OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
Posted on 10/11/2005 6:04:05 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
That's right, I'm thinking iMac. With the Mac OS, Apple sticks to a tightly controlled upgrade path that emphasizes backward compatibility. But more importantly, Apple has the advantage of owning the hardware. A Mac always knows how to work its graphics card and its speakers, because Macintosh computers ship with a very limited selection of hardware components. No matter how many people still clamor for Mac clones, it's a strategy that has always paid off for Apple in terms of customer satisfaction.
Could it work for desktop Linux? Suppose a single vendor took the big gamble and offered the whole ball of wax: a complete desktop Linux distribution pre-installed on certified custom hardware. I don't mean a budget white box, either, but a well-crafted system designed with usability in mind, fully supported, but with the built-in cost savings of open source. Would you buy?
(Excerpt) Read more at computerworld.com.au ...
Linux developers should first get their UI to the level of OS X's before they worry about hardware control.
No matter what linux devs do, to some....... it'll never be to the level of OS X.
Just as to some it's not to the level of windows either.
Well, as long as KDE and Gnome are separate projects, you're right.
There's no reason to have separate GUIs.
I'm sorry--I gotta disagree with this. Each GUI caters to a different need/style/want. For instance, I started on Linux using KDE. I've switched to GNOME, fluxbox, and now I use Xfce exclusively. It just fits my style of programming/usage.
If there was a market for this, IBM would have already at least tried it. Instead, they sold their PC business to the Chinese government, who probably will want to try this, so you can buy it from them if you so choose. Just don't expect me to.
OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
Terp,
A tightly controlled KDE desktop can be very close to the levelof OSX..
Whats needed is for distros to make their choice, not keep throwing both of them on it. KDE and Gnome provide user choice, this is a good thing but a distor can not make it on the desktop till it decides one way or the other..
That's an exceedingly tall order.
To create something like that requires a tighter form of central control than the OpenSource community can likely agree to.
Also, most programmers are a rather utilitarian lot and go for function over form. Artsy fartsy kind of escapes us. (At least that's the category I'm in)
KDE and Gnome provide irrelevant user choice. The user does not need to decide which GUI he wants to use; the distributor should pick one, preconfigure it, and stick it in the installer. For Joe Noob, Linux currently presents TOO MANY options. Modularity is great, but not when it confuses the user group you're trying to have adopt your OS.
I'd also like to see a screenshot of that tightly-controlled KDE configuration.
I was speaking from the point of view of the n00b-ish end user.
while it's good for power users, it will limit the acceptance of linux as a mainstream OS.
Linux needs a unified, agreed upon standard desktop that will be presented to the masses. Otherwise it's just going to remain the niche desktop OS.
My antique KDE laptop screen (at one time):
and OS-X:
^^^^^^^^^^There's no reason to have separate GUIs.^^^^^^^^^^^
I disagree. One of the main reasons people choose linux is to break away from the culture microsoft has. People choose linux because they want choice. They want modularity. Some, because they just want to be different.
I've chosen KDE because I'm in control of nearly everything. I can't get that with windows. I can get that with gnome, but from what i've seen it's harder.
Besides, look at the problem MS is in. It's product has nearly gone defunct because of a lack of competition. MS hasn't cared. That's why the let IE get *BEYOND* swiss cheese and now we have spyware. That's why they had to completely re-do longhorn. Because what they planned was nothing to write home about. It was "born" before linux became the threat it is now. Now MS is trying to be much more nimble because they realize there's competition.
^^^^^^^^^^Also, most programmers are a rather utilitarian lot and go for function over form.^^^^^^^
I hope linux devs never put looks over functionality as apple has.
^^^^^^^^^^Linux's GUI development has stalled for a long time mainly because programmers didn't care.^^^^^^^^^^
Not quite. It "stalled" because they worked on the things you didn't see.
They made sure they *didn't* push out a unfinished 10.0 release and went right for 10.2.(if you catch my drift)
Apple's top priority has been what you do see. That's why their server performance is horrible.
I'll reply to both your posts here.
Regarding separate GUIs: I was speaking from the point of view of the end user. To Joe Blow, there's no difference between KDE and Gnome--hell, Joe Blow won't even know what they are. Joe Blow thinks a computer is the desktop and some programs. His concept of "multiple desktops" means more than one PC. KDE and Gnome might have good reasons for existing separately, but simultaneously are holding Linux back from the desktop.
Regarding Apple: yes, OS X's server performance is horrible, but what relevance does that have to a discussion about GUI design? None, that's what. OS X is great on laptops, and it's an ideal workstation OS for businesses: just stick some Mac Minis or iMacs in those cubicles, load Mac Office on them, and you're golden.
^^^^^^^^^^^I was speaking from the point of view of the end user.^^^^^^^^^^^^
Saying that joe user has no interest in KDE, or gnome, windows, mac, etc.... sounds to me like he'd have no interest in chevy, honda, cadillac, GMC, BMW, and so on.
No choice is just as bad as too much choice.
People won't be interested in what they don't know exists.
It's one thing to say that (x distro) needs to decide on (x window manager) That I agree with. Suse is KDE based, it should drop gnome all together. Red Hat(fedora) is Gnome based. It should drop KDE altogether. But to say that the two should merge and become one, one should die, or whatever is silly.
^^^^^^^^^^^^yes, OS X's server performance is horrible, but what relevance does that have to a discussion about GUI design?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It shows Apple's priorities. That's why they aren't gaining marketshare.(one of the reasons, there are many)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.