Linux: "looks quite amateurish"
DFS
November 17th, 2008 at 9:35 am
So the most important issue Linux has to solve on the desktop is qualitative
software because in many cases it still unfortunately looks quite amateurish
(especially the GUI, i.e. totem). That's the very first thing normal users
notice, but something that Linux fans often fail to admit."
http://www.thevarguy.com/2008/11/17/dell-continues-newspaper-ads-for-ubuntu-linux-laptop/
Hadron
"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:
Well, if you ignore the reading of "amateurish" as "crap" one would hope
it does look like the work of amateurs since they are indeed amateurs
most of the time.
Cork Soaker
DooFuS can't read.
chrisv
>>
>> Well, if you ignore the reading of "amateurish" as "crap" one would hope
>> it does look like the work of amateurs since they are indeed amateurs
>> most of the time.
Huh? Most OSS programmers are professional programmers, Quack, you
stupid, snotty asshole.
What, you think programmers skilled-enough to code the Linux kernel
and core applications make their livings as plumbers, or something?
--
"Linux is currently going nowhere on the desktop." - "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark
ray
That would be one person's opinion. My opinion would be that the typical
Gnome layout looks (and is) much more professional than MS - which looks
quite 'cartoonish' by comparison. Linux just assumes the average user is
not a total idiot.
DFS
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:25:14 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> "jimmy Says:
>>
>> November 17th, 2008 at 9:35 am
>> So the most important issue Linux has to solve on the desktop is
>> qualitative software because in many cases it still unfortunately
>> looks quite amateurish (especially the GUI, i.e. totem). That's the
>> very first thing normal users notice, but something that Linux fans
>> often fail to admit."
>>
>> http://www.thevarguy.com/2008/11/17/dell-continues-newspaper-ads-for-
>> ubuntu-linux-laptop/
>
> That would be one person's opinion.
But samples of one are what cola "advocates*" use to prove L
innnnnnnnnnnuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxx
jjjjjjjjuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuussstttttttttttt wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwoooo
rrrrkkkkkkkkkkkksssssssssssssss.
> My opinion would be that the
> typical Gnome layout looks (and is) much more professional than MS -
> which looks quite 'cartoonish' by comparison. Linux just assumes the
> average user is not a total idiot.
Show us by example, raytard. I cannot think of a single Linux app that
looks more polished/professional than the common commercial counterpart.
Not one.
ray
Curious - I can't readily think of one that looks any less polished. The
desktop itself is certainly a lot more polished.
TomB
> Show us by example, raytard. I cannot think of a single Linux app that
> looks more polished/professional than the common commercial counterpart.
> Not one.
Define "looking professional".
Now take a look at these Ardour screenshots and tell me exactly what
isn't professional about it:
http://www.drumscum.be/stuff/ardour1.png
http://www.drumscum.be/stuff/ardour2.png
But then again, "looking professional" doesn't say anything about the
software's quality. It's all about what you are able get out of it.
~ Tommy
--
Life is a sexually transmitted disease.
~ R.D. Laing
Hadron
TomB <tommy.b...@gmail.com> writes:
Ardour is an impressive piece of SW. But like most OSS it's piss poor
documentation lets it down. From its very own *online* manual page
(there is no manual installed on Debian when you install Ardour):
http://www.ardour.org/files/manual/index.html
,----
| Before you read the Ardour manual ...
|
| ... we want to let you know that it is extremely incomplete, incoherent and often out of date
`----
So it dooms itself to "also ran" from the off for any company looking
for a digital mixing solution.
An incomplete, incoherent and out of date manual frequently indicates a
poorly planned and implemented project. Not being totally familiar with
Ardour I can not comment on that but I can say that the first thing
people look at is the manual and this manual has "go elsewhere" stamped
all over it for the vast majority of people doing due diligence on which
application to invest time and effort, and therefore cash and resources,
into.
TomB
> Ardour is an impressive piece of SW. But (...) it's piss poor
> documentation lets it down.
You're right about this. I cannot deny that. For me personally the
rather poor manual is not an issue, but I can imagine that it's a big
no-go to a lot of people.
A pity really. I wish I had some time to invest in the manual myself
:-(
~ Tommy
--
Respect the cock... and tame the cunt! Tame it!
~ Frank T.J. Mackie
Hadron
> On 2008-11-19, Hadron was urged to write the following:
>
>> Ardour is an impressive piece of SW. But (...) it's piss poor
>> documentation lets it down.
>
> You're right about this. I cannot deny that. For me personally the
> rather poor manual is not an issue, but I can imagine that it's a big
> no-go to a lot of people.
>
> A pity really. I wish I had some time to invest in the manual myself
> :-(
>
> ~ Tommy
It's the same as the "hard miles" which need to be done to design and
implement a consistent UI for most programmers. Once the interesting
work is done they drift off. It's what lets most OSS down. The best OSS
SW is created by paid for professionals. Witness Firefox for
example. The programmers HAVE to abide by standards and provide correct
documentation or provide document frameworks for the Documentation team
or they dont get paid or their bonuses.
We see this time and time again. I invested a bit of time in Nvu only to
find it was a bunch of promises and buggy inconsistent approach to web
publishing. The it was abandoned.
There are, of course, some excellent and complete OSS solutions.
TomB
> implement a consistent UI for most programmers. Once the interesting
> work is done they drift off. It's what lets most OSS down. The best OSS
> SW is created by paid for professionals.
I don't agree. The entire FreeBSD base system for instance is
maintained by unpaid professionals. And that's a hell of a system.
With an excellent handbook and other documentation.
GNU/Linux itself also was largely created by unpaid programmers.
Documentation is more scattered here though.
The Apache web server is another widely used example.
There are a bunch of free/open software applications that are used on
a daily basis by *a lot* of professionals, all created by a community
of mostly unpaid programmers.
> Witness Firefox for
> example. The programmers HAVE to abide by standards and provide correct
> documentation or provide document frameworks for the Documentation team
> or they dont get paid or their bonuses.
I love Firefox. It a great example of how open source can be really
successfull.
> We see this time and time again. I invested a bit of time in Nvu only to
> find it was a bunch of promises and buggy inconsistent approach to web
> publishing. The it was abandoned.
I just downloaded and installed Kompozer, based on Nvu. I think it's a
really neat piece of software for people who like that kind of thing.
Still doesn't makes me wanting to drop vim though ;-)
> There are, of course, some excellent and complete OSS solutions.
Yes. Not some. A lot.
~ Tommy
--
In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!' And
there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole
lot better.
~ Ellen DeGeneres
Hadron
> On 2008-11-19, Hadron was urged to write the following:
>> It's the same as the "hard miles" which need to be done to design and
>> implement a consistent UI for most programmers. Once the interesting
>> work is done they drift off. It's what lets most OSS down. The best OSS
>> SW is created by paid for professionals.
>
> I don't agree. The entire FreeBSD base system for instance is
> maintained by unpaid professionals. And that's a hell of a system.
> With an excellent handbook and other documentation.
Please define base system: I think the Linux base system is excellent
too. I am referring primarily to the GUI desktop applications.
>
> GNU/Linux itself also was largely created by unpaid programmers.
> Documentation is more scattered here though.
>
> The Apache web server is another widely used example.
The documentation is a nightmare.
>
> There are a bunch of free/open software applications that are used on
> a daily basis by *a lot* of professionals, all created by a community
> of mostly unpaid programmers.
I know. I did not say ALL are rubbish.
>
>> Witness Firefox for
>> example. The programmers HAVE to abide by standards and provide correct
>> documentation or provide document frameworks for the Documentation team
>> or they dont get paid or their bonuses.
>
> I love Firefox. It a great example of how open source can be really
> successfull.
Yes. I agree. And why I mentioned it. It is also created by professional
programmers.
>
>> We see this time and time again. I invested a bit of time in Nvu only to
>> find it was a bunch of promises and buggy inconsistent approach to web
>> publishing. The it was abandoned.
>
> I just downloaded and installed Kompozer, based on Nvu. I think it's a
> really neat piece of software for people who like that kind of thing.
>
> Still doesn't makes me wanting to drop vim though ;-)
NVu was such a mess I finally moved to using emacs and nxhtml mode.
>
>> There are, of course, some excellent and complete OSS solutions.
>
> Yes. Not some. A lot.
>
> ~ Tommy
Some can be a lot. But its not really a lot either. You mentioned the
good SW - apache, firefix. I would add Gimp, mysql, emacs. I do not like
the Apache documentation. and try to get help from the Apache folks if
you use Debian - not a hope. Why? Distro hello. Debian changes the
install patterns.
--
"It explains a lot. I've not heard of anyone I know, anywhere, buying XP,
and I've not seen it sold whilst I've been in any shops."
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
Wow. A nice post by Hadron. It's not 100% true:
1. Can you really call the GNU guys who work on gcc, for example, "paid"?
2. Nvu is apparently not dead, in spite of Xandros (cough cough):
http://net2.com/nvu/about.html
Linspire abandoned the Nvu project when it was sold to Xandros in
2008. Fortunately, Fabien Cazenave picked up the project and started
updating Nvu under the name Kompozer. Both Nvu and Kompozer versions
can be found on our Download page.
But Hadron seems to be correct: Latest stable version: 0.7.10 (2007-08-30)
So, a Hadron post that makes a reasonable case in a civil manner.
<polite applause>
--
Amoebit:
Amoeba/rabbit cross; it can multiply and divide at the same time.
DFS
Yet you can't show me one example. That is curious.
> The desktop itself is certainly a lot more polished.
Spare me, please. Gnome is a visual abomination.
DFS
> On 2008-11-19, DFS was urged to write the following:
>
>> Show us by example, raytard. I cannot think of a single Linux app
>> that looks more polished/professional than the common commercial
>> counterpart. Not one.
>
> Define "looking professional".
>
> Now take a look at these Ardour screenshots and tell me exactly what
> isn't professional about it:
>
> http://www.drumscum.be/stuff/ardour1.png
> http://www.drumscum.be/stuff/ardour2.png
I didn't say every Linux/OSS app looks unprofessional, though most do.
ardour looks pretty good in your screenshots, but as usual the OSS app can't
hold a candle to the commercial system - in this case ProTools.
> But then again, "looking professional" doesn't say anything about the
> software's quality. It's all about what you are able get out of it.
Yes. And the interface and design helps you get more out of the tool.
Fingel
Gnome-terminal vs cmd.exe
No contest.
--
3A:29
dawhead
> TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On 2008-11-19, Hadron was urged to write the following:
>
> >> Ardour is an impressive piece of SW. But (...) it's piss poor
> >> documentation lets it down.
>
> > You're right about this. I cannot deny that. For me personally the
> > rather poor manual is not an issue, but I can imagine that it's a big
> > no-go to a lot of people.
>
> > A pity really. I wish I had some time to invest in the manual myself
> > :-(
>
> > ~ Tommy
>
> It's the same as the "hard miles" which need to be done to design and
> implement a consistent UI for most programmers. Once the interesting
> work is done they drift off. It's what lets most OSS down. The best OSS
> SW is created by paid for professionals.
Yeah. Hell Yeah. Hallelujah.
Except that in this case, its totally and utterly wrong. I am the
primary author of ardour. I am the primary contributor to the piss-
poor manual that it currently has. I am the author of the cited
webpage that decries the manual's contents as "incoherent and
incomplete". I've been working on the program for 8 years. The
"interesting stuff" is never going to go away. But guess what - when I
do actually get paid, its never for a manual. Every month some bright
and eager person shows up to announce that they will write stuff for
the manual. To date, it has never happened. Users don't write manuals,
and users don't pay programmers to write manuals. So who is going to
write the manual?
As far as user documentation being part of what ensures a consistent
UI, I think you're wrong about that too. Consistent UI's come from
software design, and software design is rarely exposed in user
documentation. The tech writer(s) notice(s) that button2 is used
inconsistently or that ctrl-alt-click doesn't always apply to the mix
group? Great. So do all our IRC-based beta testers. The problem is the
man-hours to fix such issues, and yes, such issues show in software
written by "paid for professionals" too. BTW, do you think the users
who pay me every month consider me a paid-for professional, or another
fly by night OSS hacker who will drop the ball when the interesting
stuff is done.
Enjoy Ardour 2.7, out today. The manual is still crap.
dawhead
> TomB wrote:
> > On 2008-11-19, DFS was urged to write the following:
>
> >> Show us by example, raytard. I cannot think of a single Linux app
> >> that looks more polished/professional than the common commercial
> >> counterpart. Not one.
>
> > Define "looking professional".
>
> > Now take a look at these Ardour screenshots and tell me exactly what
> > isn't professional about it:
>
> >http://www.drumscum.be/stuff/ardour1.png
> >http://www.drumscum.be/stuff/ardour2.png
>
> I didn't say every Linux/OSS app looks unprofessional, though most do.
> ardour looks pretty good in your screenshots, but as usual the OSS app can't
> hold a candle to the commercial system - in this case ProTools.
>
well gosh darnit. we failed to catch up with the very latest version
of ProTools. oh but wait, that screenshot is actually dominated by
some cool plugins that AREN'T ACTUALLY PART OF PROTOOLS at all!
lets see how ardour looks when we pull off that trick:
http://ardour.org/files/ardour_au.png
hmm, ok, so there are some aesthetic differences and even i would
admit that the new PT looks *very* nice. but some people actually
prefer our aesthetics and ultimately that part is a bit of a wash.
wait, what's that? I cheated? i showed you a screenshot from OS X?
what do you expect me to do when the makers of those plugins refuse to
provide versions for linux? pull of some kind of ridiculously hard
magic trick where we run plugins written for another operating system
on linux?
oh yes, you mean like this: http://pollycoke.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/ardour-vst.png
(thats a notably older version of ardour in the background).
hmm, hang on, you want to know where you can download that? first
you'd better call steinberg/yamaha and get them to fix up their VST
license so that people can distribute GPL'ed apps with VST support as
binaries.
till then, enjoy that shiny new PT interface, its very good looking.
remind me how much you paid for that again?
> > But then again, "looking professional" doesn't say anything about the
> > software's quality. It's all about what you are able get out of it.
>
> Yes. And the interface and design helps you get more out of the tool.
which is why ardour's editing workflow has been designed by a guy who
(a) teaches audio editing (b) has years as an audio editor (c) knows
PT and Logic inside out (c) got the chance to redesign things based on
his experience of both of those systems. different? a bit. faster?
absolutely.
TomB
> Yeah. Hell Yeah. Hallelujah.
>
> Except that in this case, its totally and utterly wrong. I am the
> primary author of ardour. I am the primary contributor to the piss-
> poor manual that it currently has. I am the author of the cited
> webpage that decries the manual's contents as "incoherent and
> incomplete". I've been working on the program for 8 years. The
> "interesting stuff" is never going to go away. But guess what - when I
> do actually get paid, its never for a manual. Every month some bright
> and eager person shows up to announce that they will write stuff for
> the manual. To date, it has never happened. Users don't write manuals,
> and users don't pay programmers to write manuals. So who is going to
> write the manual?
>
> As far as user documentation being part of what ensures a consistent
> UI, I think you're wrong about that too. Consistent UI's come from
> software design, and software design is rarely exposed in user
> documentation. The tech writer(s) notice(s) that button2 is used
> inconsistently or that ctrl-alt-click doesn't always apply to the mix
> group? Great. So do all our IRC-based beta testers. The problem is the
> man-hours to fix such issues, and yes, such issues show in software
> written by "paid for professionals" too. BTW, do you think the users
> who pay me every month consider me a paid-for professional, or another
> fly by night OSS hacker who will drop the ball when the interesting
> stuff is done.
>
> Enjoy Ardour 2.7, out today. The manual is still crap.
Bravo!
~ Tommy
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
A great example: the Rational Enterprise Suite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Software
Rational Machines was founded by Paul Levy and Mike Devlin in 1981 to
provide tools to expand the use of modern software engineering practices,
particularly explicit modular architecture and iterative development.
Rational was sold for US$2.1 billion to IBM on February 20, 2003.
Originally developed on non-UNIX, non-Windows (obviously), it was then
reimplemented for UNIX. Then Rational hooked up with Microsoft, and, guess
what? Bought products to supplement the UML product, Rose: Requisite
(Requisite-Pro), SQA (Robot), Performance Awareness (preVue), and Pure-Atria
(Purify, ClearCase), and in 1999 the Rational Suite for Windows was birthed.
Sounds great, huh? Well, I don't think there has ever existed such a buggy,
inconsistent suite of products, with a blanc mange of user krufty and
misleading GUI interfaces, along with a powerful command-line interface.
The worst of the GUI interfaces by /far/ is for Requisite Pro, the
requirements management tool. This piece of garbage uses Microsoft Word as
its user interface, and Excel/OLE as the query tool. And you have to be
careful save your Requirements documents using a completely different Save
option, otherwise you've roached it.
Professional software indeed. I'd rather get the moribund OSRMT project
working that use that garbage. IBM got suckered on that one.
> BTW, do you think the users
> who pay me every month consider me a paid-for professional, or another
> fly by night OSS hacker who will drop the ball when the interesting
> stuff is done.
>
> Enjoy Ardour 2.7, out today. The manual is still crap.
Well, Hadron is still crap, too.
--
If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car
payments.
-- Earl Wilson
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Nov 20, 5:27 am, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> TomB wrote:
>> > On 2008-11-19, DFS was urged to write the following:
>>
>> >> Show us by example, raytard. I cannot think of a single Linux app
>> >> that looks more polished/professional than the common commercial
>> >> counterpart. Not one.
>>
>> > Define "looking professional".
>>
>> > Now take a look at these Ardour screenshots and tell me exactly what
>> > isn't professional about it:
>>
>> >http://www.drumscum.be/stuff/ardour1.png
>> >http://www.drumscum.be/stuff/ardour2.png
>>
>> I didn't say every Linux/OSS app looks unprofessional, though most do.
>> ardour looks pretty good in your screenshots, but as usual the OSS app can't
>> hold a candle to the commercial system - in this case ProTools.
>>
>> http://akmedia.digidesign.com/global/images/pr/ProTools_Plug-in_Scree...
>
> well gosh darnit. we failed to catch up with the very latest version
> of ProTools. oh but wait, that screenshot is actually dominated by
> some cool plugins that AREN'T ACTUALLY PART OF PROTOOLS at all!
>
> lets see how ardour looks when we pull off that trick:
> http://ardour.org/files/ardour_au.png
<Nice shots and reply snipped.>
DFS is completely off his rocker when it comes to Linux, daw. He's
basically a VB/SQL jockey, running Win 2003 Server as a desktop.
--
I have a very small mind and must live with it.
-- E. Dijkstra
The Ghost In The Machine
Well, now I'm confused; you're comparing apples and oranges.
Gnome-terminal [*]:
- opens window
- subinvokes bash, sh, or user-specified program
(gnome-terminal -e 'prog arg arg' or
gnome-terminal -x prog arg arg)
- converts mouseclicks and keypresses to characters
or signals [!] sent to this program
cmd.exe:
- does NOT open console [+] (that's another DLL)
- interprets command lines
In a way, gnome-terminal is akin to a DLL somewhere in
Windows (I'd have to find it; the relevant include file
is <wincon.h> according to my WinE SDK) that implements
among other things the AllocConsole(), FreeConsole(),
AttachConsole(), and GetConsoleFontSize() functions.
Cmd.exe, by contrast, is much more closely related to
/bin/bash, a typed-in command or script parser.
And both are affected by window managers, although in
Windows' case the "window manager" is actually just
a little snippet of code somewhere that draws pretty
semitransparent title bars, among other things.
Personally, I think bash is much smarter than cmd.exe
(although cmd.exe at least knows about history now),
and gnome-terminal is more intelligent than Windows'
console notions (for starters, gnome-terminal can deal
with arbitrary [%] window sizes, whereas cmd.exe just
opens a window of a fixed 80x24 size, last I checked).
[*] actually, it might just call a library function that does
the actual X Window creation. I'd frankly have to dig.
Of course the code sequence to create an X Window -- most
likely XCreateWindow() -- is also a library call.
[!] 'man 2 signal' for more details; the most used signal
is SIGINT (2), transmitted via control-C by default;
one can modify this default via the stty program.
[+] Windows' term for a generally DOS-style text window.
[%] actually, X window managers are encouraged to implement
a "snap" functionality, so that the contained window
can display an integral number of characters, if the
right hint is used. <X11/Xutil.h> contains the
XSizeHints structure that can be passed to a number
of routines -- most likely XSetWMProperties() -- for
this size snapping.