Project GoneME Fixes Perceived Gnome UI Errors 576
An anonymous reader writes "Project GoneME is the first attempt to try moving the GNOME Desktop into a new direction. The intention is to create a community of people, who are willing and interested to help fixing issues brought up by people for a very long time and make the vision of a usable Desktop in the means of good old Unix fashion become true. In case you are interested to help, please join the project. Plenty of people have shown interest and welcome this step and the IRC channel got filled up within a short time." Update: 07/26 02:33 GMT by T : A project mailing list has been set up for anyone interested in taking part in this endeavor.
i prefer kde (Score:3, Insightful)
File Types (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people whine, few work... (Score:5, Insightful)
He's been complaining about GNOME post 1.4 for a long while, mostly on OSNews. I have no idea if the fork will succeed, but at least he's putting his money (time, code, effort) where his mouth has been.
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhh maybe it's changed for a reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he should try KDE instead? That does everything he wants, and has tons of configurable options. I think you can modify the Earth's rotation speed in the KDE Control Center.
That said, I'm sticking to GNOME. It's very simple and clean, and doesn't get in my way. I really love GNOME 2.6 (actually I'm an XFCE user but decided to try it out today... it's niiiice).
Re:Gnome should have 2 modes. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is an expert mode. You just have to be an expert to use it
Reverting the button order is a stupid idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Reverting the button order just because inferior systems do it differently is a very bad idea.
Re:One issue im sure alot of people would like cha (Score:2, Insightful)
In GNOME 2.6, the option still exists in gconf, but not in the UI.
So, stop whining!
Re:i prefer kde (Score:3, Insightful)
I prefer Gnome over the others...but that doesn't mean that none of them are un-usefull, they're all usefull and they all work and what I like in a UI isn't what everyone else likes.
Choice.
Re:"Perceived" Gnome UI Errors? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:4, Insightful)
Choice is a _good_ thing.
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly much worse.
Without users leaving Gnome to use KDE instead, there would be no incentive for Gnome to fix any of their problems, or re-think any of their usability issues.
Without users leaving KDE to use Gnome instead, there would be no incentive for KDE to tidy up their user interface, or re-think any of their usability issues.
You said you had issues with Gnome's usability. Imagine how much worse it would be without a choice, or without PROOF that things can be done better. How would you ever get some of Gnome's "we-know-best" developers to acknowledge any of Gnome's weaknesses then ?
That's not to say every Gnome developer has a "we-know-best" attitude. But some seem determined to re-invent the wheel - and make it square this time (because some newbies just can't get used to wheels that insist on rolling around all over the place).
Re:i prefer kde (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather, there is a KDE community behind KDE, and a GNOME community behind GNOME. And if for some reason Linux were to stagnate and FreeBSD or the HURD or QNX become a dominant free software platform, they would happily concentrate on KDE and GNOME running on top of that platform.
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:3, Insightful)
Two perfect examples of this are SuSE and Java Desktop System. SuSE made the KDE decision and has made their desktop very powerful through this decision. Similarly, JDS has chosen the GNOME route, and has been building a "not quite Linux" OS experience on top of it.
Now, if someone would just fix the way software is installed on Linux...
(The Gentoo troll should be here in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:4, Insightful)
Gnome vs. KDE vs. fvwm vs. OS X vs.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll probably get modded down for suggesting it, but the model for a usable desktop should be Mac OS X. Ignore Windows, KDE, and the current Gnome/Nautilus. OS X makes them all look shabby and thoughtlessly designed.
In some respects, the question of a usable desktop is pointless when someone un-technical, like my mom for example, can sit down at a Macintosh and figure out how to do everything she wants to do without reading any documentation--digital photos, movies, music, email. The desktop may be great, but the OS and its associated user-space programs *must* achieve this sort of ease-of-use if they're ever to be taken seriously by Joe Desktop.
Re:Uhh maybe it's changed for a reason? (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. Almost all of the whining regarding Gnome could generally be rendered moot by just switching to KDE. Gnome has a clearly stated direction, and people who disagree with it (I do, but mostly because I use the pathetic 1024x768 resolution while Gnome seems to target higher with their gigantic toolbars) can as well keep on using KDE.
Gnome has a multi-year strategy, which compromises some functionality today but will pay off with time. Meanwhile, just use KDE. Users don't generally need to suffer because of Qt licensing because they are just that, users.
Re:Curse of Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
And even when that gap shrinks due ten years becomming a smaller and smaller percentage over time, there is still the matter of proprietary taking from open source such ideas that it then focuses on to polish for sales.... where open source is a much larger force that does NOT deny possibilities...
About forking..... well guess what.... the good things that various forks expose can then later be reintegrated to come up with something even better than what proprietary would have been able to on its own..
Forking is just one part of a bigger picture... the other part is re-integration of good things...
Re:Too little, too late. (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to like making music, (your homepage, I assume it's yours?) so do that for an open-source project, or use that creativity that allows you to create music to help in an OSS project somewhere.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:3, Insightful)
Just ignore them, save your time and mood.
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:3, Insightful)
This is all besides the point that you can't dictate to volunteer coders what they should work on. What are you going to do, email all of the [KDE|GNOME] devs and say, "It has been decided that having two desktops is unproductive. You are directed to start developing for [GNOME|KDE]. Thank you for your cooperation." ? Think that'll fly?
Whiprush: ten GNOME nitpicks (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.whiprush.org/2004/07/ten_gnome_nitpi.h
Oh, he also talks about GoneME. He has a very low opinion of it.
http://www.whiprush.org/2004/07/its_not_a_joke.ht
steveha
The shit has hit the fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what I posted a while back about this in my livejournal [livejournal.com]:
that's the advantage vs. Windows/Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest problem is the language people use to talk about these sorts of projects. Talking about "GoneME fixing perceived Gnome UI errors" is a good start. But the GoneME developers themselves should be aware that they are just developing something different for a different community, and that they aren't necessarily "fixing UI errors". I mean, the Gnome 2.6 developers aren't stupid, and they didn't set out to create a system with "UI errors" (personally, I think spatial Nautilus is a slight improvement).
With Windows or Macintosh, you get whatever Microsoft or Apple tell you is best: you can buy it or you can leave it. Complaining about usability problems with those systems is useless--the companies aren't going to listen anyway.
Re:Many people whine, few work..Faith-based comput (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point, but there has been so much smoke and brimstone over his "issues" that an actual, measurable metric to see how many don't like the situation could be helpful. I can't see how a button order change could take more than a week to get over, but something must be upsetting them based on the number of ex-GNOMErs I see using KDE.
If a large number of people start using these patches, then perhaps the RedHat/Sun/Novell corporate types leading the GNOME project these days may rethink top-down "shut up, we know whats good for you" decision making. If GoneME vanishes without leaving a trace, we'll learn something about how much smoke a few arsonists can create out of trivialities.
just like Apple... (Score:3, Insightful)
The sooner people realize that there is no single "best" user interface and that all UIs still have lots of problems, the better for everybody. Furthermore, anything that you change about a UI is going to make some people unhappy. The good thing with Linux, X11, and its choice of UIs is that UIs really are in competition.
Re:Gnome should have 2 modes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Force everyone to beginner mode.
Not really. You still have the option of using expert mode.
Nobody is forcing you to use all of Gnome's tools. There are 'expert' configuration tools, you can use one of the many alternative file browsers out there, etc. You just need to be an expert to find them.
Personally, I like the new Gnome defaults.
Re:Gnome should have 2 modes. (Score:4, Insightful)
All it would take is a short text label, or a mouse-over tooltip.
Seems like a strange concept of "usability" to me.
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:3, Insightful)
Gnome and KDE also get compared to the various Windows GUI's, and OS X. Therefore, thre is a degree of competition between Gnome and those interfaces. Granted, that's slightly different, given that neither runs on Linux, so that's not relevent to all the users of Gnome.
Still, those drive the Linux UI's forward, along with more obscure UI's. I accept I've not heard many comments that Windows does something better then Gnome (or KDE), but there are a fair few comments that OS X is superior in some aspect or another. That's not to be ignored.
Would UI usability be better served if there was only one free toolkit - dunno, can't say for certain (and probably not, in my opinion). I don't think it's obvous that it would be worse, however.
Re:Simplify, simplify (slightly off-topic) (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, sounds good so far. No bloat. That's why I want to get Windoze completely off my home network. But then I read on ...
WHOA, NELLY! You can't talk about simple and un-bloated software, then praise emacs as a "quality piece of software," and expect to be taken seriously.
-paul
GNOME is moving backward somehow since 1.0 (Score:4, Insightful)
I liked it a lot at the time, however, and I faithfully stuck with it (over KDE) for several months.
If GNOME had stayed on essentially the same track, adding only polish, features, unity and stability, I'd still be using GNOME today.
Instead, each new release of GNOME has taken away or changed more of the things I used/liked about it (read any Slashdot story, including this one, for a users' lists of grievances) and sometime during KDE 2.x, I went back to KDE. I've continued to track GNOME releases (I've got a fresh Fedora Core 2 install right now, so I've had a chance to test the most recent distributed GNOME desktops) but GNOME continues to travel farther and farther away from where I want my desktop to be.
Meanwhile, KDE has continued to steadily improve and with each new KDE release, I find myself happier and happier with my desktop.
It's a shame, but at least for some audiences (myself being a part of them), the height of GNOME's usability and coolness was probably the crash-happy GNOME 1.0. Instead of fixing the stability and polish problems and making it a nice desktop, the developers have gradually turned it into a less and less usable environment, an environment that I always feel is talking down to me while it tries to keep me in a kind of straitjacket.
Re:An attempt to clear up some misunderstandings (Score:5, Insightful)
My desktop is not a fucking hammer. It's not simple. The things I do with it are not simple. I stare at it for 8 hours a day at work, and several more hours after I get home. I do a million disparate, discrete things with it.
So a better analogy for it would be my ENVIRONMENT. Much like my house and my room within my house, is an environment. Now, if someone were to come in and tell me that "yeah, your room should be a cube, because it's 'simple'. And oh yeah, you can't put a fan _there_, it doesn't make sense. And you have to put your CDs _there_, because that's the most aesthetically pleasing, and your monitor goes _here_ and your desk goes _here_", I would tell them to fuck off.
I'll use strong words to try to relate how emphatic I am about this point: FUCK THE AVERAGE USER. I'm the one that has to use my computer 12 hours a day, NOT the average user. And if a desktop environment is going to make it a pain in the ass for me to get it to work the way I want it, then I'll use something else. Simple as that.
I really don't give a shit what you, or the gnome developers, or the waitress at Wendys, thinks the 'average user' can handle, or what is 'aesthetically pleasing'.. as LONG as it doesn't interfere with MY ideas on what is appropriate. If it does, then I'll pack my bags and leave.
It's sheer arrogance for someone to suggest that I don't know how best to arrange my environment.. even worse for my aesthetic tastes to be usurped in the name of an almost-mythical "average user" that the GNOME developers claim to understand intimately.
-Laxitive
Re:Reverting the button order is a stupid idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Majority rules. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is the difference in our philosophies:
Current GNOME advocates:
- Configurability means learning curve
- Learning curve = bad
- Remove configurability, users be damned
This simply refuses to serve those who are not in your majority (and I should note that I don't at all buy that this homogenous "majority" of users exists; to be confused by too many options is one thing, but to suggest that all users therefore want the *same* desktop is a huge logical disconnect).
I simply believe that a better philosophy is:
- Configurability means learning curve
- Design intelligently to minimize learning curve
- While maintaining configurability
- Thereby *potentially* serving *all* users
What GNOME advocates of your ilk are saying is "if you don't like it, don't use it, even though we once provided what you like and it would be simple and unobtrusive to add it back." Now someone else tries to add it back, and GNOME advocates are freaking out.
With that attitude, the GNOME community shouldn't complain when all of the people you've told to get lost (including app developers and the sorts of Linux users who go to *help out* at installfests) abandon you in droves. It is, after all, what you wanted. We're the users you didn't want to serve.
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:3, Insightful)
All you need is to enable True Type Fonts. I know in Slackware this was an option on install. The majority of foundries out there make True Type fonts...not only am I able to use the thousands of TTF that I accumulated over the years on my graphics production machine(windows), there were a couple of helpful perl scripts on kde-look.org which enabled me to grab several thousand more.
The hard part for me has not been finding fonts that work in linux and getting them to work...its been deciding ones I actually want to use! Seriously, takes a while to parse a few thousand fonts!
I'm not sure how the font management in flux box is because i've never tried tweaking it much. However in KDE its fantastic...in fact, its better then Windows. It was something similar to Adobe Type Manager light built-in, whereas in Windows once just has to find the fonts directory and paste everything in by hand.
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, the only advantages over Mozilla that Internet Explorer has, out of the box, are Java and Flash plugins included - but that doesn't count, as they're both outdated.
appalling decline of Gnome (Score:3, Insightful)
Somewhere the Gnome people got the idea that usability and configurability was a negative and their best bet was to make an unconfigurable unusable interface.
Pathetic.
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:3, Insightful)
Choice is something that the experience user wants.
This is precisely why Linux on Desktop sucks.
Look at Apple as a good example. What is Apple? - It is just cover company for ideas of Jobs. Why is Mac consistent? Because there is Steven Jobs - and there is no choice. People at Apple do not waste their time arguing on mailing lists about better desktop. Jobs has vision - and he drives company according to this vision.
KDE? KDE is made of people who enjoy desktop. Probably they are not greatest GUI programmers - but they like what they do. They are enthusiasts of what they do. Not consistent, Not polished - but with load of features. Great utility from people who have enjoyed doing KDE.
GNOME? GNOME is made up from pollitically correct corporate sponsored full time developers (RedHat, Sun, FSF). They are more to politics and to deliver on corporate business plan, than to listen to their users. It was absolutely funny how Havoc Pennington (of RedHat brainwashing fame) was arguing on list against end-users that he has statistics from end-users at hand, and every-one on the list is wrong, because some has given him statistics and - well - he doesn't care, he has a road map ha has to adhere since RedHat is planning release of next RedHat, etc, etc, etc.
IOW, Democracy - like one found in GNOME - is no substitute to leadership (Apple, Enlightenment). Republican structure of KDE performs here better too.
Linux will not get good Desktop until someone will step forward as a leader. And I see more chances for this to happend in KDE, rather than in GNOME project. Only if someone really disgusted will decide to fork off GNOME, what is IMHO not worth doing.
P.S. Best Linux desktop to date is Enlightenment (E). It is shiny and brilliant. It is finished, polished and complete. Why? Because guy who did it - Rasterman - really cares. And he is driving his project forward. Not fast, but GNOME as was two years behind of E - it is now the same two years behind of E in usability & eye candy.
P.P.S. Forking off GNOME. Well it might be not the worst idea. After all even XFree86 was sucessfully forked, pushing development of both - X.Org & XFree86 - ahead on new wave of competition. If someone will fork GNOME, providing good desktop - it might attract some independent developers working on GNOME, potentially making viable alternative to old fans of good old GNOME.
All kind of ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I don't like it, and I don't like it, oh, and it is broken because of Spatial mode which I can't get to
*/flame mode*
Ok, first of all, about fork - I don't get a news. This guy gets too much attention, it is not worth that for even himself. If he will get anything done, then we can welcome him as proven his point. Until then, he is simply... a flamer.
BUT let's look at the problem from other side - fact one, there are many (however, we can't count how much percent of GNOME user base) people who doesn't like the way GNOME drives away from childishly old UNIX style of thinking (in GUI case, not in overall) and thinks that all this HIG thinky is stupid and so on and so on. fact two, many people simply dislike GNOME because of serious companies backing it - and guess what, again it is partly of HIG and simpliness/coolness GNOME provides. It's all against everything geeky, in their opinion.
So there is very practical solution - write a Control Center-like superb GNOME tweaking program for expert mode!
Or there is second, emotional solution - prove your point maybe with providing details and all info for another Usability Guide. Prove your point that buttons should be in that order you have used to use, not how current HIG suggests. HIG doesn't have to be perfect, so if you have something really to add, then do it. Don't rant.
p.s. While I wrote this post I read that someone compared Windows Registry with GConf. Sights, if they have EVER used it, then they won't be talkin bullshit. GConf rocks, I would really love that many programms of GNOME would use it. It is easy to hack, easy to use, easy to change from ssh session for client, easy to make lot of kickstart options for bunch of users. It's all very simple and useful XML conf structure, nothing of big fat one file Windows registry.
p.s.s. rembember, there are ranters and flamers in all kind of camps - GNOME, KDE, Linux, BSD, Windows, Apple, whatever. I don't hate those people, however, I hate the whole process. It's all useless.
Suggestion to author of the home page... (Score:2, Insightful)
When I first read the /. post, I was excited, because this is exactly what I wanted to do with GNOME as well. But after reading the introduction [akcaagac.com], I am a bit taken back by some of the phrases the author used, such as:
It's totally regardless for them what the opinion of users are, what only matters is that they must be right because they say so.
and:
I on the otherhand think that some decisions have upset quite a lot of people including me and there was no possibility to bring these problems up on the GNOME Mailinglists or the IRC channel without getting yourself trapped into ugly discussions, slandering, defaming, mobbing or even stalking.
and this:
It would be nice if they could do their own little thing in their own world without convincing everyone else that they must change their stuff the way they like because they said so.
While I agree with the project goal in general, the use of such spiteful language may drive some developers away, especially if there are some GNOME developers who want to participate in both projects. Even for me, now I am afraid that I would be signing up for a war against the GNOME project.
I know the feeling you have, being ignored and even mistreated, but the introduction of your project home page is no place to amplify these complaints.
Be positive, I believe that will win you more community support.
Re:One issue im sure alot of people would like cha (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree. The navigational Nautilus found in versions 1.4 - 2.4 looked too much like a web browser. It was confusing for both Windows users, and KDE users. When a program has a navigational toolbar along with a location field, I for one would not think it would be unreasonable to assume that it has web-browsing capabilities.
Re:Xfce4 (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I switched away to GNOME this morning (just to try it out), I've used Xfce forever. It's fast, it's clean, it's complete. It has much better Xinerama support than GNOME or KDE (KDE == nonexistant, GNOME == so-so).
I don't really like the file manager, but it's fine I guess. I use xterm for file management anyway.
So yeah, try out Xfce if you're looking for something less bloated than KDE or Gnome (but is still pretty). Icewm is pretty nice, too.
Re:An attempt to clear up some misunderstandings (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue that oversimplicity actually adds to complexity. For example, doing your corporate taxes on an abacus is not simple just because an abacus is perfectly simple. Or (to use a real world example), because GNOME has removed in the name of "simplicity" a lot of configuration options, any user wanting to change them (and I imagine that this number is larger than most GNOME coders want to admit) must use gconf and the GNOME registry. That is decidedly not more simple than just checking a checkbox with your mouse.
Simplicity is a valiant goal, but oversimplicity, loss of important functionality, and simple stupidity... aren't.
Re:GNOME is moving backward somehow since 1.0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uhh maybe it's changed for a reason? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people only figure out one or the other (yes, there are people who only figure out the second one; you don't hear about them as much as the first), but both are important. This guy seems to have only gotten the first one.
Another example of such a person is a person who whines about how their vote is useless. What they really mean is that they aren't always casting the deciding vote, and you usually only hear about this when they are on the loosing side. Your vote isn't useless at all, it's just equally weighted with a lot of other votes. Part of growing up is accepting that the votes of other people matter too, and while your vote may individually only make a small contribution, you can't have an election where every vote is the "deciding" vote, and "one" is much, much better than the "none" a lot of people in the world get.
Psst... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hasn't he heard of (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:File Types (Score:3, Insightful)
This is very odd behavior, I'd expect it to open the file in that application! Otherwise it gives the impression that "it didn't take" and I need to associate again.
The same if I rick click and choose to open it with an application that isn't in the list yet, it should open immediately, after all I choose to open it with that application!
Remember your roots: the power user (Score:3, Insightful)
I know what you mean, but I don't think that it's just a problem with Gnome. Linux is now overrun with pretty-looking facilities that only help marginally with our ability to do useful work, and in some cases they actually decrease our overall ability by making the system more obscure.
Linux and the BSDs are primarily tools for power users, because that's what their remote ancestor and inspiration was, namely Unix. Anything that dumbs down these extremely powerful tools just so that they can appeal to Windows users or to granny is completely wrong. Any dumbing-down interface needs to be entirely additive and optional, and not given pride of place as if it were a leading-edge goal.
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:1, Insightful)
But the user (me, for example) does care about the feature-richness and consistence this framework made possible.
> As for Quanta -- this is just an 'extended' copy of tons of other apps, e.g. HomeSite.
I don't think you can use Homesite or Dreamweaver to write and debug PHP apps.
If you're still saying it's just an extended copy I'd say they extended it into an interesting direction.
Re:Go for it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Psst... (Score:4, Insightful)
No a top of the line pc costs more like $800-$1200. 5-6yrs ago it would have cost $3000.
"The 12" iBook (which is what I have) is $1099 brand new; less if you get the previous model (the 800MHz one) which is still available in retail stores."
I rest my case? Equivelent pc, $600
"As for desktops, an eMac is $799 new."
I don't even think it's fair to begin comparing a fully integrated eMac to a fully modular PC do you? In terms of performance and flexibility you have to compare Power Macs.
Re:An attempt to clear up some misunderstandings (Score:2, Insightful)
But when i want to change an advanced option on say GEdit, i need to go and open GConf, search the right key and change it. It really feels like hacking the windows registry to get things done.
Is not about the underlaying technology, is about the user feeling, isn't gnome philosopy that simple is better? that less is more?, then why do they what me to open another program just to configure the program i'm currently using?, this just causes more confusion.
A better idea should be to embed the gconf editor (using only the keys of the program) into and advanced section.
Really, i don't think that opening a separate programs to change some key on something that seems like windows registry editor is any better than having 10 tabs filled with options.
Re:An attempt to clear up some misunderstandings (Score:3, Insightful)
The now venerable window manager enlightenment had a vast spread of possible configurations - download them in a tar archive and put it where the window manager can find it and you have a GUI that behaves like a mac, irix box, minimal fast interface or big shiny eyecandy thing with more graphics than your machine can handle. A major focus was on configuration. Gnome appears to be aimed at the opposite extreme, focused on producing the one true desktop - which is the whole reason when projects like GoneME are spawned. Flexability adds it's own problems, but if you have a default theme that comes with gnome that you can switch to without losing the current configuration, that gets around the usability problems of support coming in to work on someones oddly configured desktop.
The possiblility of designing something flexable like that into gnome is left up to someone that understands the weirdness that is the backend of the gconf system.
Personally, I think it should be a trivial exercise for the user to change their desktop GUI behaviour - we should stop playing KDE/MSWindows catchup and allow a wider range of people to show us what is possible. It's really only the window manager, the panel, and gtk themes we are talking about here, so it SHOULD be trivial, and ironicly if gconf used some flat file system or easily alterable database it would be.
Re:Gnome Usability (Score:2, Insightful)
Let the administrators care about what a user uses for a GUI, not the application developers
Re:Because we HAVE to (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine that Microsoft loses its market dominance (it's easy if you try) and we end up with a consumer desktop OS market of 45% Windows and 45% OSX. Imagine a bit further and envision a world with three or four competing desktops. Who do we imitate then?
If your premise is that new users will not switch to GNOME/KDE/Whatever without "substantial re-learning", then you have to imitate something in order to succeed.
Wouldn't it be much better in the long run to innovate first? I would much rather have an innovative, fresh and original desktop then another milktoast clone of whatever the computer illiterati use.