There's hardly anything I can add to this. The Gnome and KDE guys have done really hard work in the last years, but they're coders, not UI-designers. Just picking some points they find cool in other systems doesn't make it a good UI and especially not a consistent UI. Has anyone of them ever heard of Fitt's Law? GOMS?
UI design is more than just "I like the Taskbar, let's put something similar in our system."
Re:Can IBM live up to it's marketting?
on
Eazel On The Ropes
·
· Score: 1
IBM recently started a KDE theme contest. I doubt they will invest in Gnome, too. It is rather likely that Sun or maybe Dell puts some money in Eazel, since they are commited to gnome (or at least their marketing departments are).
"Also very easy to understand (source code wise) and easy to install (not such an nightmare as nautilus or GNOME)."
gnome isn't hard to install. Did you ever try Ximian gnome? The problems of Eazel don't mean that commercial OS-developement doesn't work, it's just one case where it did not work. I don't know how Ximian turns out in the end, but at least they have really cool products (Evolution, Red Carpet).
Hm, what I don't like about Eazel is that there are no.deb packages for Nautilus.
I want Nautilus support for Debian - I found Debian 2.2 with Helix Gnome is a very comfortable yet sleek desktop (compared to the default installation of other distros like RH or SuSE).
Besides, I never found a Debian installation as hard as everyone claims.
Just because Be Inc, the company sees the end of money when they don't find new investors, doesn't mean BeOS, the operating System is a dead platform.
Heck, Linux has no money and no company, is Linux a dead platform?
You're right. Why work so hard for a AmigaOS 4.0 when we have now have BeOS?
To me, BeOS always was the way I imagined AmigaOS 4 would be like: Mem Protection, SMP, fast, clean UI, powerful shell, Media capabilities and it even runs on PPC:-)
What use would anyone have from an opensourced BeOS?
You could not integrate it's media capabilites into Linux/*BSD, simply because these OS' are really different from BeOS inside. And the things that BeOS lacks most, drivers + apps, well, you can write them without the BeOS sources, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the link I provided, this man does provide constructive criticism and hints alternative solutions.
There's hardly anything I can add to this. The Gnome and KDE guys have done really hard work in the last years, but they're coders, not UI-designers. Just picking some points they find cool in other systems doesn't make it a good UI and especially not a consistent UI. Has anyone of them ever heard of Fitt's Law? GOMS? UI design is more than just "I like the Taskbar, let's put something similar in our system."
IBM recently started a KDE theme contest. I doubt they will invest in Gnome, too. It is rather likely that Sun or maybe Dell puts some money in Eazel, since they are commited to gnome (or at least their marketing departments are).
"Also very easy to understand (source code wise) and easy to install (not such an nightmare as nautilus or GNOME)." gnome isn't hard to install. Did you ever try Ximian gnome? The problems of Eazel don't mean that commercial OS-developement doesn't work, it's just one case where it did not work. I don't know how Ximian turns out in the end, but at least they have really cool products (Evolution, Red Carpet). Hm, what I don't like about Eazel is that there are no .deb packages for Nautilus.
At least, Ximian Gnome and esp Red-Carpet work flawless with Debian. I was amazed how simple and quick it was to install.
I want Nautilus support for Debian - I found Debian 2.2 with Helix Gnome is a very comfortable yet sleek desktop (compared to the default installation of other distros like RH or SuSE). Besides, I never found a Debian installation as hard as everyone claims.
tell me why.
Just because Be Inc, the company sees the end of money when they don't find new investors, doesn't mean BeOS, the operating System is a dead platform.
Heck, Linux has no money and no company, is Linux a dead platform?
You're right. Why work so hard for a AmigaOS 4.0 when we have now have BeOS? To me, BeOS always was the way I imagined AmigaOS 4 would be like: Mem Protection, SMP, fast, clean UI, powerful shell, Media capabilities and it even runs on PPC :-)
What use would anyone have from an opensourced BeOS? You could not integrate it's media capabilites into Linux/*BSD, simply because these OS' are really different from BeOS inside. And the things that BeOS lacks most, drivers + apps, well, you can write them without the BeOS sources, too.