, they're referring to every distro of Linux out there. In this more particular case, they're talking about desktop machines and not servers.
"...and I am personally offended that you post a trite, mocking comment regarding something that I and thousands others have worked hard on the past 10-15 years."
Chill. A 'niche OS' is not an insult.
"Derp de derp."
Some of his comments are good, some are abysmal:
There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux.
Please, by all the gods you believe in, NO!. The very last thing we need is all this crappy VB stuff on Linux. VB is - by rights - famous for the shoddy software created with it. And don't tell me you can write good software with VB, the fact is that the vast majority of VB software are abominations that should've never left the author's imagination.
Entice users with well thought out end to end solutions
That entire chapter would've been much shorter if he had simply written: "Look to OSX for ideas on how to do it right, and to Windos for ideas on what to avoid at all costs".
Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software.
Has the dude used any Linux distribution during the past 5 years or so? Now I do compile stuff occasionally, but then I want to be on the bleeding edge and some of that stuff was written by me. Almost all actual applications I use rely much more on apt-get and dselect than on tar and gzip.
Linux should stop copying Microsoft feature for feature and embrace the differences and features that advanced users love.
YES. Besides some of the stupid comments, he's got the basics right. Hey, wait. Some of us have been saying this for years. The problem is that too many decision makers in both KDE and Gnome believe copying windos is the road to heaven.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
General users are not, and never will become, computer geeks. They need to control their computer through GUIs. This means that the GUI must present the following inescapable, unavoidable characteristics: - Clarity (When people say they want simplicity, they usually mean clarity); - Exhaustivity (Everything that must be done must be available through the GUI. No dropping into .config files for the end user);
- Consistency (To minimize learning curve or, in other words, reuse what the user has learned);
The role of clarity and consistency is to provide quick and painless learning.
By exhaustivity, I mean that users must have a (clear and consistent) way to do the following:
- install Linux;
- upgrade Linux;
- install and uninstall applications;
- replace hardware parts and their associated drivers;
- personalize their own Linux;
- manage security;
- and everything else I may have missed.
We need an organisation structured like the IETF or the W3C whose purpose would be to evolve a complete specification of a clear and consistent user experience giving the user total control of his machine. Programmers and distributions would be free to branch out, but over time, the availability of a good user experience proposition (and high level libraries to easily implement its various facets) would win over developers as well as users, and a commun culture will develop.
Right now, the geeks are happy with Linux, but the genral user is totally, utterly confused.
A week ago I started learning 'Unix' and all related stuff. I'm surprised at how fast I'm progressing. I'm also impressed by what I'm learning. I can use LaTeX and ConTeXt instead of MSWord, and they really kick MSWord's ass big time. I can use gnumeric and R project for statistics, and they really, really kick MSExcel's ass (I can cite studies where gnumeric proved far much superior and accurate, but I don't want their sites slashdotted). I can use grep, sed, awk and perl for parsing text. I can use vim for editing. I can use the superior cdraw, imagemagick for images (I can cite studies where cdraw and imagemagick proved much better in quality of results than photoshop, but I don't want their sites slashdotted). Soon I'll be able to use avisynth on linux.
Here's my point, people don't need to be beginners all their friggin' life. They should learn a little computing if they're going to use the computer for hours everyday. I wish I had done this much earlier, but had I not considered a switch to linux I wouldn't have; I have been using MS platform and related applications for 20 yeras and now I feel I have been encouraged to remain dumb for 20 years. In my experience, linux is the clear winner platform. I wish they'd teach linux skills in school - had kids learnt to use Bash, LaTex, Python, and R, this would be a much, much better world.
There are many areas where GNU/Linux distros (and the other *nix-like OSes) go far beyond anything that is possible in Windows or on the MacOS in terms of features. Many of these "beyond" areas would be VERY attractive to the average user. Unfortunately many of them are obscured behind the CLI or very complicated concepts. A few examples:
1. The xmdx extension for X window system (X.org) which would allow multiple machines to act as one shared screen over the network. Combined with the proper simple user interface and an xmdx aware pager, A user could execute their web browser on Machine A and go surfing. They could then drag-and-drop the browser to Machine B's desktop and keep on going down there. If this was further combined with an xmdx aware sound server, A music player could be made to follow it's user from machine to machine without ever stopping.
2. Virtualization might seem like a concept that would be useless to grandma, but you're not thinking straight if you believe that. If a GNU/Linux distro were set up to to run on top of a Xen paravirtualization environment in a transparent way and across multiple machines, imagine the user friendliness... To grandma, it looks like a desktop that is always where she left it and it never stops. She can shut her machine down and the Xen domain would migrate to the central home computer/data store.
3. Clustering. Again, a lot of people would think it's a dumb idea for "Joe Average" to have a cluster. But is it REALLY a dumb idea? I say no. Why should people be forced to throw away old computer systems once the latest version of Windows won't install? Why can't they just have an automatic cluster solution with a very transparent UI that provides them with MORE power than they would ever get from a single Windows box?
Just in general, the key should be to take very advanced concepts that don't even exist in the Windows world and make them available to the end-user in a very simple, transparent way. This is all possible with Linux. But most Linux folks don't think this way and therein lies the problem.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
If you look at the article being linked to on LXer it says:
...
"The Linux desktop has gone way past the excellent product Sun released in December 2003. That desktop offered the Gnome 2.2 desktop and some very nice engineering. Most Linux desktops now offer Gnome 2.12 which has incorporated the nice engineering found in the original Sun project Madhatter. So, no one wants Sun's throwback desktop today.
Don't get your hopes up about the JDS desktop for Linux. They need to prove that they can follow through on something first. So far, the jury remains out. We don't know who would want their desktop anyway: It's old, they changed the look and feel and who will support it?
"
Basically, they realized that their Java Desktop has been obsoleted by GNOME and they no longer want to maintain their fork which few people wanted.
Progress has been quick to match features with Redmond but this type of progress will only allow Linux to play catch-up, never to lead. In order to break away Linux has to do the things that Microsoft hasn't done or perhaps will never do to differentiate and become a practical desktop alternative. Linux is verbatim free to do whatever it can. :-)
I don't think you know what it means.
"If you make the interface too simple you may loose some functionality that advanced users will like."
It's funny that unleashing the functionality that advanced users will like is apparently the result of simplifying the interface. I'm pretty sure the author did not intend this, but I'd say that the sentence is correct with such examples as Automator introduced in Mac OS 10.4 -- by making the interface simpler for advanced tasks, you make all users more advanced!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
This kind of attitude I am certain holds back many people who would be adopters and great supporters of Linux. I am certain there are many VB and other 'doze programmers who would be readily willing to help develop the pieces necessary to create a "VB-like" development system under Linux, but I bet they are put off by this attitude.
I have used and developed on Linux since 1997 - not a veteran by any means, but I have been here a long time. Guess what: I am also a VB programmer (VB6 was the last version I used at a former job - I don't use it at home anymore). I don't write "shitty" code. My code is clean, well structured, and well commented. Regardless of what language I use (and I know a slew of them), I always try to make my code shine first (maintainable), then optimize it where it is needed last. If such optimization requires me to "roll up my sleeves" and get down-n-dirty with some C/C++ and/or assembler, so be it (although this need hasn't been true for a while - last time I had to do some C coding was when I created a scanline triangle rasterizer for custom 3D engine I was coding in VB - ahem).
All of this isn't to say there aren't crappy VB coders - but there are just as many crappy C, C++, Perl, Python, etc coders as there are crappy VB coders. In the end, the language is just a syntax to tell the computer what to do. How you code and structure your program according to the syntax of that language is up to the individual programmer. If he is bad, the code will be bad, if he is good, the code will also reflect this. Personally, some of the crappiest code I have seen has tended to commercial game development houses (although I do give props to ID for having good code that is fairly readable, with comments where absolutely needed, and clear layout of algorithms where you can easily read the code and figure it out without too much headache). This could be due to a number of reasons (too many cooks and such), but then again, I have seen excellent code created by other commercial software companies as well. There are excellent VB coders out there - all one has to do is read a few back issues of Visual Basic Developers Journal to see that (the code they publish is *excellent* code, in terms of structure and readability).
Painting all VB developers as being "shitty" programmers does nothing but disservice to the abilities of those VB programmers who develop great code and software. It also does nothing to help their perception of the Linux development community. These are the programmers that the Linux community needs if it is ever to make serious inroads to the desktops in businesses. Many businesses worldwide utilize tons of in-house (and otherwise) custom developed VB applications, running on their Windows desktops, that aren't typically represented at all by similar software available for Linux. If the desktop is ever really wanted to be "owned" by Linux, the community of developers on Linux needs to see past the arrogant and elitist attitude it has towards VB developers, and instead extend a helping hand toward getting them onboard helping to develop an easy-to-use, RAD tool for the Linux desktop (it is my personal opinion that we are already 99% of the way there - notwithstanding the various VB-like RAD tools that do exist for Linux, I believe a modern approach could utilize Qt or Gtk coupled with Python under KDevelop or a similar IDE to create a very nice and extensible RAD tool that would attract many VB developers and others to developing software for Linux desktops).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I read your post. Wow.
Rather than respond to the content (most of what you said has already been refuted) I'll respond to the sentiment.
If you want people to adopt Linux, such zealotry will get you nowhere. Just as some are scared off of SciFi by Rabid Trekkies, you've just potentially scared people out of trying Linux. In trying to do one thing you're actually accomplishing the opposite. Congratulations.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Yeah, I know, we've all heard it-- more than a few times.
R. Stallman and persnickety enthusiasts can say it until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter to the general public and never will.
"You may want to try the latest build of 6.0-RC1 on the Sun Blade 100, or disable ATA DMA if you are using IDE hard drives in that machine. I also have a Sun Blade 100 that throw fits with ATA DMA enabled, but the problem was fixed prior to 6.0-RC1 was released."
"Thanks for the heads up. I was actually putting it on there to test the upgrade procedure from 5.4 to 6.0 before I applied it to the other sparc machines but not Blade 100s."
And you wonder why the average person uses Windows.
"For years the open-source Linux community has been competing with Microsoft to become the dominant desktop operating system."
Opening statement. Really.
Greg doesn't get it. Linux (FOSS) *does not* compete with Microsoft (or anyone else). We do software, sure, and that's about it.
If Microsoft (or anyone else) actually feels THREATENED, they should do something about it. Improve their product? Adopt a FOSS solution? Whatever. As long as it makes money, I don't care.
But, we (FOSS) don't compete with them. It is competely ludicrous to assume that. I have put out some FOSS projects... and have received NO MONEY from them. I didn't EXPECT money. On the other hand, I am a Microsoft shareholder. I get very upset when Microsoft gives stuff away. I bought those shares for a reason -- to make me money.
What the two share is "software". Sort of like a car manufacturer vs. a kit car home builder.
I will summarize:
Microsoft's final product is money (shareholder value). FOSS final product is software. These are not the same.
Please Greg, get a clue... I know you worked at Microsoft 'n stuff, and it may make it difficult to get a handle on FOSS, but I am sure you can wrap your brain around this.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Greg's Head is part of my daily reading and he always has interesting things to say about the field of user interfaces. His latest post is Linux Thoughts. While the post has some very shrewd observations, there was something that nagged at me while I read it.
Going back through the post, I think his basic premise is wrong. The first paragraph of the post opens with,
And I think that's where he's wrong. I think there are definitely players in the Linux arena who want to use Linux to compete with Microsoft, but I don't think that's true for Linux as a whole. The drive behind Linux isn't to compete with Microsoft, to replace Windows, or even to provide a mom-and-pop OS to the mainstream. As with almost all open source software, the drive behind Linux is the scratching of an itch. No more, no less.
Looking from that point of view greatly changes some of the things Greg had to say. For instance,
If Linux was trying to be a brand, this would hold very true. However, from the standpoint that Linux progress comes from people scratching an itch, it doesn't hold any water. Part of why Linux is where it is today is because there are "dozens and perhaps even hundreds of different Linux distributions."
If you are trying to understand how Microsoft could compete against Linux, it becomes easier if you take the viewpoint that Linux is trying to be a brand that is competing back against Microsoft. But I believe you would be fooling yourself to take that viewpoint. The simple fact that it's not trying to be a brand is why it's so hard to compete against Linux.
As I said before, there are players in the Linux arena who would like to use Linux to compete against Microsoft, and the most obvious player that comes to mind is Novell. With Linux as a whole, though, there's nothing really for Microsoft to compete against. Microsoft could crush SuSe into the dust and it wouldn't really affect Linux.
Keeping all that in mind, I want to stress that this does not invalidate anything Greg has said about Linux in his post. He brings up some excellent points, lays some very good directions for Linux developers to take, and really hits the nail on the head with a lot of things with regard to how Linux could expand to the masses. But...
As long as there are a handful of programmers who are happy with their Linux distribution and are continuing to tinker with it, Linux will be wildly successful. Why? Because that handful of programmers are scratching an itch. It's as simple as that.
The "get people to switch from Windows" debate is raging again here - it reminded me that I wanted to know if there was a Linux-to-Windows conversion tool to ease the process. If not, let me say what I'm thinking.
I'd like a Windows executable that will scan my system, identify settings (TCP/IP settings, SMTP settings, dialup/VPN, background desktop image, you name it), and burn a CD of my settings. Then, I want a Linux executable that will read those settings, and set me up in Linux as close as possible to Windows.
This tool should ideally also work Windows-to-Windows for moving to a new computer. Ideally it should have a plugin architecture so folks can write add-ons. The XMMS folks can write a plugin to suck in my Winamp settings and so on. Done correctly, this tool could even analyze my installed programs and suggest what programs I'm going to need. "I see you have Yahoo Messenger - you'll want to get Yahoo Messenger for Linux or Gaim. Once it's installed, I'll pre-populate your settings."
Throw it all on a live CD and you have a great way to convince folks that switching to Linux is easy.
I'm not a developer, but I'm a Windows power user (the key demographic, yes?) who'd be happy to be on a team of folks interested in this.
My sister is a graphic artist in the DC area. Her company has had various restructurings and layoffs in recent years, dumping more work on her.
This got me thinking about how much money a typical graphic shop spends on Mac hardware and software. I wondered if a Mac shop could switch to Linux (PPC or x86), save money, and still be able to do everything they could before with a comparable ease of use. I spent a while analyzing OS X 10.4 Tiger and Linux in a series of articles on my blog.
What I came up with is that Linux itself is certainly easy enough for a Mac user to pick up, and can be customized to look and act enough like OS X that while there would be a learning curve, it wouldn't be a steep one.
There are lots of open source and free packages out there to do the kinds of things Mac designers do, and most of them compare favorably to their commercial counterparts on the Mac.
The only real drawbacks I saw were (as noted here in the article and commentary) that software installation is a touch easier on the Mac and that the Linux applications aren't (yet) capable of reading Macintosh files.
This led me to the conclusion that a "new" designer with no existing library of graphics in proprietary formats (e.g., PageMaker, FreeHand, Illustrator) could pretty easily use Linux and OSS.
A more experienced designer with lots of graphics in proprietary formats could still do it, but would have a heck of a time getting those graphics moved to Linux. In exchange for that effort, they'd save a ton of cash on hardware (since Linux runs on cheaper x86 iron) and software (since most of the Linux stuff is free).
If you would like to read the (even more) long-winded version, see my blog at http://mikesalsbury.com/mambo/content/view/243/
Server and service uptime are not necessarily the same thing.
In a well-designed architecture, individual server uptimes are irrelevant.