Linus speaks on user interfaces

[bousozoku]

There was some problem with being able to change some printer settings but the people controlling the GNOME interface won't allow certain settings to be shown. Linus responded and you can see the result here: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00021.html

I re-iterate my allegiance to Apple interfaces, no matter how blue they are, because they are designed well and sometimes correctly. I've been talking about consistency across an operating system for years, having been lucky enough to design and code easy-to-use interfaces for text terminals.

Linus and several of the Linux' revered seem to set back desktop Linux every day with some remark because they don't believe that consistency is more important than flexible chaos. It's something we saw in early releases of Mac OS X--having to go to the Terminal application and a shell to change options before Apple wrapped a GUI around the problem.

This makes me wonder if desktop Linux will ever be more than a hopeful thought.

[greatdevourer]

I don't care what we use, as long as we get 1 unified standard. Running KDE next to GNOME makes my PC look a right mess

[belvdr]

Apple has some things to fix, such as the refresh on windows or icons (HD icon on the desktop as an example) and FTP write capability from Finder.

I do believe Apple is in the lead as far as desktop interfaces, but they aren't perfect in any sense.

[maestro55]

This makes me wonder if desktop Linux will ever be more than a hopeful thought.

Well.. I believe that Linux has come a very very long way even over the past three years with me running it. Sure I like the Macintosh Operating System very well, and I would rank it before Linux any day. Still "consistency" is boring, and being able to go in and change everything, down changing the software, that idea is very much a great one.

For my main computer, I would like to use Macs, because everything will be working without problems, and it won't require much maintance. However, for fun I love Linux, I have learned soo much about Unix/Linux over the past few years, and I just continue to learn. The day when I know enough to design/program my own distro of linux will be one fine day. Right now I still lack a lot of knowledge.

People should not compete with other operating systems, people should continue to make the operating systems better.

[840quadra]

I use Enlightenment personally. While I like KDE, I prefer the manageability of E. I tend to load and install both KDE and Gnome tools and packages to assist Enlightenment, but E hodgepodge is the closest I can get to OS X on my Dell laptop for work.

It is great to see Linus active in scolding the Gnome team, that interface is a joke, WAY too much like windows, and takes away from the open source experience!

[belvdr]

I use Enlightenment personally. While I like KDE, I prefer the manageability of E. I tend to load and install both KDE and Gnome tools and packages to assist Enlightenment, but E hodgepodge is the closest I can get to OS X on my Dell laptop for work.

It is great to see Linus active in scolding the Gnome team, that interface is a joke, WAY too much like windows, and takes away from the open source experience!

I don't think KDE is all that great either. KDE is too blockish. Not very smooth, but useful.

EDIT: I think the scolding should have been sent to the GNOME team, not to a public mailing list. It definitely won't help sway any users to try Linux.

EDIT 2: How does GNOME take away from the open source experience? I guess I am missing the point here.

[840quadra]

EDIT 2: How does GNOME take away from the open source experience? I guess I am missing the point here.
I don't like KDE better, I use Enlightenment.

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00022.html

Linus says it the best himself.

[belvdr]

I don't like KDE better, I use Enlightenment.

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00022.html

Linus says it the best himself.

I see what you're saying now. However, I wouldn't say this goes against open source development. I would say this is almost reverse development, if there is such a term. :)

Here's a nice response from Jeff Waugh (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00027.html):

Sorry to snip mid-sentence, but this is an important point: We're not aiming
for "powerfully extensible". We're aiming for "Just Works". Some people will
hate that. Some will love it. Personally, I'd rather have passionate users,
lovers and haters, than be than average and ignored, and I think you'll find
most GNOME developers feel the same way.
<snip>
Jump into a GNOME file dialogue some time and just type a filename. :-) We
didn't get this 100% right when it first shipped, which was disappointing,
but it's top stuff now. Note the similarity in approach to the OS X 'open'
dialogue. We're not alone here, and this is nothing new.

[maestro55]

I use Enlightenment personally. While I like KDE, I prefer the manageability of E.

Having used several Destkop Environments/Window Managers I personally would put Enlightenment on my top list. Though the two main GUI's I have used have been GNOME and KDE. KDE is kind of bulky but friendly, and I used GNOME for awhile to, just because I was trying something different from KDE, and I hadn't heavily used Enlightenment, XFCE, Blackbox, Fluxbox, FVWM, Window Maker, and Ice WM. All of which I had installed on Slackware 9 (and later 10) and used from time to time. Not doing as much as a lot of people do, it didn't really matter for me which one I used. I ended up on Slackware with GNOME, and recently I have been running Slackware without a GUI (Only doing IRC/telnet on the slackware box).

All that to say, I like Enlightenment.

[belvdr]

Having used several Destkop Environments/Window Managers I personally would put Enlightenment on my top list. Though the two main GUI's I have used have been GNOME and KDE. KDE is kind of bulky but friendly, and I used GNOME for awhile to, just because I was trying something different from KDE, and I hadn't heavily used Enlightenment, XFCE, Blackbox, Fluxbox, FVWM, Window Maker, and Ice WM. All of which I had installed on Slackware 9 (and later 10) and used from time to time. Not doing as much as a lot of people do, it didn't really matter for me which one I used. I ended up on Slackware with GNOME, and recently I have been running Slackware without a GUI (Only doing IRC/telnet on the slackware box).

All that to say, I like Enlightenment.

I really enjoyed Slackware until the 2.6 kernel came out. Even though they include it in testing, I could never get it to work.

[LethalWolfe]

Well.. I believe that Linux has come a very very long way even over the past three years with me running it. Sure I like the Macintosh Operating System very well, and I would rank it before Linux any day. Still "consistency" is boring, and being able to go in and change everything, down changing the software, that idea is very much a great one.

[QUOTE]For my main computer, I would like to use Macs, because everything will be working without problems, and it won't require much maintance.

And that's why the OP (as well as many geeks in general) question Linux's future as viable, mainstream OS. Consistency may be "boring" for a techo-nerd-geek, but consistency is very exciting to people that simply want to their computers to work. That's one of the biggest reasons I switched. I was sick of all the hand-holding and constant maintenance my editing PC required. I want to spend my time editing (especially when I've got a client w/me), not fixing my computer.


Lethal

[grapes911]

...Fluxbox, ...
IMO, Fluxbox is the greatest GUI (for linux anyway). It is the essence of Linux. It is so simple, but still very useable. Nothing else goes on my Linux installs. Yet it is still so far away from being used in the mainstream. My mother would have a cow if she turned on the computer and saw:

[grapes911]

[QUOTE=maestro55]And that's why the OP (as well as many geeks in general)

bousozoku, I think he is calling you a "geek". Are you going to take that? :p

[maestro55]

IMO, Fluxbox is the greatest GUI (for linux anyway). It is the essence of Linux. It is so simple, but still very useable. Nothing else goes on my Linux installs. Yet it is still so far away from being used in the mainstream. My mother would have a cow if she turned on the computer and saw:

Yes, Blackbox is very similar to that. I have asked people at my school what operating system they use, and with lack of knowledge on what an operating system is they tell me "AOL" or "Internet Explorer".. The average person still is behind in computer knowledge. A lot of people have trouble learning new programs, much less giving them a new GUI to look at. However, someone can sit at OS X and they can navigate, and open up what they want and what they need, and it even makes it very easy for them to try new things.

So yes, I am a computer geek and Linux for me is a toy (well SuSe 9.1 is on my main system here at the house, and it does everything I need). When I get a PowerBook (June/July 2006) I will use that as my main system, still I will find time to play with Linux, because my heart is in computers (Even Windows for some stuff).

Still, like I said I don't think Mac OS and Linux should compete but rather Linux can learn from Mac OS, and hopefully can stay open source and become more user friendly, that is what I want to see, and perhaps what I will one day help happen.

[bousozoku]

bousozoku, I think he is calling you a "geek". Are you going to take that? :p

Yes, he was and yes, it's okay. People in Indiana...blah blah blah :p (I hope he didn't move so that works.)

If I hadn't designed so many--let's call them user experiences instead of user interfaces, I wouldn't worry so much about it.

Linux offers what DOS did--twenteen user experiences and I would consider most of them bad, although some of them get to be really bad. I cut my teeth on text terminals and command lines. I edited COBOL code on scrolling text terminals. That almost makes me sound like a math geek but I was never any good at scientific maths.

Remember that the general public didn't want computers with DOS. It wasn't until Win3.1 that the public was interested at all and it took Win95 for strong adoption.

Unified appearance and consistent behaviour mean more than anything else. Apple knew this at one time but they have a memory block right now. Linus can't see beyond his nose.

[Evangelion]

This makes me wonder if desktop Linux will ever be more than a hopeful thought.

Since it's being used on the desktop as we speak, I fail to see what makes it a "hopeful thought".

I have been using Linux since.... 1998 - 1999 about. And I actually started using it on the desktop, only later I tried it on servers. And the progress it has made during this time is phenomenal. It truly has been. How has things changed in that time? Here are some of my observations (and, as it happens, just about each of these points have been commented over the years by saying something like "until Linux does this, it wont succeed in the desktop". One by one, all issues have been fixed):

- When I started using Linux, the appearance of GUI's were somewhere between Win3.11 and Win95 (remember, this was in 98-99). Today, they look gorgerous. Windows XP? Pffft! OS X? OS X looks very, very good with lots of nifty GUI-effects. But Linux doesn't have to feel embarrassed next to it. Both OS X and Linux blow Windows out of the water, as far as GUI is concerned.

- Related to the above point: fonts. Back then fonts on Linux sucked, and they sucked hard. Last week I booted in to my KDE-installation after prolonged use of OS X. The first thing I noticed was how fabulous the fonts look! Yes, on my machine at least, fonts on Linux look better than fonts on OS X!

- Installation of apps. When I started using Linux, installation of apps was a pain in the ass. If I wanted to install something, I had to install bunch of packages, and I had to do it in the correct order. And all that was done manually in the command line. Today? I install apps with few mouse-clicks. It honestly couldn't be easier.

- Installation of the OS. Dead-simple. Few mouse-clicks, and you can have fully-functional system in 30 minutes.

- Configuring the GUI/X. Back then, this was a nightmare. Hell, if you really screwed up, you could actually damage your monitor. Today, this just works. You can have X up & running with minimium of fuzz, with 3D-acceleration and all.

- Device-support. Back then, it took a lot of work to get devices working. While the device might be installed during the installation of the OS, it was difficult to add devices later-on. Today? Plug it in, and it propably works.

If there's something to be said about Linux-community, is that they are do-ers, not whiners. Over the years I have seen people complain about shortcomings in Linux. And, after a short while, those shortcomings are fixed. No fuzz, no press-releases, things just get fixed.

Is Linux perfect? Nope. Not even close. But neither is OS X or Windows. But I have seen Linux improve and grow so fast, that sometimes I feel like a kid in a candy-store. I have all this great software at my disposal, and it's free. And it just keeps on getting better and better.

And before you reach for your keyboard: I see OS X and Linux co-existing just fine. In fact, they co-exist on my desktop with zero issues :).

[devman]

What in any way qualifies Torvalds as a user interface/usability expert.

Geez, I know that "everyone knows everything about everything" is faddish these days, but there's still a place for specialization of roles.

I'll take my usability advice from someone other than a kernel developer thanks.

[Evangelion]

What in any way qualifies Torvalds as a user interface/usability expert.

Do you need to be an UI-expert in order to criticize some GUI? Do you need to be a movie-director in order to comment on movies? Do you need to be a musician in order to say "Britney Spears sucks"?

I'll take my usability advice from someone other than a kernel developer thanks.

Like it or not, users can comment on things. And besides being a kernel-developers, Linus is also a GUI-user. And just as someone else can say "I don't like this thing here", so can Linus.

[MisterMe]

....

Like it or not, users can comment on things. And besides being a kernel-developers, Linus is also a GUI-user. And just as someone else can say "I don't like this thing here", so can Linus.Yes, but Joe User doesn't get coverage for his comments as a user. If Linus made it clear that he was just a GUI-user with no particular expertise in the design or GUIs, would he still get this kind of attention? Should he?

[Josh]

If this was a one-off, I'd buy it. But I've heard it too damn many times.
And only ever from Gnome.
For some reason, that cracked me up.

I agree w/ him though. If Gnome is constantly dumbed down, it will become less and less powerful, and will essentially hinder the very reason people use linux in the first place.

I prefer KDE over Gnome, but find both a little too bloated as entire packages.

Fluxbox/Blackbox for me (I've even got blackbox on my Windows machine at work :))

[Evangelion]

Yes, but Joe User doesn't get coverage for his comments as a user. If Linus made it clear that he was just a GUI-user with no particular expertise in the design or GUIs, would he still get this kind of attention? Should he?

That's 100% irrelevant. It just happens that many people are interested what Linus thinks of various subjects, espesially if they are Linux-related. It's just human-nature.

Does it matter in the end what Linus thinks of GNOME? No. And GNOME will survive just fine. But Linus'es comments have brought up an issue that has been brewing up for some time already. Many people feel that GNOME is taking the simplification too far. They have talked about it in various places, but it hasn't reached broad attention. Now that Linus speaks of it, it does get more attention. Hopefully something good comes from it.

[maestro55]

I had to install bunch of packages, and I had to do it in the correct order. And all that was done manually in the command line. Today?

Today...

Apt-get :)

[Evangelion]

Today...

Apt-get :)

Synaptic rather (which does use apt-get as it's engine). Or Portage. Or Yast. Or Klik. Anyway, application-installation has become really, really easy on Linux.

[floyde]

If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will
use it.

Likewise, if you think your users are geeks who have nothing better to do than configure their machines (as opposed to using them for the productive activites for which they were intended), then only geeks will use it.
Linux is great, but its creators have been systematically marginalizing it to the point where the "Linux Grandma" is simply not possible anymore. Linux has become the very exclusive club of the computer-savvy, and it doesn't seem to be steering any other way (in spite of all the recent advances in most Unix desktops).
I think it's a shame when someone like Linus (who has contributed so much) engages in such childish behavior. If the Linux community ceased all the name-calling and actually contributed with each other (and thus standardized), then they would certainly come up with something to compete with Microsoft and probably put an end to this lack-of-software-quality-due-to-lack-of-competition monopoly nightmare in which we live in. But hey, why have something useful when we can have choice? :rolleyes: :D

[Evangelion]

Likewise, if you think your users are geeks who have nothing better to do than configure their machines (as opposed to using them for the productive activites for which they were intended), then only geeks will use it.

There are lots of Linux-distros where that is not required. (K)Ubuntu and SUSE comes to mind. An extreme example of that would be Knoppix where you just put CD in the CD-drive, boot the machine and use it. Of course you CAN configure everything, but if you don't want to do it, then don't do it.

Linux is great, but its creators have been systematically marginalizing it to the point where the "Linux Grandma" is simply not possible anymore. Linux has become the very exclusive club of the computer-savvy, and it doesn't seem to be steering any other way (in spite of all the recent advances in most Unix desktops).

Uh, not quite. There are lots of uber-easy stuff out there that uses Linux. The thing just is that many times the person using the system doesn't even know he's using Linux.

An example: I was just today reading a review of Sony Vaio VGN-TX1XP laptop. This laptop has a multimedia-subsystem where the user can watch movies and listen to music without actually using the computer at all. The multimedia subsystem runs on Linux. But the person using it doesn't necessarily even know he's using Linux.

Linux can be used, and often IS used for very easy to use devices. But you seem to think that if something uses Linux, is has to be complex and hard to use. This (http://www.sonos.com/?tref=logoproducts) particular product is built on Linux. Are you saying that it's hard to use?

I think it's a shame when someone like Linus (who has contributed so much) engages in such childish behavior. If the Linux community ceased all the name-calling and actually contributed with each other (and thus standardized)

What "childish behavior"? Criticizing one particular GUI in Linux? What's so childish in that?

What is this "stanardizing" you talk about? Forcing people to use some particular system? How on earth would that work? Linux-people use and work on things that they like. You can't order them to work on something else. And there IS lots of relevant standardizing going on. They are standardizing on file-formats. They are standardizing on protocols. They are standardizing on configuration. What else do you want? A standardized GUI? Sorry, not gonna happen. People who use GNOME use it because they like it. People who use KDE use it because they like it. What would you want to do? Force them to use something else instead?

Should we "standardize" on Coca-Cola and Nissans as well? I mean, surely things would be better if we standardized on just one thing? Why not standardize on Windows and PC's while we are at it? By your logic, things would be so much better then, right?

It's quite clear to me that you don't know how these things work. You can't force people to do something they do not want to do. And since Linux offers the the freedom to choose from several alternatives, they take advantage of that alternative. And there's no taking away that freedom.

But hey, why have something useful when we can have choice? :rolleyes: :D

Are you saying that Linux-software is not useful? I find my KDE-desktop to be very useful indeed (in fact, I started to use it more, after I noticed that mail.app on OS X didn't do the things I wanted it to do. So OS X was not useful for me there). Are you saying that if we only had one piece of software to choose from, things would be better? Notice how well that has worked for Microsoft and IE for example.

In short: you are seriosuly advocating the removal of choice? I guess that would be batural way of thinking for Mac-users, where everything is decided by one authority (Apple). Linux doesn't work that way. If you dislike the Linux-way (where people can use whatever they want to use), then go ahead and use something else. I respect your freedom of choice, even if that means that you do not choose Linux.

[floyde]

What "childish behavior"? Criticizing one particular GUI in Linux? What's so childish in that?
Ok, ok, I went a bit too far with my post there (the whole thing), I even exaggerated my own views (I tend to do that). But this comment made me angry, and I still think it's childish:
Please, just tell people to use KDE.
I mean WTF? He basically denied Gnome its right to exist. We all know Gnome isn't perfect (like any other desktop), but for God's sake, that's people's work we are talking about. A lot of people contributed countless hours to that project to add the "simplicity" desktop choice to the Linux world. They might have failed in a number of goals, but it can't be _that_ bad to warrant complete abandonment. To me that sounded a lot like "teh Xbox 360 totally pwnz the playstation 3 !!1!1!!". I mean how old is Linus, like, 7?:rolleyes:
What is this "stanardizing" you talk about? Forcing people to use some particular system? How on earth would that work?
Again, that came out totally wrong and I apologize (Except for the spelling, my native language is spanish, so I think I did pretty good on that:rolleyes: ;) ). What I might have meant is that perhaps distros can make the though decision to choose just one desktop (any desktop), just like Ubuntu started out. This, IMHO, would let developers focus on the strengths of a particular desktop and provide a better integrated, more consistent desktop experience. Choice would still be available since there would still be the "KDE distro" or the "Gnome distro" or whatever, but each of them would excel in their "desktop paradigm" so to speak.
Also, I was referring to the kind of standardization (spelling?) that would allow the big software companies (adobe comes to mind, microsoft [why not?]) to release their productivity software for Linux.
In short: you are seriosuly advocating the removal of choice? I guess that would be batural way of thinking for Mac-users, where everything is decided by one authority (Apple).
No, I do not think it's "batural":rolleyes: :D . Seriously though, you know what my problem is? I have a very hard time putting words to my thoughts, especially in english. While I did say some nasty things about choice, my purpose was to "contrast" (that's actually a verb in spanish) with the extreme pro-choice views of a lot of Linux users. You know, a lot of Linux people talk about choice, but if I choose a Linux that's simple (as in "extremely boring and non-customizable") and that can run Photoshop and microsoft word, then I'm a heretic. I choose "Grandma Linux", why should choice itself stand in my way? hmm... I hope I made sense

[devman]

Do you need to be an UI-expert in order to criticize some GUI? Do you need to be a movie-director in order to comment on movies? Do you need to be a musician in order to say "Britney Spears sucks"?



Like it or not, users can comment on things. And besides being a kernel-developers, Linus is also a GUI-user. And just as someone else can say "I don't like this thing here", so can Linus.

And in related news, the Ferrari F1 team is consulting my grandmother on their next car design. After all, she is a car-user...

ok, so it's easy to apply extremism when taking a position on something - but it's not really helpful is it.

I never said the big L is not allowed to make comment.

[Evangelion]

I mean WTF? He basically denied Gnome its right to exist.

He said that he recommends people to use KDE. And there's nothing wrong with that. Robert Love propably advocates GNOME, as does Alan Cox. What Linus is saying is that GNOME is taking their mantra of "simplification" too far. They remove advaced features, so that the system does not feel "complex". Linus basically says that it's not usable at all, if you remove features that you need to get your work done. And in his view, it's simply easier to use KDE; rather than try to cope with GNOME's lack of features.

And no, he did not "deny GNOME it's right to exist". He's not in the position to do that. Hell, he's not in the position to tell what goes in to the kernel either! Sure, he has that power when it comes to the official kernel, but most distros use their own kernel, with their own patches and features.

In the end it does not matter what he thinks about GNOME. GNOME-developers are not going to switch to KDE just because Linus says he prefers KDE.

We all know Gnome isn't perfect (like any other desktop), but for God's sake, that's people's work we are talking about.

We have no problem criticizing music or movies. We can say that some books suck. We can even whine when software is buggy. And behind those books, movies, music and software, we have people who worked hard for it. And still we complain. How is it different when Linus complained?

A lot of people contributed countless hours to that project to add the "simplicity" desktop choice to the Linux world. They might have failed in a number of goals, but it can't be _that_ bad to warrant complete abandonment.

Linus has the right to choose which GUI he wants to use. Ha he has chosen not to use GNOME. He has the right for "complete abandoment" as you put it. Of course he has zero power to force others to abandon GNOME.

Many people here have decided to not use Windows at all. If you have the right for "complete abandoment" as far as Windows is concerned, why doesn't Linus have that right when it comes to GNOME?

To me that sounded a lot like "teh Xbox 360 totally pwnz the playstation 3 !!1!1!!". I mean how old is Linus, like, 7?:rolleyes:

Did you read the same discussion I did? I NEVER saw Linus sayt something like "GNOME sucks! KDE rules!". He basically said that "You guys are removing useful features from the GUI in the name of usability! How can the system be usable if it lacks the features I need? At least KDE has those features". That is the core of his message. His comments were not about "GNOME sucks, KDE rules!". Yes, he mentioned KDE, but your comparison is way off mark. Hell, he even complained about KDE as well!

What I might have meant is that perhaps distros can make the though decision to choose just one desktop (any desktop), just like Ubuntu started out.

They are doing just that. Ubuntu is GNOME-centric. In the same vein, Kubuntu is KDE-centric. Fedora is GNOME-centric, while MEPIS is KDE-centric. And so forth.

This, IMHO, would let developers focus on the strengths of a particular desktop and provide a better integrated, more consistent desktop experience.

But there are dangers in that. You would be giving an integrated feel _only iof you used some particular desktop_. What if you used the "other" desktop? RIght no, both GNOME and KDE have about similar number of users. Neither can ignore the other, and neither can dictate terms to the other. And, in fact, they are cooperating on numerous fronts. So we CAN get the "unified" desktoo feel, and we can achieve that across desktops.

Also, I was referring to the kind of standardization (spelling?) that would allow the big software companies (adobe comes to mind, microsoft [why not?]) to release their productivity software for Linux.

There's no problem in that area. Most distros already ship with Qt and GTK. SO the software could use either toolkit and it would just wor

You know, a lot of Linux people talk about choice, but if I choose a Linux that's simple (as in "extremely boring and non-customizable") and that can run Photoshop and microsoft word, then I'm a heretic. I choose "Grandma Linux", why should choice itself stand in my way? hmm... I hope I made sense

No, you are not a heretic. Although your choice would be a strange one, since neither Word or Photoshop runs natively on Linux, you need emulators for those. If you wanted a system to run Photoshop, I would recommend OS X, and I have no problems making that recommendation.

And there are "grandma Linux"es out there. Linspire is propably the ultimate Linux in that front. If you want a "grandma Linux" that still has that Linux-feel to it, the (K)Ubuntu would be a good choice.

[Evangelion]

And in related news, the Ferrari F1 team is consulting my grandmother on their next car design. After all, she is a car-user...

Wrong analogy. Your grandma might not be in Ferraris target-market. But Linus is in GNOME's target-market. There are many developers who use GNOME. Nowhere in GNOME do you see something like "this is GUI for Joe Sixpacks. Power-users need not to apply". a GUI CAN be both simple and easy to use, while offering features for power-users. GNOME has failed in that front. Their idea to "ease of use" is to make the GUI so viod in features that the user can't be confused, since he can only do basic stuff. And while that might give good results in the short-term, it's not a viable vay to develop the software in the long-term.

That strategy would work for system that are menat for limited and strictly defined uses. But GNOME is meant to be a general-purpose GUI, so it's intented uses are not "strictly limited". Therefore they can't just start pulling features, because sooner or later they are going to start stepping on people toes. It seems that they have stepped on Linuses toes once too many times ;).

[Compile 'em all]

There was some problem with being able to change some printer settings but the people controlling the GNOME interface won't allow certain settings to be shown. Linus responded and you can see the result here: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00021.html

I re-iterate my allegiance to Apple interfaces, no matter how blue they are, because they are designed well and sometimes correctly. I've been talking about consistency across an operating system for years, having been lucky enough to design and code easy-to-use interfaces for text terminals.

Linus and several of the Linux' revered seem to set back desktop Linux every day with some remark because they don't believe that consistency is more important than flexible chaos. It's something we saw in early releases of Mac OS X--having to go to the Terminal application and a shell to change options before Apple wrapped a GUI around the problem.

This makes me wonder if desktop Linux will ever be more than a hopeful thought.


Apparently you didn't read quite well what happened there. What happened
is that the GNOME developers removed some of the printer settings in the
print dialog in the name of usablility.

Let me rephrase this to you. You go and buy some printer, return home,
open a document, go to file-> print and want to use some print feature that
is "in your printer" but you can't because the print dialog is being made
usable. Actually this is not about usablility anymore because you can't use
your printer.

What would you think if you have a color printer but you can only print in
black/white because having color settings will make the print dialog unusable?

This is exactly what Linus is talking about and this is what most people
seem not to understand. I finally would like to quote Linus that summarizes
the whole issue...


When user interfaces means that something CANNOT BE DONE, it's not
about "usable design" any more. At that point, it's about UNusable design.

"Usability" is an issue only if you can do something at all. But if you can't
do the thing at all, it's pointless to talk about usability: the thing is BY
DEFINITION not usable if it cannot be used for a specific task.

[Compile 'em all]

I think it's a shame when someone like Linus (who has contributed so much) engages in such childish behavior. If the Linux community ceased all the name-calling and actually contributed with each other (and thus standardized), then they would certainly come up with something to compete with Microsoft and probably put an end to this lack-of-software-quality-due-to-lack-of-competition monopoly nightmare in which we live in. But hey, why have something useful when we can have choice? :rolleyes: :D

You don't read LKML (Linux Kernel Mailing List), do you?. Linus is known for
strongly voicing his opinion no matter what the subject at hand is. It just
happens that you notice it this time because of how flame-prone the topic is.

Once again, making the print dialog easier to use IS usablility. Removing
options so that you can't use "features in your printer" IS NOT. read my
previous post for more explaination...

[bousozoku]

Apparently you didn't read quite well what happened there. What happened
is that the GNOME developers removed some of the printer settings in the
print dialog in the name of usablility.

Let me rephrase this to you. You go and buy some printer, return home,
open a document, go to file-> print and want to use some print feature that
is "in your printer" but you can't because the print dialog is being made
usable. Actually this is not about usablility anymore because you can't use
your printer.

What would you think if you have a color printer but you can only print in
black/white because having color settings will make the print dialog unusable?

This is exactly what Linus is talking about and this is what most people
seem not to understand. I finally would like to quote Linus that summarizes
the whole issue...

I can understand the problem and I can understand that the usability "enhancement" was done incorrectly, but Linus is no expert on anything but Linux, the operating system itself. I find it more problematic that he complains without thinking on a great many things. He makes it sound as if it's better to have everything a hodgepodge for everyone else since he likes it that way.

There are a number of things that I can do with my printer that the printer dialog won't let me do directly in Mac OS X--should Canon or Apple open that up to everyone? Not really.

[Evangelion]

I can understand the problem and I can understand that the usability "enhancement" was done incorrectly, but Linus is no expert on anything but Linux, the operating system itself.

And I'm not an expert on music, but I can still say that Britney Spears sucks. I'm not a movie-expert, but I can still say that "Armageddon" sucks. Linus might not be UI-expert, but he too can say that GNOME sucks, if it prevents him from doing his work. We ALL know what we like and dislike, and we don't have to be experts in those particular field to know what we like and dislike.

He used a pretty simple example (aside from the print-dialog): mouse-buttons. He would like to have a feature where he could use the second mouse-button to "push back" the window, so that the windows beneath it become visible. Sure enough, all windowmanagers in Linux offer this feature. But GNOME is the only one which has no means of adjusting that feature. In GNOME, the middle-button is used for that feature. And since Linus'es laptop doesn't have middle-button, and GNOME has no way to change that feature, GNOME is that much more un-usable for Linus. He doesn't have to be an UI-expert to know that the default way of working is not suitable for him.

Linus doesn't have to be an usability-expert to say "this thing doesn't work the way I want it to work". And while no UI can satisfy all users, so we do have the means to change the way the UI works. Some UI's offer more those means, while others offer less. KDE offers A LOT of 'em, while OS X and GNOME offer less. And while GNOME has simplified the UI, they have also removed the means for the user to change the UI to his liking.

I find it more problematic that he complains without thinking on a great many things. He makes it sound as if it's better to have everything a hodgepodge for everyone else since he likes it that way.

That's not what he says. What he says is that no UI can satisfy everyone. So it would be a good thing that the user has the means to change the default-settings to suit his needs. And GNOME is lacking in that area. He also says that removing functionality is the wrong way to work towards usability, because removing features means that the software becomes UN-usable for some people. And more features are removed, the larger number of people will find the software to be un-usable.

In a way, the GNOME-devels think that they know what's best for the user, instead of the user. The dialogue between the user and the developer would go something like this:

User: "I dont like the way this particular feature works. I would like to do it like this instead"
Developer: "According to our studies, the current way of working is the right way. Here, look at the results of our studies"
User: "Yes, I understand that, but I don't work that way. My method of working is different, and I would like to change the default behavior"
Developer: "No you don't"
User: "Huh? yes I do!"
Developer: "Trust me, you don't"
User: "....."

There are a number of things that I can do with my printer that the printer dialog won't let me do directly in Mac OS X--should Canon or Apple open that up to everyone? Not really.

Sure, there might be some esoteric features that no-one ever uses. But that thread talked about features like binding and duplex-printing. While those definitely ARE advanced features, they are not exotic and strange features that no-one uses. We use duplex-printing daily at my workplace. So that fact alone would make GNOME unsuitable for our needs.

[Compile 'em all]

Sure, there might be some esoteric features that no-one ever uses. But that thread talked about features like binding and duplex-printing. While those definitely ARE advanced features, they are not exotic and strange features that no-one uses. We use duplex-printing daily at my workplace. So that fact alone would make GNOME unsuitable for our needs.

Well said Evangelion...

[howesey]

Anyone know of any shells such as KDE to port to Mac OS X?

[bousozoku]

...
Sure, there might be some esoteric features that no-one ever uses. But that thread talked about features like binding and duplex-printing. While those definitely ARE advanced features, they are not exotic and strange features that no-one uses. We use duplex-printing daily at my workplace. So that fact alone would make GNOME unsuitable for our needs.

Obviously, the team is a little behind the times. How dare he criticise them for features they don't need! :D

[Compile 'em all]

Anyone know of any shells such as KDE to port to Mac OS X?

KDE is not a shell. KDE is a Desktop Environment and that is what the DE in
KDE stands for. A Shell on the other hand is a Terminal in which you can type
in commands. Examples include the Korn and Bash shells. The Terminal in
OS X is a Bash shell.

KDE can be run on OS X using X11. I don't remember if KDE is available on
darwin ports or fink but you can google around for that.

[Counterfit]

The Terminal in
OS X is a Bash shell.
Actually, I use tcsh on my PowerBook, and my Beige G3, and my parents iMac. I don't know how I managed to get it to be the default after upgrading and reinstalling Panther and Tiger, but I did.