OS UIs

Jason Gurtz jason at tommyk.com
Sat Aug 28 08:51:37 PDT 2004


On 28-Aug-04 10:44, Hui Zhou wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 10:04:34AM +0200, Bj?rn Lindberg wrote:
>>
>>I am sorry, but most M$ UIs are crap. 
> 
> Agreed. But M$ UIs are way better than what linux is offering. Just 
> compare GIMP with Photoshop.

I think it's important to realize what is an OS interface and what is
not.  Photoshop and the GIMP are not such; one is the Adobe interface,
the other the GIMP  :)  In a way, it is difficult to draw the line of
where, exactly the OS ends in this sort of comparison.  MS bundles quite
a few features that are not strictly "The OS" but are what could be
perceived as such.  For example the feature of system logging is only
achieved in a single and quite proprietary way on windows but is
represented by several distinct (and fairly open and compatible)
implementations under the Linux system.

You could try to compare the "Computer Management" applet in windows
with the /proc file system, /var/log, /etc/mounts, and various other
interfaces provided by Linux and the core system utilities, but it is
apples and oranges.

A valid comparison would be between the Windows command shell with
common shells used under Linux.  Bash, Ksh, and tcsh are clearly far
superior to even the XP/2003 enhanced command shell just by looking at
the amount of features.

>>I sincerely hope that the open
>>source community aims higher than that. Mac OS would be a better role
>>model, if any.
> 
> I Can't agree you more. I went to apple store in a mall, and their 
> design amazes me.

OS X is very good and intuitive but there are better.  Consider the
interface of, say, Acme under Plan9.  The interface and interaction
between mouse, keyboard, and user is simply brilliant.  I thought I
would never say it but even vi could learn a thing or two about
efficiency from Acme!

Cheers,

~Jason

-- 



More information about the lfs-chat mailing list