Windows and Linux User Interfaces 566
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."
After Goliath's defeat, giants ceased to command respect. - Freeman Dyson
Maybe true, but not necessarily desirable (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Linux is FINE (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
I beg to differ (Score:5, Interesting)
I would disagree. What about enlightenment, fluxbox, openbox?
This article doesn't really make much sense overall.
SUN dropped GNOME as Desktop (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.gnome.org/~gman/blog/02112005 [gnome.org]
Read more on above link!!!!
I do NOT think Linux needs an install architecture (Score:1, Interesting)
The MAJORITY of all new servers today are slated to run Linux.
This is not going to change, I repeat, it will NOT change.
How can you call Linux a "niche" OS?
First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL.
But more importantly, it is hugely successful 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.
The Challenger: OS X versus Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
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"::
The answer you wanted (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Ever heard of Apt? Emerge? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I do NOT think Linux needs an install architect (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Re:The answer you wanted (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple has the right idea. By pushing the technology far ahead of the competition, they convince users to accept some of the shortcomings in exchange for a large number of features unavailable on other platforms. This increases the Mac user base, forcing the Hardware and Software vendors to support them.
I know in my own personal case, I could run regularly Linux right now if I wanted to. The problem is that my kids have a large number of educational titles and other kids' software (no, they don't operate correctly under WINE) that they must reboot to use. If I leave the system in Linux, I hear no end of complaining from my wife who has to reboot the next day.
Now I (and a few others) have suggested methods by which the Linux Desktop could pull ahead of Windows, and possibly even the Mac. My own suggestions would be distro specific and would not harm any existing distros. Yet the community resists such changes strongly, stating that "Linux is perfect the way it is". Many automatically assume things I didn't say, based on their past experience.
So in the meantime, I and my small team will attempt to implement these ideas whenever we have sufficient time. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to reconcile our schedules, and without more volunteers I fear that the project will not get done in time to make a difference. Which is really too bad, as I feel that it could make Linux a significant competitior in the Desktop market.
wireless support on linux is horrible (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Microsoft Stole Gorm! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Maybe true, but not necessarily desirable (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has answered that question. "If you move to the Mac, your applications are simple to install, your files are well laid out, the computer self-manages itself, the user interface is less confusing, you can quickly search for files, organize them in new way, nearly all maintenence is automatic, the system is free of spyware and viruses, AND you can still use Microsoft Office!."
The Linux community's answer has been, "Hey, we don't have viruses either! Erm... except for those one or two. But someone released an anti-virus that spread itself to eliminate the first virus! Oh, and did I mention that it's free! And you can have a home server!"
Unfortunately, the Linux answer has not been very appealing to the market.
This link [spack.org] contains a great analogy of the situation.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2, Interesting)
that would contradict
As a general rule most people do not enjoy switching, upgrading or installing anything new
Re:Maybe true, but not necessarily desirable (Score:5, Interesting)
But that was exactly his point--Linux NEEDS to be able to accomplish things Windows can't accomplish, dramatic and useful things, to overcome the barriers to adoption. I think the risk-free install is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but his point is well-taken... there is an opportunity to do some big, dramatic things to make it easy to adopt Linux on the desktop, because there is no corporate imperative in the way. If you saddle yourself to only to features that the latest Windows can accomplish, you're discarding one of the main advantages in the fight.
FUD (Score:1, Interesting)
Arncha feeling a bit left behind?
My *mother* runs Mandriva, an uncle uses Ubuntu --- these are 60+ y.o. total non-geeks who made the switch on my advice. I did provide some phone support but mostly they just found their default installs pretty easy to deal with. The main thing they needed help with was multimedia support and getting online. And BTW, when my mother first encountered a Windows computer she needed help to find help. And now she runs Mandriva.
IOW one would have to be an utter *OAF* to have much trouble running an nice GNU/Linux desktop such as many distros now provide. Even Debian (my choice) has become very easy to install and run.
Do try to keep up people...
Re:wireless support on linux is horrible (Score:3, Interesting)
Ndiswrapper, and WPA_supplicant, IIRC are part of the base install. You'll have to use ndiswrapper commandline, but the instructions are in the documentation (avaliable on your Kicker as the help icon). Then use YaST2 to configure your network WPA password.
SuSE does the best job regarding wireless configuration of all the linux distributions I've tried. It's not perfect; the Kwireless applet they use to a bit clunky for switching networks. OS X has it soundly beaten in that regards. But it works, WPA included.
what, another guy ranting about his dream OS? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been using linux exclusively for so long that everytime I see "to be ready for the desktop" I just want to reach to the writer's neck and strangle it.
IT IS FUCKING READY FOR THE DESKTOP!
That guy is just a loser who, coming from MS thinks he's smarter and can give us lessons about how to do things.
Yeah, sure, he makes some good points, but most of his arguments are BS.
I sure don't want red underlining everywhere I type, think about the whole BLOAT, that's useless. If people learned how to spell to start with, you WOULDN"T NEED THAT SHIT!
He's making up excuses for why windows is still better and why we should stick to it.
The guy is just pathetically ignorant. Why do we need to INSTALL applications when you can just download it, open the file and RUN the damn thing? Isn't that easier for most people???
Or is everyone going to frantically look for a "setup.exe" file when they use linux?
I mean seriously, the linux community is filled with brilliant people, some smarter than those at MS, because the reason there are so many distributions is to give each option for package management a try, and let people decide which frontend they'd rather deal with.
Slashdot, please do me a favor? stop posting those stupid blog rants about what Linux needs to get on the desktop? they're always way off topic.
The only thing Linux needs to get on the desktop is people going out and reaching their friends and suggesting that their computer would run better if it didn't have MS bugs on it... I just converted one of my friends to linux this weekend doing just that. Now her laptop runs on gentoo flawlessly and without slowing down, making her computer experience smoother than anything she'll ever have with windows.
Oh, and she likes the option of changing desktop environments too...
More freedom of actions will make people grow smart, whereas locking them in one mindset will make them dumb. Proof: someone who has the option of going to work by car, bus or bike will choose the way to get there based on his/her own preferences, one of cheap, fast, tree-friendly or a compromise of both.
Let people learn on their own, they cannot be taught everything about life by movies and then be ready for real-world experience.
Re:To me, this issue always disturbs me (Score:3, Interesting)
One Thing He Left Out... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
right on the point (Score:2, Interesting)
Why this elitist attitude...? (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
Now, now, let's not be rude to the noob. (Score:2, Interesting)
Thanks for the well thought out piece. I'm glad you did not flame him.
It will probably take Greg about six months to be embarrassed of writing that piece as he discovers the really cool world of free software. He'll be pleasantly surprised by spell checking in Konqueror, blown away by the Kontrol center, very happy with the excellent integration between KDE components, like being able to open and edit a Kword document in a browser tab that's split with google for research and many other fine features Windoze will never get past the vapor stage with. More interestingly to him is the very real and good support Window managers and programs from different groups have for each other. As a Microsoftie, he's put up with far greater quirks than any free software program will deliver. Just how much better free software is will come to him in waves.
Now, the way his blog looks is something that he should be taken to task for right away. The victorian wallpaper .... gag. Oh well, there's no accounting for taste.
Windows-to-Linux conversion tool? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Maybe true, but not necessarily desirable (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of giving Linux the same user-hostile installation routine as Windows (Apps scatter their stuff all over the system, which of course makes an uninstallation routine necessary) I'd like them to adopt a shell-friendly version of Apple's Application Bundles. I'm thinking of something like this:
~ $ tar -xjf Gonkulator.app.tar.bz2
~ $ which gonkulator
which: no gonkulator in (/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/opt/bin:/home/user
~ $ mv Gonkulator.app ~/Apps
~ $ which gonkulator
(The App Bundle handler recognizes folders with the
Linux is Ready for Mac OS X Users to Switch... (Score:2, Interesting)
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/ [mikesalsbury.com]