Hardy Heron Making Linux Ready for the Masses?

Kasyx said:
I'm sorry to point this out, but do you have any idea what you are talking about?

You do realise that Ubuntu doesn't have a set "GUI", right? One is able to choose different Window Managers, each of which give one a different "GUI" experience. Ubuntu wasn't part of the GUI design phase, it uses Window Managers currently available, many of which have been under development for quite some time (KDE was first released in 1996).
Click to expand...

I am talking about the Ubuntu GUI's that I have seen. I know there are thousands of alternatives available for Linux (yet another reason why it will not work commercially)

And your opinion vs my opinion around GUI's are like light and dark - cuz trust me - you prolly use a couple of GUI's i have designed in your daily life ;)

When you cyber janitors decide to come out your dark hole with a different attitude of Linux - Maybe one of how can we present this to the world in a tangible and slicker offering you may succeed, but i have realised you are just users of the OS - ie admins that can never really offer any real value.

ie - the wrong people to talk about improving a product for the masses.
 
Gothan said:
Well i cant wait for the 24th to upgrade my 7.10

People will always be resistant to change, I remember when I went from dos to win95, and absolutely loathed this newfangled os. In dos, I could flippen put my games where I wanted, now an uppity OS, wanted to install everything on its own, and in some new fangled things called "folders"!!
Click to expand...

And long filenames, I swear they used them all over just to show them off. 'Program Files' ? Why not just 'Programs' or 'Applications'? And don't get me started on the the whole 'My <stuff>' naming convention for things. At least they ditched that in Vista.
 
halicon said:
various online share trading websites, 2 south african banking sites, 1 mobile network website, Gui for mobile dashboard software, GUI for an MES system.

It is what i do for a living.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for that.

So what part of linux's GUI do you find inadequate and why?
 
icyrus said:
Ok thanks for that.

So what part of linux's GUI do you find inadequate and why?
Click to expand...

I think alot of the times the icons (that I have seen) have not been refined are clunky and child like. I feel certain naming conventions are not adequate enough. Colour usages have not been considered. My biggest problem with Linux is the varying Gui's out there which means there is zero consistency.

What makes OSx and Windows great is the consistency. Sure you can skin them and change them, which is fine for any advanced user.

Understand when i making these judgments I have the common layman in mind and not admins who obviously know their stuff.

So for the sys admin who has a great understanding of Linux they can explore various GUI options etc. Like an advanced windows user may do. Strangely enough I have seen very little happening on the OSx skinning side, but it is my belief that apple carry possibly the best GUI on earth due it's simplicity and the fact they seem to be a step ahead of everyone in that regard.

The common computer user needs silly things like: My Computer, My Programs ect.

Once there is a level of consistency/standard it becomes easier for support documentation ect - cuz an average user needs to point n click.

So dont get me wrong. I am 100% certain Linux kicks the lights out of windows when it comes to technical applications. Well I think it is proven time and time again.

However where windows and osx win is the standardisation and cohesive GUI. If open source developers were to pick up on a single GUI to bring Linux to the world it would undoubtedly succeed.

The ONLY reason why i utilise windows is because I need to use certain applications in my daily life that are ONLY windows and MAC based.

Sure I could maybe use a windows emulator for Linux ect - but is that not just complicating my life?

Users want uncomplicated lives.

I would like to see Linux gain greater momentum because it would mean M$ will need to run to the hills to start deliverign quality products and not beta's packaged as finals. ;)

And for sys admins, plz understand I only joke when i call you cyber janitors. If it weren't for you guys the world would be a mess. IE you ensure things work! So thanks. :)
 
halicon said:
I think alot of the times the icons (that I have seen) have not been refined are clunky and child like. I feel certain naming conventions are not adequate enough. Colour usages have not been considered. My biggest problem with Linux is the varying Gui's out there which means there is zero consistency.

What makes OSx and Windows great is the consistency. Sure you can skin them and change them, which is fine for any advanced user.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is a valid point. One of linux (and most OSS) longest standing problems was that while there are plenty of coders willing to distribute their work for free there aren't many designers who share the same ideology and hence you often got engineers designing interfaces that that make sense to them and designing icons and graphics with their limited skill sets.

Also the GUI toolkit differences have long been a pet peeve of mind with linux on the desktop. Fortunately distros lile ubuntu have taken this a step forward with unified themes for Qt and GTK but its still not sufficient. It would be nice to standardize on one of them, but I don't see that ever happening so the best we can hope for is better interoperability, which is happening - slowly.
 
halicon said:
And for sys admins, plz understand I only joke when i call you cyber janitors. If it weren't for you guys the world would be a mess. IE you ensure things work! So thanks. :)
Click to expand...

Chances are I administer some of the servers your fancy GUIs run on ;)

There's no point decorating a house if the foundations haven't even been laid :D

I must agree on the naming conventions. Sometimes icons are unclear and the wording can be misleading. I have never used OSX so I can't really comment on its usability. I have found that KDE and even Gnome do take some tweaking before they are ready for my exceptionally brilliant usage :D But then again, I do the same with XP when I have a fresh install of it.

Perhaps someone just needs to design a "noob-GUI" that one can throw over KDE or Gnome which makes things easier. Kinda like the Asus eeePC has on it.
 
I dont know what distributions the people here are using but I have KICK ASS icons. Guess some people just have out dated data or systems.

http://www.kde-look.org/index.php?xsortmode=high&page=0&xcontentmode=22x27

Theres thousands of really good icon sets there.

Vista cant compare to Ubuntu with visual look. Vista is so limited, boring and just dull. Perhaps some members here should look at the Linux screenshots in the other threads?

Im more than willing to have a vista vs linux desktop show down when it comes to visual appeal and eye candy. We can run a poll or something :) Lets see which OS can create the desktop with the best looking "bling".

If anything... Vista has boring limited choices in icons.

However, like icyrus said, the world of linux has long being only populated by the less than exciting programmer people. It seems people who like visual style are starting to make the code of those programmers finally come to a more... colorful life.
 
Last edited:
w1z4rd said:
Lets see which OS can create the desktop with the best looking "bling".
Click to expand...

you missing the point.

It is not bling factor. I am 100% certain there are some pretty outstanding Gui's available for Linux. But for Linux to succeed on a commercial level, and that means catering to the avg user who doesnt want to go 'under the hood' there needs to be a unified, standard and consistent GUI. And that means choosing the coolest most functional GUI out there and distributing it with ONLY that.

Currently what Linux is suffering from is the VCR factor. Every VCR worked differently when it came to programming it. Because every manufacturer had their own idea. Same thing is apparent on TV's. So it is difficult to work some electronic devices without using the manual.

Once again you are making this an anti-windows debate where i am debating how to improve Linux to make it a commercially viable product to the masses and how it is directly related to the current problem of too many choices as your link illustrates.

Windows and OSx limit how a user can change the GUI for a reason. Not because the OS is incapable, but because there needs to be a consistency in order for it to succeed and currently they are winning hands down in terms of popularity in the market. <-- this isnt my oppinion either, its the basics of any GUI design philosophy.
 
Kasyx said:
Perhaps someone just needs to design a "noob-GUI" that one can throw over KDE or Gnome which makes things easier.
Click to expand...

A noob GUI that is a standard world-wide would win hands down and launch Linux into a greater popularity. Corel tried but failed. And just cuz its noob doesnt mean it cant look good. And just cuz its noob doesnt mean one cant change it either or expand on it.
 
halicon said:
you missing the point.

It is not bling factor. I am 100% certain there are some pretty outstanding Gui's available for Linux. But for Linux to succeed on a commercial level, and that means catering to the avg user who doesnt want to go 'under the hood' there needs to be a unified, standard and consistent GUI. And that means choosing the coolest most functional GUI out there and distributing it with ONLY that.

Currently what Linux is suffering from is the VCR factor. Every VCR worked differently when it came to programming it. Because every manufacturer had their own idea. Same thing is apparent on TV's. So it is difficult to work some electronic devices without using the manual.

Once again you are making this an anti-windows debate where i am debating how to improve Linux to make it a commercially viable product to the masses and how it is directly related to the current problem of too many choices as your link illustrates.

Windows and OSx limit how a user can change the GUI for a reason. Not because the OS is incapable, but because there needs to be a consistency in order for it to succeed and currently they are winning hands down in terms of popularity in the market. <-- this isnt my oppinion either, its the basics of any GUI design philosophy.
Click to expand...

Okay... by "under the hood" are you reffering going to "add/remove" programs, selecting whatever theme or icon pack you want you want, and then clicking "apply" ? Because thats how easy it is....

Its a helleva lot easier than windows. How am I making my comments "anti-windows"? Am I not allowed to make a single comment without that silly line thrown in? I use Windows daily at work, and dont have a problem with what I need it for. I will point out its flaws when I come across them, just like I would any OS including Linux. Perhaps your perspective is a bit defensive?

Or is your comment about linux icons, now "anti-linux? Common, please. ... and I hope you can see the hypocrisy. (IE... you believe its okay to criticize the icons, but are not happy about my comments about the vista icons (all of a sudden I am anti-windows...wtf?).. if you cant see the hypocrisy in that you surely are blinded.
 
Last edited:
w1z4rd said:
Its a helleva lot easier than windows. How am I making my comments "anti-windows"?
Click to expand...

of course you are - it's a free world. you also allowed to call me a hypocrite and you can also call me blind.

you can also try and presuade me that Linux is easy too use hence its world-wide success in the market :rolleyes:

At the end of the day I was making a comment on how to improve Linux to make it a commercial success so please do not preach to me about blinded hypocrisy when it is painfully evident you are not interested in viable options to actually make Linux a success.

Choice overload is not the best option and at times standardisation , ergonomics and consistency will bring succes to anything that a large majority of individuals are going to use. As windows and OSx have proved.
 
halicon said:
of course you are - it's a free world. you also allowed to call me a hypocrite and you can also call me blind.
Click to expand...

I was trying to point out the hypocrisy, but if the shoe fits and you want to play the defensive roll go for it. I am an equal opportunity offender, I criticise linux publicly for its weaknesses, and and support other OS`s for their strengths. Each has their strengths and their weakness`s.

you can also try and presuade me that Linux is easy too use hence its world-wide success in the market :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The new linux desktops are easier to use and I am not the only one saying. Computer world and many independent organizations, companies and people are saying the same thing now... and you are completely ignoring the hardware vendor lockins and anti competitive behaviour of Microsoft (which have been discussed and explained ad naseum in this forum) in a rather disgusting way. .. I was kinda hoping you knew more about how the industry worked, and how other OS`s were pushed out by MS in the past, and how MS practices its business. This also ties into your firefox/ie comment. If you want, I can give you the links and information you might need because you dont seem to be getting this basic but major point. 90% of people get Windows because it comes with their hardware, and not because of choice.

At the end of the day I was making a comment on how to improve Linux to make it a commercial success so please do not preach to me about blinded hypocrisy when it is painfully evident you are not interested in viable options to actually make Linux a success.
Click to expand...

That comment is childish so its not worth a response. (NOTE. I said that comment.. not you.. before you take that the wrong way as well)

Choice overload is not the best option and at times standardisation , ergonomics and consistency will bring succes to anything that a large majority of individuals are going to use. As windows and OSx have proved.
Click to expand...

Choice overload? Thats a legal term or marketing term?

Strange, in the telcoms market we are fighting for choice, but you would rather people have have less of it? :confused: Personally.. more choice = better, and I couldnt find "choice overload" on wiki to understand what that is, or what kind of professional research has gone into that. When one buys a game.. and theres a large amount of games to chose from.. Do they suffer from "choice overload"? Or is that a term we only apply to OS`s? :confused:

And you say Mac OSx and Windows have "proved"? Proved what? That they can be good desktops? Sure, each has had their time, and each has being in the market for 20+ years.. Well linux has proved that it can dominate the server market and has only recently gone in the right direction for desktops.

Mac used to be the best OS for the PC, but then got out performed by Windows when Bill Gates provided a more functional OS for business than Steve Jobs was able to. While Steve Jobs`s old OS looked pretty, it was not functional enough to beat the IBM/Microsoft partnership. History repeats itself. Linux now has the functionality and the bling... when it gets the software and hardware vendors... times will change.

The great thing about having such a competitive OS such as linux now entering the desktop market and pushing Vista back, it that Microsoft are really going to have to pull their thumbs outta their bums to make sure they have a comeptitive OS with Windows 7.

I am glad I have choice, and I am glad I can use more than one OS for my different needs.
 
Last edited:
w1z4rd said:
I was trying to point out the hypocrisy, but if the shoe fits and you want to play the defensive roll go for it. I am an equal opportunity offender, I criticise linux publicly for its weaknesses, and and support other OS`s for their strengths. Each has their strengths and their weakness`s.



The new linux desktops are easier to use and I am not the only one saying. Computer world and many independent organizations, companies and people are saying the same thing now... and you are completely ignoring the hardware vendor lockins and anti competitive behaviour of Microsoft in a rather disgusting way. I wonder how much a soul costs these days.. I was kinda hoping you knew more about how the industry worked, and how other OS`s were pushed out by MS in the past, and how MS practices its business. This also ties into your firefox/ie comment. If you want, I can give you the links and information you might need because you dont seem to be getting this basic but major point. 90% of people get Windows because it comes with their hardware, and not because of choice.



That comment is childish so its not worth a response. (NOTE. I said that comment.. not you.. before you take that the wrong way as well)



Choice overload? Thats a legal term or marketing term?

Strange, in the telcoms market we are fighting for choice, but you would rather people have have less of it? :confused: Personally.. more choice = better, and I couldnt find "choice overload" on wiki to understand what that is, or what kind of professional research has gone into that. When one buys a game.. and theres a large amount of games to chose from.. Do they suffer from "choice overload"? Or is that a term we only apply to OS`s? :confused:

And you say Mac OSx and Windows have "proved"? Proved what? That they can be good desktops? Sure, each has had their time, and each has being in the market for 20+ years.. Well linux has proved that it can dominate the server market and has only recently gone in the right direction for desktops.

Mac used to be the best OS for the PC, but then got out performed by Windows when Bill Gates provided a more functional OS for business than Steve Jobs was able to. While Steve Jobs`s old OS looked pretty, it was not functional enough to beat the IBM/Microsoft partnership. History repeats itself.
Click to expand...

woteva w1z4rd. you win. hope you happy.
 
halicon said:
woteva w1z4rd. you win. hope you happy.
Click to expand...

Cop out. Let me know when you want to discuss this further, because for both you and I... the veils of ignorance can only be lifted with dialog and understanding.
 
Last edited:
halicon said:
My biggest problem with Linux is the varying Gui's out there which means there is zero consistency.

What makes OSx and Windows great is the consistency. Sure you can skin them and change them, which is fine for any advanced user.
Click to expand...

What consistency, exactly???

If you've worked on Windows since Windows 1.2, then you'll know what Windows has gone through, even Windows 3.1 was different than 3.0, 98 different than 95, ME ........ (don't even go there), NT 3 & NT4 differs, 2000, XP & Vista ALL differ. There's no consistency. I have some users who refuse to work on Windows Vista for this exact reason, they get used to something (takes them ages), and BAM! Something new comes out.

The different GUI's you talk about are different Shells' - hence the differnce. But, look @ KDE, Gnome, even blackbox & Enlighment - and you'll see they've all be very sparingly / marginally in changes. So, get one you like and stick to it. Heck, I can change my Windows XP to look like 3.1 as well :)


halicon said:
Understand when i making these judgments I have the common layman in mind and not admins who obviously know their stuff.

So for the sys admin who has a great understanding of Linux they can explore various GUI options etc. Like an advanced windows user may do. Strangely enough I have seen very little happening on the OSx skinning side, but it is my belief that apple carry possibly the best GUI on earth due it's simplicity and the fact they seem to be a step ahead of everyone in that regard.
Click to expand...

My 60+ year old mother in law uses Opensuse (easy to support, and has plenty games:) ), I have many non-technical clients who use Linux (a doctor, some schools, a travel agency, etc) and they love it. It works, it's stable and it's consistent. Sure, the graphics (colors, icons, etc) change a bit from time to time, but not as drastic a windows' does.

halicon said:
The common computer user needs silly things like: My Computer, My Programs ect.

Once there is a level of consistency/standard it becomes easier for support documentation ect - cuz an average user needs to point n click.
Click to expand...

Sure, they do :) You could ask any of my clients where to setup the ADSL, or configure user accounts, or even upgrade Open Office, and they'll tell how...


Kasyx said:
There's no point decorating a house if the foundations haven't even been laid :D
Click to expand...

Nice quote!
 
its weird.

i am talking about how to make Linux more accessible, better and more appealing to the mass market but of course because I am pointing out current flaws that can easily be improved i get labeled an M$ fanboi and hypocrite.

and i am only saying this because it is what i do for a living, and i do it well. But woteva... pointless trying to debate.

I do however appreciate Icyrus for understanding what i was trying to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X