| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Winning the Linux Wars (MCP)Winning the Linux Wars (MCP)Posted Jan 9, 2006 1:45 UTC (Mon) by CyberDog (guest, #29668)In reply to: Winning the Linux Wars (MCP) by Baylink Parent article: Winning the Linux Wars (MCP)
Why yes I have, and while I agree you could train any given person to use just about anything, I'm not particularly impressed. I think the problem is somewhat inherent in the modular nature of a Linux/Unix environment. When every last application is designed by unrelated sources, they result in a somewhat incongruous feel. For example, most Linux desktops I've seen have at least two or three different "Control Panel" type applets in the kicker (one for KDE/Gnome, one for the OS, one for ___). It just doesn't feel right sometimes. Sure it works, but it lacks that polished, fully integrated feel you get when the same source designs the Core/UI/supporting apps.
(Log in to post comments)
Winning the Linux Wars (MCP) Posted Jan 9, 2006 2:07 UTC (Mon) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link] This sounds mightly like a troll to me.
Considering the completely different interfaces on Word, Nero and Media Player; compared to that of AbiWord, CD-creator and Totem, or kword, k3b, kaboodle I find your 'Windows has a more consistent interface' argument weak, old and unjustified.
Winning the Linux Wars (MCP) Posted Jan 9, 2006 16:43 UTC (Mon) by cott (guest, #6931) [Link] Sorry, guys. I have to agree with CyberDog, here.
You'd think that with the command-line utilities, at least, Unix/Linux would be consistent, but it's not. Take the "-v" option on any command, for instance. Does it mean to do something verbosely, does it print the version number, or does it do something else, entirely?
The GUI stuff is significantly worse. When people (like myself) choose a desktop like Gnome or KDE, they choose a specific look and feel. The problem is not all the apps adhere to that look and feel. If I happen to run a Gnome app while I'm on the KDE desktop, it looks like Gnome. If I run an old X app, it looks like X. I know that seems like a nitpick, but I don't think it is. Just dealing with the single-click vs double-click file selection menus can be a pain for me, to say nothing of a less experienced user. It's incredibly unusual to have this problem with Windows.
Don't get me wrong. I love Linux, but it's not perfect.
Winning the Linux Wars (MCP) Posted Jan 10, 2006 12:21 UTC (Tue) by tnoo (subscriber, #20427) [Link] > Just dealing with the single-click vs double-click file selection menus can be a pain for me, to say nothing of a less experienced user.
Exactly this single-click vs. double-click behaviour makes the Windows UI so hard to use, especially for beginners. Why on earth do I have to click once in the status bar to launch a program, but twice on the desktop? And why is a very uncommon operation (renaming a file) triggered every time I click a little bit off the icon and on the text (this is especially true in the file manager).
At least KDE is fully consitant in this respect, and much more usable than Windows.
best, tnoo
Single v Double click Posted Jan 10, 2006 19:29 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] This one frustrates me.
There's a *very good* reason why icons require a double-click to utilise the "Open" shortcut: it's a *shortcut*.
Icons on desktops and in folders are *objects*. Things which you can click once to get a response are *buttons*. Buttons are *supposed* to look like buttons; you can blame Microsoft itself (and particularly the Toolbar team in the Office group) for screwing *that* bit of obviousness up by creating lots of buttons that don't look like buttons until you mouseover them.
Everyone likes to assume that *any* of these desktop environments ought to be "so simple anyone can learn them without training or reading", and folks, it's just not that way.
And it ought not to be that way.
What You See Is All You Get is bad enough... but everyone becomes a power user eventually, to one degree or another. And ghod help you if you make it *harder* for powerusers to get work down because you're trying to make intake training easier.
Me too. Posted Jan 9, 2006 2:58 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] Either a troll, or someone who's just unreasonably enamored of Windows.
I'm not the cheerleader saying that Linux's desktop interfaces are *so* much better integrated than Windows is... though I don't really think they're all *that* bad. But holding even Windows XP up as a shining example of that is just as unreasonable.
Anyone who has to *support* this stuff (as I have for over 10 years) knows that *Microsoft* apps for Windows are the ones voted most likely to *violate* whatever user interface guidelines actually exist in the first place.
Me too. Posted Jan 9, 2006 3:03 UTC (Mon) by CyberDog (guest, #29668) [Link] First of all, not everyone who posts an argument with a different point of view to your own is a "troll". Believe it or not, you're not always right.
Second of all, I believe your initial comment to this article (to which I replied), was the most biased comment of any made here. But thank you anyway for assuming I'm some huge fan of Windows just because I disagreed with the blind zealotry your initial statement.
Me too. Posted Jan 9, 2006 6:54 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I think the OP tried to make a simple point: there are loads of "hidden" investments in Linux and Linux distributions. One does not need a highly scientific method to conclude that this amount of money probably exceeds the amount most companies are ever able or willing to invest in their products.No zealotry here, just common sense with an edge of enthusiasm. You do have a case in general against the kneejerk type of response to any Redmond publication, but next time you might want to spend some time thinking up arguments that do make sense: your desktop comparison has been an admission ticket to the troll cave for some years now.
Winning the Linux Wars (MCP) Posted Jan 9, 2006 17:57 UTC (Mon) by carcassonne (guest, #31569) [Link] I build my own Linux systems (based on Linux from Scratch) that I use at home AND at work. So I'm pro-Linux and not at all pro-Windows. Still, there should be a way to present apps to the user and at the same time making the distinction between a base, supported system, and extra, other apps that may or may not work as is.
2 or 3 control centers are just confusing. But at the same time there should be choice. It's not by eliminating the other two that the consistency problem is solved.
For instance, with SuSE 9.3 I want to use MuSE which is found in the standard menu. Nice, I have an external Yamaha MIDI keyboard, so let's try to use this sequencer for fun. But no, there's a problem with Jack, and MuSE does nto run if Jack is sick (at least in this configuration). And where is Jack configuration mentioned in the SuSE handbook ? Nowhere. This is an unsupported application. But it is part of SuSE 'Linux' 9.3.
If I was a regular user I could easily say that 'Linux' is broken... unless it is made clear that MuSE is an addition, an extra application, which is not the case in SuSE 9.3 as MuSE is simply part of the KDE menu system. like Rosegarden, MainActor and everything else.
And so on so forth. Tried to start a newbie project with Blender recently ?
The apps have to be there. Do not take them out for simplicity's sake. But I think that there should be a clear, obvious, line for the user to cross to go into unsupported territory so that the user is warned that things might require more time to make work, be it configuration issues or simply learning, so the user's perception of 'Linux' is based on the apps that are supported and well-tested.
Winning the Linux Wars (MCP) Posted Jan 9, 2006 23:58 UTC (Mon) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] The usual cue for this boundary is that the unsupported product came on different physical media and had to be installed by the user after the rest of the machine was delivered.
This doesn't work as well for fully integrated distributions like Debian, Gentoo, their imitators and relatives, unless there's an easy way for third parties to label the applications they provide support for such that the installer can present them distinctly. The distributors don't really support any of the packages at all (at least not in a contractual-obligations sense), and third parties who you could buy support from are usually separate entities from the distributor.
|
|
||||||||||||