Comments on: Joel on Software http://entland.homelinux.com/blog/2007/10/18/joel-on-software/ Code, 3D, Games, Linux and much more... Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:12:38 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: ent http://entland.homelinux.com/blog/2007/10/18/joel-on-software/comment-page-1/#comment-53178 ent Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:37:18 +0000 http://entland.homelinux.com/blog/2007/10/18/joel-on-software/#comment-53178 Yep, I agree with both comments. In most applications, Linux GUI sucks (although there are <a href="http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/" rel="nofollow">honorable exceptions</a>). That is not a problem to me (I am a console Linux user) but clearly the Linux Desktop Experience leaves a lot to be desired. What I tried to explain in the post is that Linux is better stratified, with projects reusing the work from other projects, or for example a project implementing the GUI of other project. You can find excellent examples of this symbiosis: for example <a href="http://www.mysql.com/" rel="nofollow">MySQL</a> and <a href="http://www.phpmyadmin.net/" rel="nofollow">phpMyAdmin</a> Yep, I agree with both comments. In most applications, Linux GUI sucks (although there are honorable exceptions).

That is not a problem to me (I am a console Linux user) but clearly the Linux Desktop Experience leaves a lot to be desired.

What I tried to explain in the post is that Linux is better stratified, with projects reusing the work from other projects, or for example a project implementing the GUI of other project. You can find excellent examples of this symbiosis: for example MySQL and phpMyAdmin

]]> By: Julio GorgĂ© http://entland.homelinux.com/blog/2007/10/18/joel-on-software/comment-page-1/#comment-53054 Julio GorgĂ© Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:52:13 +0000 http://entland.homelinux.com/blog/2007/10/18/joel-on-software/#comment-53054 I'm also a regular reader of Joel's blog. But I not only agree with the former poster, but think that the UI of the 99% of the graphical Linux apps just suck. They are the result of a decentralized development with little consistency across applications, desktops(KDE,Gnome,etc) and distributions. There are some exceptions to the rule.. but most of the time you face "theoritically powerful" apps with terrible interfaces. See The Gimp. Not to say that MS overall UIs are great, but they are much better that the typical KDE app. It's a shame the KDE/Gnome developers copied the overall Windows UI philosophy, instead of better models such as NextStep or Mac OS X. I know there are other window managers, though, but those two are the most popular. Still, I do recognize that the Linux desktop experience improves every year, but so do other OSes. If mean, Windows had stopped at 98, Linux would be god now. But it's not the case. I’m also a regular reader of Joel’s blog. But I not only agree with the former poster, but think that the UI of the 99% of the graphical Linux apps just suck. They are the result of a decentralized development with little consistency across applications, desktops(KDE,Gnome,etc) and distributions. There are some exceptions to the rule.. but most of the time you face “theoritically powerful” apps with terrible interfaces. See The Gimp.

Not to say that MS overall UIs are great, but they are much better that the typical KDE app.

It’s a shame the KDE/Gnome developers copied the overall Windows UI philosophy, instead of better models such as NextStep or Mac OS X. I know there are other window managers, though, but those two are the most popular.

Still, I do recognize that the Linux desktop experience improves every year, but so do other OSes. If mean, Windows had stopped at 98, Linux would be god now. But it’s not the case.

]]> By: Martin Vilcans http://entland.homelinux.com/blog/2007/10/18/joel-on-software/comment-page-1/#comment-52996 Martin Vilcans Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:02:07 +0000 http://entland.homelinux.com/blog/2007/10/18/joel-on-software/#comment-52996 Could it be that this tradition of clear separation between functionality and user interface is what often makes Linux user interfaces inferior to their cousins on Windows? If you think that the user interface is something you just slap onto existing functionality, there is a great risk that you'll create a crappy UI. Instead, how you want to present something to the user may very well affect the design of the functionality. Now, don't get me wrong. I love Linux. It's wonderful if you want to run a server, and the command-line utilities are very well designed. I'm just saying that the UI design of many Linux GUI applications is not very good. They are often good examples of leaky abstractions (another term of Joel Spolsky) because they fail to hide the complexity of the underlying functionality. Could it be that this tradition of clear separation between functionality and user interface is what often makes Linux user interfaces inferior to their cousins on Windows? If you think that the user interface is something you just slap onto existing functionality, there is a great risk that you’ll create a crappy UI. Instead, how you want to present something to the user may very well affect the design of the functionality.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love Linux. It’s wonderful if you want to run a server, and the command-line utilities are very well designed. I’m just saying that the UI design of many Linux GUI applications is not very good. They are often good examples of leaky abstractions (another term of Joel Spolsky) because they fail to hide the complexity of the underlying functionality.

]]> By: Miguel Herrero http://entland.homelinux.com/blog/2007/10/18/joel-on-software/comment-page-1/#comment-52907 Miguel Herrero Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:20:08 +0000 http://entland.homelinux.com/blog/2007/10/18/joel-on-software/#comment-52907 I really liked the "starting from scratch" post. I almost laughed when I read about the Fuc@#dString :D I really liked the “starting from scratch” post.
I almost laughed when I read about the Fuc@#dString :D

]]>