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.
Thread beginning with comment 430565
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
chris_l
Member since:
2010-02-14

The problem with all these so called experts who are trying to "improve" the Linux desktop is that they believe they know what's best for users. Sorry. Users know what's best for themselves and that's why I love Linux. I can have it my way; you can have it your way and we're both happy. Why does there have to be a standard? For newbies? Sorry I don't buy that excuse. There are plenty of distros that cater to Windows refugees by theming the Linux desktop to resemble XP, Vista or even old Win9x. There are also distros that cater to the Mac look and feel. Gnome and KDE default setups are pretty intutive in their own right so why even resort to theming? Half of these so called "easy" distros are Ubuntu re-spins, the other half Debian so compatibility with the most popular software is there. In the meantime, leave my distro alone!



Couldn't have put it better myself. The real problem here is that the *VAST MAJORITY* of these so-called UI experts are leeches trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of the linux community.

Reply Parent Score: 3

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Couldn't have put it better myself. The real problem here is that the *VAST MAJORITY* of these so-called UI experts are leeches trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of the linux community.


I wouldn't be that mean. When you compare a well configured GNOME with a well maintained Linux distribution the difference as so far as UI consistency it is no worse than Windows. Sure, it is no 'Mac OS X' but I sit back and laugh when I hear people try to claim that some how the OSS UI is far behind the times.

What is wrong as so far as the desktop from my stand point is the incompleteness; KDE still using HAL, projects that use HAL aren't moving (check out GIMP, HAL being deprecated and the GIMP programmer who literally told the GNOME project to go f-ck themselves as one example), the fact that GNOME applications aren't having their bugs fixed and are too rigidly bound to Linux with patches to support alternative operating systems being turned down (there is a reason why *BSD's and OpenSolaris maintain so many custom patches). So it is the underlying infrastructure that is the problem, not the presentation.

As for the rest, OpenOffice.org is simply horrible, here I am in 2010 and they still don't support chicago style citations for christ sake - it is things like that that hold back student adoption that blocks out an avenue which would have otherwise won over an end user for life. The UI is ascetic unpleasing and yes when something isn't attractive it doesn't help the usability or the productivity either. But again, that is outside the perspective of KDE and GNOME given that OpenOffice.org is an entirely different project altogether (I always got the impression though from the likes of Minguel that he wished there was something better).

But back to the article; what is the focus of these UI improvements? there seems to be a small group of people who are hell bent on wanting to take over the world who actually do zero in the way of real programming. On the other hand there are those who do the heavy lifting who aren't interested in taking over the world, simply working on what they want for their own benefit. Until those who make the grandiose visions of world conquest actually contribute to the development of what needs to be developed there will always be this situation that exists today.

As for what I'd like to see, FreeBSD + Better hardware support + KDE that hooks into the FreeBSD system features instead of relying on HAL. If that was delivered tomorrow it would be good bye Apple, hello 'hypothetically desktop operating system'. What I demand from an OS isn't unrealistic, it is depressing how such an easy goal cannot be achieved ;)

Edited 2010-06-19 09:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

As for what I'd like to see, FreeBSD + Better hardware support + KDE that hooks into the FreeBSD system features instead of relying on HAL.


Just to avoid misunderstandings.

KDE does not rely on HAL.

HAL is one possible way to access data about the system KDE is running on, i.e. there is a KDE platform plugin that accesses the D-Bus API usually provided by HAL.

Therefore there are two options on how to get system data from other facilities:
- implement the HAL D-Bus interface and use KDE's HAL plugin
- implement a KDE plugin for this other system facility

Option two is probably the better choice, especially in the face of HAL having been abandoned/deprecated by its own developers.

Reply Parent Score: 3