I’ve tried several distros, I’ve tried the big ones like Suse, Freespire, Fedora, I’ve tried Vector, DSL and Knoppix… ans some I probably forgot… ubuntu is the only one that stayed on my laptop for 2 years, the only one that really worked… and it worked out of the box for me. It’s a great base to work on, and in fact I think that is what people are doing, reinventing gnome, getting one step further, but that is not going to happen over night…
#Mame os x gui how to
I mean if he’s got some ideas on how to improve it why not write them in the ubuntu forums?Īnyway… the article seems to say: “human beings are stupid, hence we need an OS that is stupid”Īnd of course esthetics are always very subjective… but enlightenment is definetely not looking better than gnome… just because it’s got some effects… gnome is IMHO one of the most usable and consistend desktops, even better than mac os, for some things.
So ubuntu is all wrong… sure, ubuntu is maybe not the best solution, a lot of things may (and should) be changed… but I don’t understand why the author has to attack it like this. Just recently, but we are talking about ‘what if’-s here… (Of course, I am talking about E17 here.) Only looking 200% better and being 200% faster (may be an understatement). I don’t remember anything that I saw on my default Dapper desktop that I couldn’t find in E, aside from the icons of mounted devices. It is a window manager, not the whole system, so if the programs are there, what difference does it make? It has a taskbar, a clock, workplace switcher, etc. I fail to see the problem with Enlightenment (I do not know Mezzo).
#Mame os x gui windows
Usability testing also can’t make up for a lack of options tested–sure, x may be better than y, but who cares if they’re both terrible? For example, you could compare Windows XP (or Vista) to OS X and come out with the conclusion that one is easier to use than the other, but that doesn’t matter in the slightest because neither is particularly well designed. Among other things, it’s almost impossible to test anything other than initial easy of use, which is basically useless unless you expect your users to only use it once.
Until those are ported and supported by the vendor themselves, the OSS alternatives will remain the focus of all the development and, where available, monetary support. If you want closed source apps on Linux, you approach the vendor. The author needs to spend some more time investigating what OSS is all about, how it all works, and generally why that statement is so ridiculous. I am shocked by this whole post this paragraph summarises how limited the author’s knowledge is. Someone needs to raise the bar and sink some cash in to Wine so that MS Office (All versions) and Photoshop (All versions) will run on Linux as if they were native Linux apps. KDE and Gnome have come a long way in the past 12 months, with both projects developing at a fast rate and in some places evolving beyond what their closed source counterparts offer.Įqually ridiculous is telling someone who spent four years at University obtaining a degree using Photoshop to ‘switch’ to The Gimp which is ‘similar’. The author needs to spend time reviewing all the usability testing conducted by Novell watch the videos and see just how joe public reacts to a linux DE. So this person believes they could sit a secretary down in front of Enlightenment or Mezzo and get them to be productive?! KDE and Gnome are now very mature DEs with so much to offer in terms of consistency, great applications and well thought out technical architecture. With no current satisfactory solutions available Ubuntu should have either created their own Desktop Environment or, better still, invested some of its millions of development dollars into one of the projects such as Enlightenment, Mezzo or the Sun sponsored Project Looking Glass.
0 kommentar(er)
