Slashdot Mirror
Caldera Graphic Installation Screenshots
ReadParse writes
"From our Troll friends come some screenshots of the anticipated (by some) GUI Caldera Installation that Troll and Caldera collaborated on. "
It looks so... modern.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Hmm.. I remember that a little differently. The first leading WordProcessor for microcomputers was WordStar. It's distingishing feature was that about the top 1/3 of the screen was covered with a list of control key commands. You could scroll through different, more obscure commands or hide them.
WordPerfect (and Lotus 1-2-3) supposedly had a better interface because it was a "clean screen". Launched it and you got nothing but a blank screen with a line number indicator on the bottom. The "User Interface" was nothing more than a little piece of cardboard that sat on your keyboard and told what the F-keys did.
In my opinion, this approach really sucked excrement. Having to know that the only way to save a file was Shift-F7 (unless you were using a different version, where it was F9 or something) made no sense whatsoever. The keybindings seemed like they were assigned pretty much randomly (as opposed to the logical control key layout in WordStar.) Anyways, corporate training costs and the market rate for "Word Processors" pretty much backed my opinion up, and folks were all too happy to jump to Windows and MS Word.
What does this have to do with Linux? Just that you can have 90% of the market and still be all wrong.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
As for text-mode==arcane, it looks like the first part of the Win2000 install is still text mode.
What is definately true is that RedHat text-mode==sucks. I often find it difficult to determine what is selected, and it's inconsistant about when you need to Tab to "OK" and when you can just press Space.
Anyways, when I hear "Linux is hard to install", I know people are not saying "the installer is hard to run". Rather, they mean "Getting the system configured the way I want and getting all my hardware working is hard(er than Windows).", which is still true because the GUI System config tools aren't really there yet.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
It uses the new frame buffer in the 2.2 kernel, no X is needed.
I was a Windows advocate in a Mac world (just to be contrarian) for many years, so I could argue both ways on this, but you're missing the point by looking at resizeable windows, buttons, icons, etc., as those are pretty basic parts of a GUI. What's far more important are the interpretations of these graphics, as well as what the user does with them in terms of direct manipulation.
The Mac and OS/2 have both been significantly ahead of Windows in certain UI areas, but MS has persistently incorporated features of its competitors in the Windows GUI. Unfortunately, these implementations are typically more flash than substance, but at least Windows users get some of the innovations, as well as some uniquely MS innovations. (e.g., the "Start" button and task bar)
Consider that direct manipulation of the directory/file structure will always be easier for casual users on a Mac. It's not that you can't drag and drop icons on Windows, but that the underlying Windows/DOS directory heirarchy are just too complicated. Applications consist of tens or hundreds of files that have to be moved together, for instance, rather than a single icon. Unix will face the same stumbling block. Once again, I'm talking about casual users, not sysadmins.
OS/2 is a weird case. I was an advocate in the OS wars on the OS/2 side, but my ardor has long since cooled and I'll just cite the facts as I recall them. Versions 2.0 (circa 1992) and later attempted to implement a GUI known as CUA '91 (aka, "The Workplace Shell"), which was developed in IBM's Cary, NC human factors lab. Among other innovations, CUA '91 was very visually "object oriented", and pushed the use of right-mouse-click "context" menus, "container controls", and the notion that any given object may have multiple possible "views". It encouraged widespread use of direct-manipulation, not only of files and directories, but also of all sorts of "objects" within applications. And it pioneered (as far as I'm aware) the use of "Notebook" controls for application and OS settings.
CUA '91 was really cool. The implemented WPS was close, and I still prefer it over Windows, but to really shine it needed applications which conceptually share the same interface. Those never got developed.
Windows 95 incorporated the notebook controls and right-mouse-click menus, and copied the look and feel of the container controls (though I don't think the functionality was exposed to applications developers). There are also some interfaces that one could argue would permit applications developers to implement the same sorts of direct manipulation. Could implement that is, if those application developers already knew what they were doing and could agree on the protocols for using the messages in question.
Oh well. Nobody seems to be flogging the direct manipulation horse now anyway. The Internet and an obsession with browser-interface and functionality have eclipsed everything else.
I applauded Caldera for doing this. I've never tried Linux, though I want to. My dad is really resisting though, so maybe I will, and maybe I won't. But from everything I've ever read on Linux, everyone has said it was harder to install and do stuff with Linux. Windows in incredibly easy. That's why it's #1. And until Linux gets as easy to use as Windows 2000, it will never overtake Microsoft. There are way too many stupid people in the world. I see this as a good thing. I viewed the screen shots, and said, "Hey, I think I could do this, it looks simple enough". Now if I saw a bunch of crazy Unix commands, then I would have given up all hope of ever using Linux. Linux needs a graphical interface if it wants to compete with Windows, it's as simple as that.