Linked by David Adams on Fri 18th Jun 2010 19:17 UTC
Linux Linux Magazine has a profile of Daniel Fore and the Elementary project. Elementary is a Linux distro that's committed to a clean and simple user experience, but it's more than a distro - it's actually a multi-pronged effort to make improvements to the user experience for a whole ecosystem of components, including icons, a GTK theme, Midori improvements, Nautilus, and even Firefox. The work that elementary is doing isn't limited to their own distro, and some of their work is available in current, and perhaps future, Ubuntu releases. The results are really striking, and I think it's probably the handsomest Linux UI I've ever seen.
Permalink for comment 430739
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

pointing at other OS's flaws doesnt solve yours

First of all, I have already addressed the alleged Linux package upgrade issue elsewhere in this thread. I am not going to repeat myself just because someone doesn't bother to read.

Secondly, the OP stated that Linux is "not ready for mass consumption," which presumes that some other OS is ready for mass consumption. I was merely highlighting the flaw in this reasoning.

OSX and Windows are in many ways less "ready for mass consumption" than Linux.


Windows and OSX are not perfect, of course, but those two OS's are the ones the majority of users actually use despite minor annoyances like this, because they have all the applications already(users want to use applications, not the OS itself) while linux has got OpenOffice and some other horizontal applications (though there's web browsers aplenty) but when it comes to specialized professional grade vertical applications, there's very few to none of them available ( and even in those cases, for specific - sometimes outdated, versions of specific distributions )

Congratulations for posting the second longest run-on in OSNews history!

Windows and OSX are far from perfect, and neither is any better than Linux.

The majority of use Windows, because that is the OS to which they are exposed, not because Windows has applications that Linux doesn't. The same assertion applies to OSX, although I would argue that it is possible that there are more Linux desktops in the world compared to OSX desktops.

Furthermore, I dispute that Windows and OSX have a pool of professional "vertical" applications that Linux/open-source doesn't offer. Certainly, Windows, OSX and Linux "out-do" each other on an individual program basis, but one OS does not dominate over another in terms of which has the best professional-quality applications. If you doubt this claim, perhaps you would care to list the Windows/OSX apps which have no better in Linux/open-source.


this is the crux of the problem

No. The crux of the problem is lack of marketing and anti-Linux FUD, which is surprisingly parroted by posters on this forum who should know better.


the vast majority of people would rather settle with something that *works*, has as many features that they need, as possible, and possibly stable API's (so that third party developers can give them the *applications* they need), than be willing to choose among hundreds of different distros (incompatible with each other) just to get one unique or incredible feature but sacrificing on fundamental requirements such as overall functionality and stability

Wow. That's the third longest run-on in OSNews history!

The vast majority of people settle on to what they have been exposed -- it has nothing to do with quality of programs nor availability of advanced features (which most will never use).

There are plenty of applications for Linux, and I can't think of a single, userland Linux program that cannot be ported to all Linux distros that use Xorg.

By the way, what is the point of mentioning that Linux distros are incompatible with each other? Even if such a claim were completely true, what do you have to compare it to in the Windows/OSX world? The Windows/OSX world doesn't have incompatible distros, because they don't have differing distros. Such amazing variety (with some distros possessing unique features) is a strength of Linux that Windows/OSX will never have.

For instance, with Linux, I can quickly and easily boot a fully function OS from a CD, DVD, USB stick, zip drive, SDHC card, etc, and all data that I create can be saved back to the CD, DVD, USB, zip, SDHC etc. I can travel with all of my applications and data on my key chain, and the OS will boot on most computers with the exact same user configuration.

Another example: without knowing about the internal workings of the OS, I can use a GUI that will easily create my own specialty distro, catered to a specific purpose, such as point-of-sale kiosks, graphics/photo editing, Pro Audio/Video editing, etc. Try to do that on Windows/OSX!


also, development wise, consolidating a platform in a certain application field, and adapting it to operate in other fields are not mutually exclusive things (in fact, they're orthogonal aspects) and certainly it shouldn't need different distributions to refine feature richness and suitability in the same application field (namely, the desktop), since such refinement may well happen upstream and all distributions benefit from it equally - but this would make all desktop distributions (mutually compatible) clones of each other, diminishing any competitive advantage one may have against the others, so it's not in the distributions' interest to make that happen (although it would be in the users' interest)

Congratulations! This sentence is THE longest run-on in OSNews history! I am proud to have it as a response to one of my posts!

Certainly, Linux can be as general or as specialized as one prefers.

One problem with proprietary OSs is that is that they can't specialize with any efficiency, because the general OS cruft will still run in the binary blob. So, with Windows and OSX, one still needs full hardware resources for an entire bloated graphical OS, even if one is merely trying to make a garage door opener that is actuated by a cell phone ( http://www.aboutdebian.com/x10.htm ) or if one is trying to build a super computer to do highly advanced fusion reaction calculations, etc.


GoboLinux does away with package management and dependency hell - but it's known for suffering from "symlink hell" otoh

There is no "hell" with the symlinks, unless the hidden existence of symlinks bother you.


simplifying the directory structure and putting some common sense in it (third party applications each in its own directory isn't "the windows way", it's just logical) is all fine and dandy, but it clashes with a plethora of unix userland sw developed with unix paths in mind (or, often times, hardcoded)

The reason for the symlinks is because some of the larger packages are hard-coded with *nix directory structure. It is not a problem that is inherent in the concept. Again, it is all hidden and does not affect performance.


... so when you'll give her a new webcam for christmas, she'll be able to install it herself with just a few mouse clicks (setup-> next->next->finish), or she'll rather have to open the cli and type some obscure commands (or worse yet, wait for you to come and setup it for her) ?

As one of the other posters mentioned, I would choose a webcam that has Linux drivers. Linux cannot be blamed if the manufacturers omit the necessary drivers and don't provide any information on how to make the drivers.

Reply Parent Score: 1