Linus speaks on user interfaces

[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?

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 ). 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" . 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?

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?

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!

 

[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.