Slashdot Log In
New Desktop for Linux
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Feb 17, 2000 12:14 PM
from the come-one-come-all dept.
from the come-one-come-all dept.
naasking writes, "A new desktop project has been started by former Apple and AOL employees. Their goal is to create a graphical environment for Linux that "your mother could use." The company doing it is called Eazel. " It also is supposed to be based on GNOME. CT: Several people noted that this shell is destined to be the GNOME 2.0 shell/file manager.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
New Desktop for Linux
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 438 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Gnome unstable (Score:3)
I used to hold the same opinion of GNOME, but after updating all the modules to the latest stable versions it became pretty solid.
Part of the problem with GNOME may be Enlightenment as the wm. I love E, don't get me wrong--it's the sexiest wm out there IMO, but it's just too much for my everyday use. I just recently built and installed sawmill [sourceforge.net], and the result is a smaller, quicker desktop that is very clean and configurable. With E, my 128 meg machine was consitently using about 40 MB swap, with most of that being X. The GUI was syrupy and just didn't feel right (prob. just some stupid configuration decision on my part). With sawmill, I'm using about 5-10 MB swap and everything's snappy. Now if I want to show off to friends, I use E, but when I'm working it's sawmill all the way.
Ultimately Cooperative (Score:3)
There's no particular reason for this to represent a "duplication of effort," at least from the standpoint of the GNOME project. After all, they needed a better file manager. GMC has not been all that satisfactory.
What their application amounts to is one that unifies files and remote objects (via HTTP/FTP) together, and lets methods be invoked on them.
By using the Bonobo [gnome.org] interface, they can pull in all sorts of GNOME objects. That's certainly not duplication.
It may be duplicative if you're a developer working on the Kconq file manager for KDE that has similar scope; it's not duplicative within the context of GNOME.
I'd say that this is the most important component to have some serious HCI people take a look at; that's the only hope of it being usable to the "Bubba" users. (No offense intended to other than Presidents of the United States :-) ...)
It's important that this get HCI attention in that if it succeeds, Nautilus would become the front-end for a whole lot of users to get at "system stuff."
Business model? (Score:3)
How do they expect to make money?
Re:May I REMIND YOU... (Score:3)
Define "use".
I've done UNIX development, both kernel and userland, since 1977-1978 or so.
I use a KDE desktop on my machine at home, including using, shock horror, the file manager for some things (I have a few PDF standards documents, and I find it more convenient to have a "Standards" folder on my desktop, and click it open, and then click on the relevant subdirectory and click on the document I'm interested in, than to go find an xterm not running something or put what's running there in the background, pushd to the appropriate directory, and fire up Acroread on the file in question). I also have another desktop icon to fire up xmms and have it play a local radio station.
Now, for administrative stuff (on the rare occasion that it's necessary), I'll just go tweak the config files directly, blah blah blah - but there are, your apparent belief to the contrary nonwithstanding, reasons why "a real UNIX pro" might well use a file manager (why should I waste a perfectly good xterm firing up Acroread, when I could be using it to do compiles, or greps, or...? :-)).
Re:Linux for stupid people (Score:3)
Please let me get a little evil here for a minute. What, in the end, has the popularization of the Internet gotten us, as nerds? LOTS OF MONEY for doing the shit we'd be doing for free anyway. Who here really has to work for a living, in the way our parents had to work at jobs they hated?
Not only do we get the money, we get the POWER: WE understand this shit, and they do NOT. We are scary powerful in this realm, and our ideals and methods are influencing the general community because of the public Internet. Is this bad? For us, no.
Similarly, what happens when Linux is made available and accessible to the masses? WE GAIN POWER as we again are the happy few who UNDERSTAND this shit.. Not only that, but our influence on people's computing grows, and for us again, this is not bad. It means we can use the software we like, and get paid for it. WE craft the rules and determine how things are done.
This is NOT megalomania speaking here: this is thinking big. World Domination is about not having to put up with Micro$oft shit because everyone uses it. It's about being able to fix the problems with our systems when they appear. It's about freedom of speech as well as freedom of beer. It's about getting paid big bucks to work on cool shit you'd have done for free anyway, and who better to get those big bucks, you or those fratboy jocks who were such big shit way back when but who are now, if they're lucky, hapless NT techs?
Like I said, it was going to be evil and self serving, but I hope there were a few kernels of truth in there, or at least a spark or two..
Cheers,
Your Working Boy,
Re:This is fucking pathetic (Score:3)
If you made it easy to learn, then that is one thing, if you make it completely easy, that is yet another. It seems to be that noone in the Linux community (and I mean NOONE) is attempting to make a GOOD set of troubleshooting tools and a help system that is at least decent. 'man' only goes so far, and is rather pathetic all things considered. man will tell you everything in the world about the topic you asked about... LITERALLY. I've never seen a man page that explained what the topic was in any small amount of space. It rambles and rambles until you have no desire to do whatever you were trying to in the first place.
As for making the desktop easier to use, I'm all for it. How about support for fonts that actually look good without having to run in circles to get a font server running and then somehow tieing it into the desktop environment or window manager (something I've given up on several times). How about a configuration tool that actually works? linuxconf sure doesn't. Redhat's control-panel is a start but it is still lacking something... like maybe words telling you what button does what. Who was the genius who thought of that one? He must've been really impressed with Tooltips...
Back onto the topic of learning... Don't you realize that some people out here in the real world don't have time to sit and learn how to use console-based configuration utils that don't work in the end to set up a couple of NIC's that don't work after 2 weeks of trying? Or maybe you'd just like to tell those people that have video problems in X that they are idiots because they just have to change settings in this
I got another one for ya... How about those people that go out and get situated on Linux, and get it working correctly, and want some of this free software they keep hearing about. How are you going to explain to them that they will have to un-tar.gz it and then compile it themselves and THEN install it? But wait, there's more! Libraries are missing, out-of-date, or even worse - they're NEWER then the source needs to compile!! What then? Get the needed libraries, compile them, install them (if there aren't any more conflicts, that is) and then finally go back to compiling that program, and then installing it? That is a LOT of work for something equalled in Windows by clicking an
You want to complain about people unwilling to learn? I think you should recompile your brain's kernel so it's not so one-sided.
I before said that I left Linux for Windows... I will go back as soon as Linux is decent to use for everyday use (and maybe when I can run binaries from Windows under it natively rather then using something idiotic like VMWare or WINE).
- 8Complex
Don't forget the keyboard support (Score:3)
That means:
Full navigation with the keyboard
All window management functions accessible via the keyboard alone
A way of moving the mouse pointer and simulating mouse clicks with the keyboard - for that one time your mouse is broken but you still have to navigate the gui, no matter how slowly.
Proper keyboard focus control. 99% of the time you should not have to use the mouse to put the keyboard focus where it ought to be
*Integration* between keyboard and mouse scrolling in all text widgets and the like - none of this snapping to somewhere in the file you didn't expect to be just because you positioned first with the mouse, then moved with the cursor keys.
A lot of other things I've forgotten, but we all know what they are when they're not there
Even my mother can type!
A better OS than that (Score:3)
Why does Aqua look so much better than GNOME? (Score:3)
I completely agree, but why is this? Why do all X themes look butt ugly?
We've all seen these before, but compare them and think, "What is Aqua doing that GNOME is not?" Nothing! Both screenshots are simple desktop+explorer shots. Yet somehow the Aqua screen looks like da bomb and GNOME looks like shite.
Re:Cool...but... (Score:3)
http://www.mosfet.org/kde2action/
Re:Good Point (Score:3)
>Why just Linux. If they have there head screwed on they should be able to get it to compile on other Un*x's. FreeBSD at least.
Is this GNOME's fault. I've never thought about it before but does GNOME and/or KDE work on anything other than Linux.
The KDE team takes pride in the number of systems that will run KDE -- they claim more than any other windowing system. Quite a bit of work has gone into both system irrelavance (bigendian or littleendian), and language irrelivance (16 bit strings, and text automatically paints left to right or right to left depending on the language it is written in... neat watching it's accuracy with Hebrew sentences quoting English and visa versa).
I know that the Japanese KDE is fully featured and translated. I know a fellow who uses it, along with his mother, who dosen't speak english (well, almost none).
Several of the main developers use Solaris, and BSD is common on the developer list, so the "big three" are represented well, along with AIX and a few others that I can't recall off the top of my head.
--
Evan
Andy Hertzfeld (Score:3)
Read more about Andy Hertzfeld [wired.com] in this old wired article from when he was working at General Magic. My favorite line is:
Guess he is starting with a new platform after all.
Noel
RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix [rootprompt.org]
D'oh! scooped again... (Score:3)
BTW, one of the employees on the project is Andy Hertzfeld. It will therefore NOT suck. (Andy is about the closest thing to a Linus the Mac OS has, other than Bill Atkinson and a select few others.)
For Mac users reading this, try this experiment. Find a copy of PepsiCaps. Run it in the OS X blue box. Marvel that a 15-year-old Mac application still works on today's machines, even if it does deviate slightly from the human interface guidelines.
danger... (Score:3)
I'll believe it when I see it. What "mere mortals" want is auto-everything. For auto-everything to work the system has to make assumptions, or rather the programmers behind the systems make assumptions. My experience is that they almost never make the same assumptions I would make, which always leads me to disable all the auto-everything stuff the system will let me disable.
Another thing "mere mortals" want is an all-graphics interface; everything point and click. Hmm, I can't see how something like:
rm `ls -l|awk '{print $3}'|grep "juser"`
could be graphical, not with the same flexibility and any kind of Unix without the pipe/redirect capabilities would be kinda stupid.
Another thing, admin tools (like linuxconf) require that you refrain from touching the config files by hand, or things will preety soon get out of sync.
So, it will take quite a piece of software to convince me it can be useful and enjoyable both for current Linux users and for "mere mortals"; if any software does convince me, though, it'll be amazing.
I don't get it. (Score:3)
1. A bulletproof install. It must work, out of the box, no questions asked.
2.Hardware support for everything. Drivers need to be there for the hardware and they have to be installed automatically. Don't make the user guess what brand of video or sound card they have, 'cause generally, they don't know.
This would be great. Yet no PC operating system I've used yet has either of these features. Yet I have seen systems that come pre-installed, and come with a bullet-resistant install disk tailored for that system. However, upgrading your hardware might 'break' such an install disk.
3. Get rid of the UNIX model. Yeah, no more user IDs, passwords or any of that. It can be too confusing on your grandma to have more names and numbers to remember.
4. Get rid of GNU. Yeah, that's right, drop the command line utilities that you know and love, and lose all that power. If granny can't remember her password how's she supposed to remember arcane commands?
What's this "get rid of" stuff about? The built-in support for multiple users is incredibly useful in a household where more than one person uses the computer. eg: I can screw up my stuff without screwing up everyone elses. Of course, if granny lives alone she might want the option to allow it to automatically log her on. And the Gnu tools are great for some things that a GUI couldn't easily emulate. I do agree forcing someone to use them is not ideal. There should be an alternative.
5. The gui must be the OS. This means, goodbye X. Most of the newbies who ask me for help request help with setting up X (well, networking comes close). X must disappear, or it must become so much a part of Linux that it's just there, and it just works, no matter what video card, RAMDac, or whatever the user has on their machine.
I'm not especially attached to X, but making the GUI part of the kernel or even a built-in part of of the OS just seems like a bad idea to me. If you actually meant that it should be seemless, then yeah, this would be great. As far as it "just [working], no matter what video card..." -- well, keep dreaming & see response to 1 and 2. Video cards (and other hardware) change over the years, so the drivers need to change. The best way to keep your install bulletproof is to buy specifically supported hardware.
6. This GUI must be slicker than whale shit in an ice flow. Yeah, it must blow all other existing GUIs out of the water for ease of use, configurability, etc.
7. Did I mention that this stuff must work, right out of the box? It has to be so simple that the user can install it and configure it without a thought.
Amen!
What the world really needs is a new OS (perhaps based on the Linux kernel, perhaps not) that bundles ease of use and robustness in a single package.
I don't know that we need a whole new OS. There are more than just one OS with rock solid foundations to build a nice user interface on. No, linux, the kernel, does not need this GUI. What people, like our grandmothers, need is an easy-to-use, visually appealing user interface with a stable foundation. And that GUI needs Linux or a similar stable and open kernel beneath it.
numb
It's exactly what's needed for Linux acceptance... (Score:3)
For all our talk as Linux users about the "dumbing down of Linux" as an OS Linux really needs something like this.
For instance I could teach most of KDE or GNOME to my mother but what would she do if the print spool wouldn't clear after trying the Printer Control? Or what if she wanted someone else in the family to be able to use her system but not touch her stuff? Both of these tasks require administrative skills that she does not have and would most likely be unwilling to have to learn. Unfortunately for those of the Linux community there is no substitute for the Windows Control Panel. (yet)
Remember what people have said for years about software and business management - Programmers want an infintely wide interface, middle managers want an 8-bit interface because that's all they can handle, and upper management wants a 2 bit interface - Yes/No.
Most (I use the word loosely) users in America today can handle the 8-bit interface but due to the increased "dumbing-down" of our culture we're forcing people down to the level of a 2-bit interface. (Unfortunate but true.) Thus we're left with the situation that "Anything that is simpler for the user is the solution."
We may not like it but there it is and we do have to accept it until we can change it.
Also for those of you about to rally to the "We'll force them to learn!" flag - might I suggest you look at your own reactions when someone "forced" you to do something such as use an M$ product.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
Re:Look for something amazing from this project (Score:3)
Because a lot us have better things to do with our time than figure out crufty interfaces. I've configured zillions of ascii-based configuration files. As the lounge singer said, "the thrill is gone, baby."
--
Re:KDE 2.0 will fix much of that (Score:3)
That would require major kernel and glibc changes, and of course break compatibility.
Old hardware, while not the most important thing, also needs to be supported - many people are running 486s or Pentium 60s as LAN fileservers or IP masquerading servers.
Windows binaries: that's already supported. An emulator (not perfect yet) is available at http://www.winehq.com/, and you can use BINFMT_MISC for the possibility to simply run them as if they were Linux binaries.
Windows version? (Score:3)
uh... isn't this nautilus? (Score:4)
http://www.ionet.net/~hestgray/nautilus/
Look for something amazing from this project (Score:4)
2. Integrated XML using Gecko
3. Integrated Internet functions
4. Web bases software installation and updates
5. Hidden complexity, but still accessable to Geeks
6. Parallels with BeOS interface
Now, I much prefer BeOS over Linux, but this will be a step in the right direction for Linux being useable for the average person.
Please don't flame me about how Linux is already easy to use, because there are many rough edges.
Have a good one.
Unless it comes with a one button mouse. (Score:4)
I tried to convince a friend of mine to switch to Linux a while ago, and he was dismayed at having to _type_ in the name of a file in the WM menu configurator instead of being able to browse for it. I consider it a trivial inconvenience, but to him it's still a big deal.
Let's face it folks, most people out there use Windows at least partly because they're lazy. (I didn't say all!) And from what we've heard about Windows 2000 I think it's clear that it's not all that unstable. Plus it's more user- friendly than any desktop we have . . . I still prefer Linux, but an easy- to use GUI would be welcome.
Unless it comes with a one button mouse.
Windows is NOT easy to use. (Score:5)
- What's the key combination to print something in Windows?
- What's the key combination to close a window?
- What's the key combination to save a file?
- Where does Game X install itself in the Start menu?
Ask 10 people and you'll probably get at least 5 different answers, simply because every application is allowed to do things differently. This makes the learning curve exponentially greater because you need to learn the shortcuts for _every_ application!
As much as I hate the MacOS from a technical standpoint, it really does have everything else beat hands-down when it comes to simplicity and consistency. (Or at least it did -- Aqua looks pretty hideous...)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Oh, brother... (Score:5)
1) It doesn't seem to be a fork on Gnome, but rather an extension of it (perhaps a set of modules for it?)
2) It is NOT being developed by Apple or AOL. These are a bunch of people who used to work for Apple and AOL, but neither company is itself directly involved.
3) I know a lot of people are just going to post without reading the article, so I might as well reiterate it here: yes, it's GPL'd.
4) Once again, this is NOT Apple doing this. But I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people from the now-defunct Human Interface team there are now working on it.
Now, my own views on the project: I hope it works out. GNOME and KDE are both making good progress towards bringing a good, usable GUI to Linux, but both still have a long way to go. A boost, particularly from people who've designed UI's professionally before, would be a great help.
You don't get it. (Score:5)
I see a lot of posts on here that pretty much parrot the line: "this is what Linux really needs." That's a load of crap.
If you want Linux to succeed in a mass market where the majority of VCRs silently blink 12:00 into infinity, then it must have something truly compelling to offer over the competition. This means that Linux needs to be simplified to the e