debating that. Business, in general, is in the business of making money and
will stretch morals to and beyond the breaking point to do it.
My "front room" problem however is that Linux still hasn't come up with a
good desktop interface. There have been several decent attempts (my
favorite so far was Corel Linux) but the fact remains that despite Linux's
sweet and chewy center its shell remains crunchy and unsatisfying.
I've a similar problem with Firefox and other Mozilla-based browsers (except
for Safari): they all (at least all that I've seen) have exceedingly poor
interfaces compared to the level that MS or Apple is at. Firefox is a GREAT
browser with an interface that harkens back to 1995.
The answer to all of this, as given by many fans, is "skinning" or alternate
desktops. an answer I find completely unacceptable. Skins are great for
those that use them but any human factors expert will tell you that less
than 20% of people change any significant default options in any software.
The out of the box interface has to be given priority before some little
used "skin" engine and that's almost never the case.
I really think, at least in large part, that it's still an interface issue.
Linux still has no interface that rivals XP or OS X. I really think that
Linux needs a concerted, multi-company effort to come up with a
high-quality, standardized modern desktop interface. The simple fact is
that you have that kind of cooperation on the core but not on the wrapper,
but desktop users generally only care about the wrapper.
Jim Davis
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
