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 430679
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Improvements to Linux?
by anda_skoa on Sat 19th Jun 2010 16:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Improvements to Linux?"
Member since:

"I don't really have any naggles with the default DEs; while I don't like KDE4 it still does suite some others, and I do like GNOME even as it is.

But what do I do have a naggle with? Well...X taking all the applications down with it if it crashes! That's STILL one of the most annoying things about Linux desktops and even though it doesn't happen often it still DOES happen.

Right enough. This is sadly an architectural defect of the Linux desktop

Actually wrong..
It is not an architectural defect, it is something the current implementations do not (yet?) take advantage of.

A server/client system is an architecture which implicitly isolates processes through the use of a communication channel.

A webserver crashing does usually not affect browser badly (though there are probably different levels on how good connection loss is handled).

Current X client library implementations make the applications exit (they do not crash) when the X connection is lost.
Browsers could do the same when losing their HTTP connection. X apps could do the same as browser.

The architecture does not enforce either reaction, it is the choice of the client implementors how to react on loss of server connection.

I don't want to claim that there is no problem, but it is just wrong to blame the architecture when this very architecture's properties is isolation of separated concerns.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Improvements to Linux?
by ndrw on Sat 19th Jun 2010 17:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Improvements to Linux?"
ndrw Member since:

X (unlike HTTP) is a stateful protocol. A client opens a session and talks to the server. If the server dies, the session is lost, and so is its state (windows, pixmaps, cursors, fonts, inputs etc.).

Yes, one could somehow implement a stateless mechanism by tracking all the state changes in the client, so that if the connection is lost the client has an option to retry it or to use another server. But that would require either changing the protocol and clients or using a wrapper (an intermediate server like Xvnc) and suffer the performance hit.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Improvements to Linux?
by siride on Sat 19th Jun 2010 21:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Improvements to Linux?"
siride Member since:

They only suffer a performance hit when they have to reconnect, which is fine because the goal there is simply to get back to where you were, not to do it seamlessly fast. The fact of the matter is, clients *do* know pretty much everything they need to know to restore their state. The toolkits have an entire client-side hierarchy of objects that represents useful state. Regenerating the few bits needed on the server should be trivial. And if the app really can't handle the server crashing, then it can just exit gracefully (that is, stay alive long enough to reconnect, then give the user a useful error message, save state somewhere and exit).

Reply Parent Score: 2