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 430608
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Remember, I never said that there weren't ways to possibly upgrade apps, but these kludges are simply not suitable in a modern desktop operating system. The OS and the applications should not be so tightly bound to one another and I think the main failing here is the way libraries and resources are handled by the OS.


Hit the nail on the head. With disk space as abundant as it is today, app encapsulation is the way to go.

Actually, the overall layers of userland libraries need to first be better defined. When it comes to e.g. graphics and multimedia libraries there is no standard base. So it's an all-or-nothing approach--every library depends on every other library all the way down to the core of the system. So it makes app encapsulation quite a bit more difficult.

Reply Parent Score: 4

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Exactly! ...and if a group are going to chase after OS X for anything, it should be the way it handles applications/libraries and not simply cosmetics.

There's no reason that a Linux distro can't do this and the fact that there have been all these attempts at landing on the desktop without anyone satisfactorily solving this issue, at this late date, is kind of mind boggling.

Reply Parent Score: 1

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Hit the nail on the head. With disk space as abundant as it is today, app encapsulation is the way to go.


The deal is that with desktop becoming a less and less interesting target, reusing the already loaded libries is interesting again. It's not as much about disk space than it is about memory usage. Having multiple versions of the same library loaded at the same time eats all your RAM.

Reply Parent Score: 4

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Having multiple versions of the same library loaded at the same time eats all your RAM.


That's no longer an issue when every new laptop has at least 2 gigs.

What does Linux have to lose by moving away from the shared library system? Marketshare?

I'm really surprised by how many people are defending the status quo at this point.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Hit the nail on the head. With disk space as abundant as it is today, app encapsulation is the way to go.

Actually, the overall layers of userland libraries need to first be better defined. When it comes to e.g. graphics and multimedia libraries there is no standard base. So it's an all-or-nothing approach--every library depends on every other library all the way down to the core of the system. So it makes app encapsulation quite a bit more difficult.

You mean like the all-in-one bundles you see on OSX ? I *heavily* disagree with that. I offered a pen tablet to my girlfriend for Christmas, which came in a bundle with a photoshop elements licence. I discovered that there was no DVD in the box, it was available for download only. I then said "well, no issue". That's what I thought. But downloading 2 GB of data over a crappy Wi-fi network is a pure nightmare. After the third time the download stopped without a warning one hour after the beginning and refused to restart except by re-downloading from byte 0, I just gave up and teached her how to use GIMP, even though the OSX version belongs to the hall of shame of most crappy software ports in my opinion. Software packages are *much* easier to download when they're small.

Edited 2010-06-19 09:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Yea Gimp in OSX sucks, use Seashore.

But I would fix her wifi or plug into lan since Photoshop Elements is worth the download.

Reply Parent Score: 2