One Quick Question about GNU/Linux and its Users

[billy_gates]

Now you guys would agree that most of you and other linux users do not like Microsoft.  You say that their software is bloated and has a bad interface.  Along with the other Monopoly antitrust stuff.  This question focuses on the interface part.

Now I know I hate MS's interfaces.  They all seem counterintuitive and difficult.  Just wondering then, why are most Open Source equivilants of Brand Name software not only blatant copies of that software, but also even more difficult and inconsistant?

Examples:

Open Office and Office look almost the same.  If I wanted to make something better than Office I wouldn't start by copying the shitty office UI, I can tell u that.

Almost every Desktop Manager, Gnome, KDE, etc... Have the basic, toolbar at the bottom that holds windows and has a start menu'ish type launcher.

I don't use Linux much.... but have been working on getting the parts together on a comp so I can use it as a PVR with SuSE 7.3 (Only Linux that worked with my PCTV card without installing drivers)  But this general I hate Windows opinion, then the copy of windows software on Linux seems kind of hypocritical.

I am also not advertising the Mac interface, although I like it better than the WIndows one, which means I also like it better than the Linux one.  I'm sure you linux people can come up with your own tell tale interface... "Whoa, that is definitely linux," just like when people see OSX they just know its OSX.

I am not trolling. ... this is a genuine question.  Is there a reason why the original gnu/linux people started making their interfaces like Windows insteađ

[flap]

It's not exactly difficult to work out why they emulate the look & feel of windows or windows software. It's to get users to migrate from Windows.

Also, window managers that look like Windows are definitely in the minority. KDE and GNOME are specifically designed to act like the windows interface, for the reason I've given, but other WMs like Enlightenment, Window Maker, Blackbox etc. are very different.

[ August 25, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]

[preacher]

Simply put my computer does exactly what I want it to do and no less. Therefore I am happy. It just so happens it uses linux. All the bullshit about copying interfaces means nothing to me.

[Laukev7]

The only X interface I might consider original is Enlightenment. Windowmaker is based on the OpenStep GUI. Blackbox is good for a minimalist interface, but not exactly original.

[Laukev7]

The only X interface I might consider different is Enlightenment. Windowmaker is based on the OpenStep GUI. Blackbox is good for a minimalist interface, but not exactly original. Many do not emulate the Windows GUI, but instead imitate interfaces like Workbench (AWM), CDE (FVWM and XFCE), OpenStep (Afterstep and Windowmaker) and RiscOS (ROX).

[Laukev7]

What's wrong with that page?

[Faust]

I also note that appleworks looks a lot like office, and safarie looks a lot like ie looks a lot like mozilla.  People get used to (ugh) "paradigms" (ritual cleansing myself now...) and they dont want to change.  I mean we've all seen how upset people get at the gimp ui over the photoshop ui.  Personally I *love* the gimp ui, but then I haven't been trained to use something else by habit.  And anyway I use enlightenment, so I never have to see a stupid "start" button anywhere.  

[suselinux]

The reason Linux and its apps look the way they do is beacause it runs on the X86 processor, as well as others, but most people use an intel type processor.

Any way, the two major things we see on Intels are Windows and Linux, the GUIs look somewhat interchangable so that the AVERAGE user is also interchangable.

We want to welcome the fallen windows users, not scare them off with something....new!

what, change, where?! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!

But really KDE is very very versitile

I kinda make mine look like a cross between OSX and Longhorn

I have a big fat vertical bar on the left with clock time weather, dictionary, quick launcher, and emacs link

I also have a very small bar horizontal and centered on the bottom with Icon zooming
>a docker with a taskbar

and then ther is SuperKaramba

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
I also note that appleworks looks a lot like office, and safarie looks a lot like ie looks a lot like mozilla.  People get used to (ugh) "paradigms" (ritual cleansing myself now...) and they dont want to change.  I mean we've all seen how upset people get at the gimp ui over the photoshop ui.  Personally I *love* the gimp ui, but then I haven't been trained to use something else by habit.  And anyway I use enlightenment, so I never have to see a stupid "start" button anywhere.      

you have a point.  But I would consider Safari to look pretty different than mozilla.  But your right its all basically the same cus its what people are used to.  However.  I would consider the way most modern browsers are set to be the most efficient way.  While Windows is by no means efficient.

I'm going to look for enlightenment and try to get it to run on my OSX so I can see it.


Thanks for answering the question and not flaming me and labeling me a troll.
You answer is quite satisfactory.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by suselinux:
The reason Linux and its apps look the way they do is beacause it runs on the X86 processor, as well as others, but most people use an intel type processor.SuperKaramba

Yep.  

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
[QB]Also, window managers that look like Windows are definitely in the minority. KDE and GNOME are specifically designed to act like the windows interface, for the reason I've given, but other WMs like Enlightenment, Window Maker, Blackbox etc. are very different.

also those use a fraction of the CPU that mswindows uses.

plus let me make it quite clear that mswindows' interface looks and feels like dumbass windows no matter what you do to it, but KDE and GNOME can both be customised EASILY (many easy customisations in KDE and GNOME simply cannot be done in windows, or are difficult and risky) to look and feel like RiscOS, MacOS, et cetera. I use windowmaker and my girlfriend uses kde. she has one toolar along the top and a lot of desktop icons, basically it's like MacOS 7 or 8 but looks a lot nicer, and she has a nice handy runbox on the toolbar too (try getting one of those in windows, even then it'd only do dumbass DOS commands, imagine if they had a GUI box that said "bad command or filename <OK>" that popped up every time you tried to use your runbox!) and my windowmaker is, well, not windows, and is at least as useful and intuitive. have a look: http://calumnine.cjb.net/wmaker2003.jpg

so as with everything in linux, it's choice. if you don't like it, change it, or change to something else you do like. you don't get that choice in windows full stop, unless it's to change to linux (or mac, freebsd et cetera et cetera)

[Calum]

Aaaaaaaand, for those of us who have KDE installed but who use windowmaker, can i still use superkaramba?