Great... Or not?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hkwint Sep 12, 2008 4:59 PM EDT |
It seems both Microsoft and Apple spent years of effort to make their GUI 'right'. So, there's a big value in a good GUI. Therefore it is good that someone invests money in a good GUI for Linux. But on the other hand; if the GUI changes too much, current users will complain and the impression will rise that the Linux GUI is 'not stable' over the years and might change again (and again and again). So, mixed feelings. I'm curious: What do other readers over here think? |
| herzeleid Sep 12, 2008 5:17 PM EDT |
I don't think Shuttleworth is trying to suddenly introduce a different desktop paradigm here, or change the APIs. What I think he's talking about is working on greater polish, more consistency, more continuity in the whole linux desktop experience. Right now we have a fun desktop, some really cool eye candy, and some neat usability features, but there are gaps here and there. I think he's looking to help get it all smoothed out, so to speak. |
| tracyanne Sep 12, 2008 6:30 PM EDT |
I think mostly it's marketing hype, yet another press release to keep his distribution in the news. Do you really thing the GNOME developers are going to suddenly start taking instruction from Him or his developers? After all the GNOME desktop is an ugly old looking dektop, what's he going to do with it to make it better than the Apple one (it's already possible to make it look like the apple desktop). The problem with GNOME is the whole look and feel of the desktop components, even with a MAC look facelift there are still those horrible unpolished components, like the drop down list that extends itself from the top of your screen to the bottom, when ther are are larege number of items in the list, even the menus do this - it is ugly. KDE, Windows and OSX desktops can manage to keep this dropdown list to a managable size, why can't the GNOME developers? That's just one example. KDE3.x is already way more usable and better looking than GNOME, and KDE4 is already going where Shuttleworth is claiming he wants to go. He's riding a wave, started by someone else. It's typical marketing PR. On the other hand any money he wants to put into projects, so long as it's real usable money, will, I'm sure, be welcome. |
| herzeleid Sep 12, 2008 8:40 PM EDT |
ta, you tend to be too soft-spoken sometimes. Come now, what do you really think of gnome? |
| Scott_Ruecker Sep 12, 2008 9:46 PM EDT |
Really Tracyanne, just spit it out..lol! |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 13, 2008 12:27 AM EDT |
GNOME -- it's like a fuzzy, warm blanket. |
| number6x Sep 13, 2008 7:30 AM EDT |
For years users have asked for changes to gnome, only to be snubbed by the gnome development team. If you want changes to gnome you will have to do it yourself Like Travis Watkins:
http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2008/09/grumpy-gnomehat.html Or, if you are rich like Mark Shuttleworth, you can hire others. |
| devnet Sep 14, 2008 8:27 PM EDT |
agreed...right now, KDE is more poised to be polished with the changes they introduced with 4.1 I'm thinking with nokia going to qt and cross platform capabilities of it...it is going to break wide open in the next year. Gnome will be left far behind in my honest opinion. |
| jacog Sep 15, 2008 7:08 AM EDT |
I am not an OS X user, so I was just wondering what exactly about their interface was so supposedly wonderful... In the back of my very biased mind I usually dismiss any such claims of superior usability as just another triumph of marketing hype to the zombie masses. But that's not really fair of me, since I have never used it. Can anyone explain it to me? |
| tracyanne Sep 15, 2008 8:50 AM EDT |
Well I do get to use Mac OSX at work, it's necessary, as I need to test out web apps. Mac OSX is certainly glossier, it's a lot prettier, but I don't think it's any easier to use than Windows or KDE or GNOME. |
| theboomboomcars Sep 15, 2008 9:07 AM EDT |
OSX is easier to use in the sense that your common apps, ie web browser, music player, IM client, etc. are big icons at the bottom of the screen. Though if you want to do more than that the easier to use aspect quickly leaves. |
| tracyanne Sep 15, 2008 9:11 AM EDT |
And, of course you can easily create a Linux Distro that emulates that sort of easy to use functionality. |
| theboomboomcars Sep 15, 2008 9:15 AM EDT |
Yep, when I set up my aunts computer I put FF, OO.o, and Aisle Riot icons down at the bottom and made them huge. That way everything she will do will be right at her finger tips. She hasn't called for help since one of the Ubuntu updates broke her X. |
| techiem2 Sep 15, 2008 12:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:Well I do get to use Mac OSX at work, it's necessary, as I need to test out web apps. Mac OSX is certainly glossier, it's a lot prettier, but I don't think it's any easier to use than Windows or KDE or GNOME. Agreed. I've needed to mess with the Macs at work a bit now and then and just haven't really thought is was all that intuitive. The whole single mouse button thing, trash can serving dual purpose as media eject, universal menu bar that everything uses...... To me they just make things more complicated and less logical. |
| bigg Sep 15, 2008 1:22 PM EDT |
> easier to use in the sense that your common apps, ie web browser, music player, IM client, etc. are big icons at the bottom of the screen Easier? I find that to be annoying. If I used a Mac regularly, maybe I could get used to it, but I hate that, I hate the fonts, and the icons look too cartoonish for me. Otherwise I see little difference - both have a learning curve, and after you've moved down the learning curve, both are easy. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!