4 ms·

If you want to go mainstream, anybody's gorilla is your gorilla. There's no reason why you can't innovate along the way, but it's pretty clear to me that if Li

by aston 18y ago

If you want to go mainstream, anybody's gorilla is your gorilla. There's no reason why you can't innovate along the way, but it's pretty clear to me that if Linux is ever to make any inroads into non-geek circles, it'll need a familiar interface.

newt0311 18y ago
But that is my point exactly. Why is making inroads into the non-geek circles such a high priority? Most of the cash comes from voluntary donations and some very rare instances of funding. Most of the work performed on Linux kernel and associated software is not done for profit. What if the devs working on kde right now instead started to contribute to integrating reiser4 into the kernel or building up btrfs or suspend support or any of the dozens of possible improvements to the linux kernel directly beneficial to the devs themselves? It could have some interesting effects.
- hs 18y ago
  i don't think i want to use os which kernel is designed by ui-programmer or its ui designed by kernel-programmer i think the beauty of open source is you can work on what you love, even if it's not efficient
hs 18y ago
osx, by definition, is no familiar (aka not windows) i see a lot of "make Windows looks like Mac OS X" from google or even "make Linux look like Mac OS X" i believe I've never seen the reverse (OSX->xp or even OSX->linux) to me linux is copying the wrong model, her role model should be osx
- halo 18y ago
  That's at least partially because you can make Windows and Linux look like Mac OS X, but there's no practical way of making Mac OS X look like Windows or Linux.
  - unalone 18y ago
    I think that if you made something that made Mac OS X look like one or the other, very few people would bite. OS X has the most beautiful aesthetic of any computer I know. But it's not just the looks that matter. It's the functionality. You don't have a taskbar and an in-window menu bar. You have a dock and a top menu. And that's the best system I've ever worked with. You can't copy that over to Windows or Linux effectively, either. If a Linux distro was smart, it would emulate OS X rather than Windows, because fundamentally, the design is more efficient and more usable. As long as they copy Windows they're at a disadvantage.
    - halo 18y ago
      >I think that if you made something that made Mac OS X look like one or the other, very few people would bite. Only the absolute minority of people make their Windows or Linux machines to look like Mac OS X either - you're looking at a minority of enthusiasts using the fringes of operating system functionality and you're pointing to that as definitive proof that something is better. To me, that's outright flawed, especially when there are core software limitations that prevent you from imitating the Windows or GNOME UIs in Mac OS X. You can have a top-menu and a dock in Linux - there's pre-built tools that let you do that (e.g. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/global_menu https://wiki.ubuntu.com/global_menu, activate the MacStyle menu setting in KDE, combine them with a dock app like Avant Window Navigator). Only an small minority of people use them and it's not very well supported because of it, but it's certainly possible. The Linux desktop is incredibly configurable. Note that I haven't actually stated my personal opinion on the matter at all so far. I think you're suffering from a case of self-confirmation bias.
      - unalone 18y ago
        Did I act like you stated your personal opinion? Sorry if it seemed that way. You can have that in Linux, but it's one thing for it to be possible and another for it to be the out-of-the-box default. It's the problem with choice: it's confusing and it takes time and other programs don't configure to the same standards.

by aston 18y ago

newt0311 18y ago

But that is my point exactly. Why is making inroads into the non-geek circles such a high priority? Most of the cash comes from voluntary donations and some very rare instances of funding. Most of the work performed on Linux kernel and associated software is not done for profit. What if the devs working on kde right now instead started to contribute to integrating reiser4 into the kernel or building up btrfs or suspend support or any of the dozens of possible improvements to the linux kernel directly beneficial to the devs themselves? It could have some interesting effects.

hs 18y ago
i don't think i want to use os which kernel is designed by ui-programmer or its ui designed by kernel-programmer i think the beauty of open source is you can work on what you love, even if it's not efficient

hs 18y ago

osx, by definition, is no familiar (aka not windows) i see a lot of "make Windows looks like Mac OS X" from google or even "make Linux look like Mac OS X" i believe I've never seen the reverse (OSX->xp or even OSX->linux) to me linux is copying the wrong model, her role model should be osx

halo 18y ago
That's at least partially because you can make Windows and Linux look like Mac OS X, but there's no practical way of making Mac OS X look like Windows or Linux.
- unalone 18y ago
  I think that if you made something that made Mac OS X look like one or the other, very few people would bite. OS X has the most beautiful aesthetic of any computer I know. But it's not just the looks that matter. It's the functionality. You don't have a taskbar and an in-window menu bar. You have a dock and a top menu. And that's the best system I've ever worked with. You can't copy that over to Windows or Linux effectively, either. If a Linux distro was smart, it would emulate OS X rather than Windows, because fundamentally, the design is more efficient and more usable. As long as they copy Windows they're at a disadvantage.
  - halo 18y ago
    >I think that if you made something that made Mac OS X look like one or the other, very few people would bite. Only the absolute minority of people make their Windows or Linux machines to look like Mac OS X either - you're looking at a minority of enthusiasts using the fringes of operating system functionality and you're pointing to that as definitive proof that something is better. To me, that's outright flawed, especially when there are core software limitations that prevent you from imitating the Windows or GNOME UIs in Mac OS X. You can have a top-menu and a dock in Linux - there's pre-built tools that let you do that (e.g. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/global_menu https://wiki.ubuntu.com/global_menu, activate the MacStyle menu setting in KDE, combine them with a dock app like Avant Window Navigator). Only an small minority of people use them and it's not very well supported because of it, but it's certainly possible. The Linux desktop is incredibly configurable. Note that I haven't actually stated my personal opinion on the matter at all so far. I think you're suffering from a case of self-confirmation bias.
    - unalone 18y ago
      Did I act like you stated your personal opinion? Sorry if it seemed that way. You can have that in Linux, but it's one thing for it to be possible and another for it to be the out-of-the-box default. It's the problem with choice: it's confusing and it takes time and other programs don't configure to the same standards.