Screenshots
Screenshots
Posted Mar 8, 2010 20:07 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769)Parent article: Try the Linux desktop of the future (TuxRadar)
Posted Mar 9, 2010 1:38 UTC (Tue)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (31 responses)
Posted Mar 9, 2010 1:48 UTC (Tue)
by jebba (guest, #4439)
[Link] (21 responses)
I also went to download gnome-do, but saw that it was Mono based, and held back. I prefer my simple openbox setup, but I'm sure the new desktops will have their fans.
Posted Mar 9, 2010 1:53 UTC (Tue)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (3 responses)
You aren't going to catch me running that, either.
Posted Mar 9, 2010 2:00 UTC (Tue)
by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
[Link]
Posted Mar 9, 2010 10:12 UTC (Tue)
by sylware (guest, #35259)
[Link]
I won't run that bloat, my browser is already too much.
Posted Mar 9, 2010 18:09 UTC (Tue)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Yes, Gnome Do is mono-based. In fact, it's a perfect Mono poster child: bloated, overhyped, and underwhelming. A little buggy too. I tried it for a few weeks, filed some bugs, then uninstalled it with relief.
Posted Mar 9, 2010 10:41 UTC (Tue)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (3 responses)
Yah. I felt the same about KDE. Mircosoft uses C++ in almost everything they make so I am
(joke)
Posted Mar 9, 2010 17:27 UTC (Tue)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 9, 2010 19:45 UTC (Tue)
by jzbiciak (guest, #5246)
[Link]
Posted Mar 12, 2010 11:19 UTC (Fri)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
Posted Mar 9, 2010 10:43 UTC (Tue)
by linuxjacques (subscriber, #45768)
[Link] (10 responses)
me too.
I don't understand the mono push.
Posted Mar 9, 2010 13:37 UTC (Tue)
by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Mar 9, 2010 13:50 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Mar 9, 2010 14:51 UTC (Tue)
by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 9, 2010 14:52 UTC (Tue)
by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 9, 2010 15:00 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Mar 10, 2010 2:32 UTC (Wed)
by lwkejrlej (guest, #64237)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 10, 2010 7:31 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Posted Mar 10, 2010 11:40 UTC (Wed)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 10, 2010 16:44 UTC (Wed)
by sbishop (guest, #33061)
[Link] (1 responses)
I don't see any C++ Evolution code, though
I am no Evolution hacker and may just not have looked in the right
places.
Posted Mar 12, 2010 11:16 UTC (Fri)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
Posted Mar 9, 2010 19:51 UTC (Tue)
by jzbiciak (guest, #5246)
[Link] (1 responses)
Feeling like a Mac in operation is rather different than looking like a Mac "at first glance." I have to say I agree with Bruce that "Docky" looks like a differently themed version of the dock I see on MacOS X. It doesn't matter if it actually behaves differently. It certainly looks very similar, right down to that proximity-based progressive icon resizing. And that blue-wavey background also looks vaguely familiar
Posted Mar 9, 2010 19:54 UTC (Tue)
by jzbiciak (guest, #5246)
[Link]
Posted Mar 9, 2010 12:42 UTC (Tue)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Mar 9, 2010 16:01 UTC (Tue)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (7 responses)
What *should* happen, IMNSHO, is that the app should pop up a new window
(This is actually quite close to what Windows already does, only it offers
Posted Mar 10, 2010 11:54 UTC (Wed)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
Also, it does depend on having what GNOME calls a 'spatial' file manager, where you can have one window open for one directory and a different window for another directory. Then if you are doing some work in a directory, you almost certainly have a file window open for it anyway.
(I used to be strongly in favour of this multiple-window style, and found the lack of it on Windows and other clunky interfaces highly annoying. I assumed the lack of a spatial file manager must be a side-effect of the colossally stupid 'multiple document interface' where each application has one big window inside which you can rearrange other windows, and also a side-effect of the aforementioned window manager problem making it impossible to overlap windows, and other Redmondian blunders. But nowadays, with the popularity of web browsers which display a single page at a time and offer 'back' and 'forward', I am not quite so certain. Perhaps a browser-style file manager might have some value after all.)
Note that you only need to drag-save once, to choose the destination directory; after that you just hit 'save'.
Posted Mar 10, 2010 14:01 UTC (Wed)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (1 responses)
On RISC OS, I used to work a lot more with multiple visible windows, despite the ridiculously small screen area by today's standards. However, I'll concede that saving did usually involve bringing the file manager into view, but since the RISC OS Desktop let you preserve window depth - it wasn't the obsessive "pop everything to the top" behaviour seen almost everywhere today - you could actually work with the file manager on top of an application if that was convenient. Nowadays, with the various dragging operations on desktops like KDE actually supporting navigation - you drag a file onto an application in the desktop pager applet and it makes that application visible - drag saving becomes more viable again. And another thing about the RISC OS drag-saving was that it wasn't just the file manager that supported saving: you could save into other applications in many situations. My point was that preconceptions about such features should be reevaluated periodically, especially when related features like drag-loading are supported, rather than everyone deciding that something will forever be "wrong", presumably because their Amiga didn't support it or because the usability hammer, Fitt's Law, can be selectively interpreted to claim that it's a bad thing.
Posted Mar 14, 2010 12:53 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Mar 11, 2010 11:52 UTC (Thu)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link] (3 responses)
While drag-save may be cool, it's not that intuitive. What's more, I have to reach for the mouse to do it.
Per-app file managers are an improvement over the right thing, that is, ask the user for the file name and save it in the working directory. It's an improvement because people sometimes fail to remember what the working directory was, so they cannot find their documents afterwards. Also it allows one to save a file without tacking the hands off the keyboard.
Posted Mar 14, 2010 12:55 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Mar 15, 2010 12:07 UTC (Mon)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link]
But this just extends my general point: there are various paradigms that were abandoned, but the rationale for doing so hasn't been adequately articulated. Although there's a notion of a global clipboard, it doesn't always cover whole files, yet they would be logical participants in such a clipboard system.
Posted Mar 19, 2010 11:44 UTC (Fri)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
Given that users have difficulty remembering which directory a file went two, there are two approaches. One is to simplify and clarify things so that everybody can see where files live on disk and where they're saving to: a spatial finder model and drag-and-drop saving are part of this. The alternative approach is to give up and provide some other way for users to find files, such as the 'journal' used in the OLPC's Sugar interface.
Don't these new desktops appear to be significantly influenced by Macintosh? Now, I'm sure there's a lot that's innovative (and you're welcome to tell us) but it would be nice if at first glance they didn't look derivative.
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
It's mono-based. That's not derivative at all :-)Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
I like the way this story ran soon after the "Apple sues UI imitators" and "Mono sponsor to be broken up by corporate raiders" stories from last week.
Timely?
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
worried about the patents.
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
Microsoft is heavily involved in the C++ standardization process. The convener of the ISO committee on C++ is Herb Sutter, who works for Microsoft.
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
just say moNO
just say moNO
just say moNO
languages and the community have always been open to that. Some folks use
Mono especially from Novell.
just say moNO
just say moNO
just say moNO
has a few important apps (Abiword and Inkscape for example) as well Vala is
fairly new and considering that a considerable number of apps have already
been written and I use some of them on a regular basis including shotwell
and deja-dup.
> plus a real hate for c++ and java.
just say moNO
Is this really the case ? It would be a shame, as replicating C++ features in C is a real pain (GObject is a mess when compared to C++ classes). Why reinvent the wheel ?
just say moNO
whatsoever. I am not sure why you consider GObject to be an issue and it
would be interesting to hear more analysis on that. Toolkits tend to use
their own dialects and extensions anyway (Qt's moc and signal/slot
mechanism..)
just say moNO
just say moNO
just say moNO
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
I just took gnome-shell for a test drive (on Fedora 12) and it didn't feel like a Mac at all.
Not to mention that workspaces screenshot...
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
save a file. You normally work with your app maximized; your file manager
is minimized, entirely obscured by the app, or on a different virtual
desktop altogether. So where do you drag the app to? You have to hold down
the mouse button and simultaneously alt-tab (or similarly
keyboard-navigate) your way to the file manager to drop it in there... and
then you might well find out that it's in the right place.
on *your existing file manager*, in the app's current directory. So no
horrible per-app file managers and no mad alt-tab horror.
only one choice of file manager, and like virtually everything in Windows
it's modal and horribly limited.)
A big part of the problem is window managers which force an application's window to the front whenever you click on any part of it. I really can't understand why that is considered the best behaviour. Even nontechnical users can understand the idea of one window being behind another, as in the real world we often see one object partly obscuring another.
Drag-and-drop saving
What *should* happen, IMNSHO, is that the app should pop up a new window
on *your existing file manager*, in the app's current directory. So no
horrible per-app file managers and no mad alt-tab horror.
That's not a bad idea.
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
So you want to save a file. You normally work with your app maximized; your file manager is minimized, entirely obscured by the app, or on a different virtual desktop altogether. So where do you drag the app to? You have to hold down the mouse button and simultaneously alt-tab (or similarly keyboard-navigate) your way to the file manager to drop it in there... and then you might well find out that it's in the right place.
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
you could actually work with the file manager on top of an application if
that was convenient.
Yes, I hate click-to-raise as well... but when is it convenient to type
with a file manager window on top of your text editor? Certainly with
non-widescreens it's really quite annoying. It doesn't seem to me to be
something you'd ever do unless you were planning to do a drag-to-save in
the future. (In a widescreen world this sort of float-on-top could happen
much more, as does window splitting and that sort of thing.)
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
Completely disagree.
But then you agreed with me repeatedly. My tiny brain has melted.
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
Sigh. Don't they look mac-like?
