Sun Announces It Will Ship Solaris With Eazel 154
miester writes: "Sun has recently announced that it will take advantage of Eazel's Nautilus software. The article also mentions that Dell has invested in Eazel and will be shipping all Dell Linux workstations with Nautilus as well." The Nautilus previews have been slick and pretty -- you can tell that the Mac folks involved haven't lost their touch. And more hardware vendors installing a nice Open Source file manager can only be good for users.
Re:mmm... (Score:1)
The Nautilis team is talented, yes...but good software survives the test of time...Nautilis is still wearing diapers.
--------------------------
Re:"Eazel" is just wrong (Score:1)
Every post of yours is just that much more a cry for help. Laughable.
Re:Are they gunna port it? (Score:2)
Solaris With Eazel? (Score:1)
I think you mean 'Eazel with Solaris'.
That would be pretty funny though. 'Hey, I just bought Eazel and it came with this thing called Solaris.'
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Re:But how much will it cost??? (Score:2)
Comments not endorsed by my employer.
Re:MacOS Comparison (Score:2)
Installation is not a good measure of ease of use, it is just a significant (perhaps insurmoutable) hurdle that Linux has that Windows does not. If Linux came pre-installed on machines you can bet that "difficulty of installation" would be WAY down the list of problems, like it is for Windows.
Are they gunna port it? (Score:2)
x86 compatible processor (200 mHz minimum)
Can you compile the source on PPC linux? Is there a deliberate lack of strategy here? Hmm, Mac like interface at the exact moment when PPC linux becomes mature and Apple starts insulting their own userbase. More and more geeks are saying "man, my overpriced Mac really flys when I put a half decent OS on it" whether they are installing PPC linux or installing OS X PB, is really up to us.
On a completely unrelated note, I wonder if I can port this thing to win32. I could put shell=gnome in my windoze ini's and I wouldn't have to see megabytes of memory wasted on integrated dll's (no, I'd have to see it filled up with mozilla libs).
So if you talk about strategy, would it be a viable plan to port a superior GUI to win32 + MacOS and get users loving it? Assumably, after using a better GUI on a crappy kernel (for win32 at least) users would start to wish for stability and speed that can only be provided by a real OS.
Re:But how much will it cost??? (Score:1)
It's nice, but you still need an installed version of Solaris to build it. "You must have the original Solaris 8 build environment in order to build the Solaris 8 Foundation Source code."
Re:mmm... (Score:1)
hehehe...I never complained about the speed...I complained that the Mozilla team is all talk
FYI, I have submitted bug reports, only to be met by the stupidity of the developers - I find a bug for the Linux version, they said they couldn't reproduce it under Windows NT and therefore, my report is invalid. Lovely bunch of people, those Netscape folk.
Reading the rest of your comment, you're completely missing the point. Solaris is NOT a desktop environment - its a server! So why are they forcing a desktop onto it? Didn't they learn from how well WinNT Server does w/ all the GUI stuff on top?
To add to this, they're already promising to use something which isn't finished...yes, I'll agree a replacement for CDE is in order, but why not KDE? Its now got the GPL'd warm-fuzzies all over it. Why not XFCE? Why not some other alternative?
I would arguem most of the *nix users out there don't care that they can play mp3s w/in their browser/file manager/shell/masterabatory device. If you want it, fine. Your choice. But why is it being imposed on a Operating System designed for a SERVER?
And your assumption about everyone who wants a GUI has Win or OSX is *very, very wrong.* I want a great, easy to use GUI yet I don't want to give up the control of my software to a single corporation and become a slave to their desires. That's why I'm using free software. That's why I'm here
Oh god...quit thumping your chest, you look foolish.
Aren't you doing the same thing with Gnome? The Gnome foundation is a collection of companies steering the direction of Gnome. Yes, they can't hijack the project, but they most definately are influencing the project. If you want true "freedom", you wouldn't be using that, either...
Party line?! Sounds like your role my friend. You're the one bashing prominent open source projects on
Do you even read slashdot?
--------------------------
Why? (Score:3)
When the web first got going properly there were loads of horrific web sites featuring uber-graphic-design that made it really difficult to actually get at the information. Most of them died a death - nowdays we have things that are a lot cleaner, simpler and easier to use (like slashdot).
As technology becomes a familiar tool - rather than an exciting new thing to play with as well as use, it gets more and more boring. As it should - fading into the background to just do its job, rather than existing up front, to be looked at and impressed by.
I suspect, that, just as people turn off all the anoying sounds associated with a window manager, until there's just a beep for errors (usually), people using a filemanager such as Nautilus, or KFM, will shrink the icons and make them less 'attractive' until they have a minimal, functional tool that doesn't take up more real estate or perceptual space than it needs to.
Actually - this is probably wrong. Most users will just say 'I don't like it, it doesn't feel right', and turn to something else...
Re:Internet Explorer is the interface of the futur (Score:2)
For one thing, it is (of course) theme-able, so if you don't like the green, change it. Already an improvement over MS-explorer. And then, the file icons aren't just improved, there's also varying levels of detail about each file based on how far you "zoom" in or out. So, you can go from just the plane-jane name up to "this file has X items and was last modified at 4:30." I'm not sure, but I'm hoping this level of detail is configurable and maybe you can even get full details in a floating tooltip or something.
Granted, this isn't exactly revolutionizing the way you interact with your computer, but it is some slick stuff and I dare say better than what we've currently got. Speaking of which:
Most people don't use this mode, though, because the typical browser is a bad interface choice for system & file operations.Okay, now I must be missing something: if most people don't use this mode, what DO they use? Almost everyone I know (all the windows users anyway) uses an interface exactly like this to navigate their filesystems. Why? If nothing else, then because it's the default setup on win98 and ME. Unless you're talking about something totally different, then this Eazel interface should be super intuitive to windows users, as well as having some added benefits like the ones I mentioned above.
Re:Dell and Linux (Score:1)
Re:Sun is the dot in .com (Score:1)
Re:MacOS Comparison (Score:1)
Internet Explorer is the interface of the future? (Score:4)
I must be missing something, because all I see in the screenshots are pictures of a green-themed Internet Explorer with improved file icons being used to navigate the directory structure.
This has been available on PCs since Win95.
Most people don't use this mode, though, because the typical browser is a bad interface choice for system & file operations.
I'm guessing that the Nautilus team is composed solely of ex-Apple graphic designers and doesn't include any user-interface experts.
Maybe I'm just being cranky, but these screenshots are singularly uninspiring. I dare say if the MS folks announced this as the foundation of their next-gen GUI, they'd be laughed off the stage.
-----
D. Fischer
Re:Are they gunna port it? (Score:2)
I think you can port the file manager part quite easily, but the package installer (it downloads the packages from their database) is a whole new ball game, and unless somone wants to put all the effort (and it's a HUGE effort) to create a new database with all the packages - then chances are slim..
Very good to make money! (Score:1)
Re:MacOS Comparison (Score:3)
I see you've never shipped to Canada. (Score:1)
a) takes a year and a half
b) costs a hell of a lot in tariffs
As an American living in Quebec, I am allowed to complain.
enslaving the quebecois, one cranky wino at a time
GNOME takes the lead. (Score:2)
Thanks to the GNOME foundation, I think that it's fair to say that GNOME is approaching "critical mass" on the *u*x* desktop front. I myself use and prefer to use KDE2, but GNOME looks like it will just have the numbers.
If this is the case, we can expect to see a steady marginalisation, RedHat-style, of non-GNOME desktop systems. Eventually GNOME will be the target platform for commercial systems relying on object frameworks (bonobo, named for promiscuous monkeys) versus KDE (KParts/DCOP).
KDE's ace-in-the-hole is Kylix, which may yet keep it breathing in the face of a growing GNOME juggernaut. I still think that it is a tragic shame that neither Red Hat or VA Linux bought up TrollTech and GPL'd Qt when they had the cash to do so. It would have resolved the license issue much sooner.
We'll see.
--
"Don't declare a revolution unless you are prepared to be guillotined." - Anon.
running nautilus (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
That, plus the zooming interface brings to mind the excellent book "The Humane Interface" by Jef Raskin (also a Mac guy). The book points to the above ideas and more as a better GUI, with plenty of theory and practice to back it up.
Maybe eazel isn't going far enough to make it hang together properly, but if it's done well it could be the next big thing. I'll be the first to admit that big, static icons are useless, but this looks interesting and I plan to try it out soon.
Dismissing this project without trying it or doing any research is just an exercise in "thinking inside the box."
Re:Internet Explorer is the interface of the futur (Score:1)
I was looking at the screen shots going "Hmm that looks familiar". I thought I was loosing my mind.
Personlly I think its a screen real estate nightmare.
Re:bonobo = "pygmy chimp" (Score:1)
1st Law Of Networking: Loose ends are bad, termination is good.
An eyesore (Score:1)
Graphic design-wise it is a shambles. What's the deal with those mammoth icons ? Dammit, all the icons are skewed and halfbaked. The type isn't even properly vertically centered on the toolbars.
It looks like a bad mix of Windows 95 and Lotus Notes. Eazel seriously needs a makeover.
I see two good trends in interface design as of now:
1) The clean, 'small-iconed' applications that become de-facto standards because they are so cool and usable. Winamp is one example. Compare it with the messy, quirky, too large 'Microsoft Media Player'.
2) Seriously talented design getting thrown into UIs. Apple may have gone a bit too far down the bubble-gum road with the graphic look of OS X, but there's no denying it: They lead the industry. One Redmond company has been seen all through the 90s to do its best to rip every single innovation off.
Just because the 'Eazel'designers have worked at Apple doesn't mean they have the touch.
Just because the icons are huge doesn't mean the graphic design kicks butt.
-Sune Watts
Not Solaris... (Score:1)
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:1)
We could call it: "People Against Screen Real Estate Nightmares".
Dell and Linux (Score:2)
Re:Are they gunna port it? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
As technology becomes a familiar tool - rather than an exciting new thing to play with as well as use, it gets more and more boring. As it should - fading into the background to just do its job, rather than existing up front, to be looked at and impressed by.
Just like when my friends make their first presentation using MS Powerpoint. They put so many effects that you simply can't concentrate on the subject they are talking about. With time they learn to focus on the subject.
I suspect, that, just as people turn off all the anoying sounds associated with a window manager, until there's just a beep for errors (usually), people using a filemanager such as Nautilus, or KFM, will shrink the icons and make them less 'attractive' until they have a minimal, functional tool that doesn't take up more real estate or perceptual space than it needs to.
Perhaps it's just to make a good "first impression". People will, indeed, turn off all the bells and whistles with time, but if you just gave them a simple file manager to start with, they would never use it. The bad thing is, advanced users will consider these optional features as "bloat" -- and stay away from Nautilus.
I'm downloading Nautilus right now... I want to see if my parents and my sister will start using Linux after I install Helix GNOME + Nautilus. I believe it will be a good start for them.
--
Re:MacOS X? (Score:1)
Umm, well we are doing that.
i think the best part about this new sig is all the idiots who completely miss the point.
- j
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:2)
Well, a few things come to mind. The first one is that the Eazel folks are trying to design in the idea of expertise in the interface. So most of the screenshots I've seen, some of which are really silly, are from the novice view. I haven't seen much of the so-called Intermediate and Advanced views, but I suspect that they use available screen real estate much differently.
It's also clear that Eazel is way easier to customize than current desktoppy environments; I've never seen a screen shot that didn't let you view as things other than icons.
They're also claiming, and this will be the interesting part, that they can also give you easy access to content and attribute-based views of your file system. OK, so I've got 166 pdf files, 496 postscript files, and 75 other EPS files in my personal account alone. The problem is, of course, that they're scattered all over the directory hierarchy, and it can be tricky to find (or remember) exactly where any one document is. It would be great to have a view of my files that would bring together all the "postscripty" files, or just the non-graphical postscripty files, or all postscripty files that belong with research projects, or what have you. Now, you can do that with a standard unix file system through clever, deliberate, and pre-planned thinking about your directory structure (and maybe the use of symbolic links), but almost nobody does this. And, if they do, they then find the nth plus one way they *really* want to look at stuff, but which is difficult with their pre-calculated layout and the available tools.
And there really are situations where a standard hierarchical view of my files just gets in the way. Now that most of us have thousands of little twisty files hanging around, there has to be an answer somewhere. One idea is to change our filesystems to something more flexible (based perhaps on a relational model). Another idea, which I take to be similar to Eazel's, is to layer (and in some cases, infer) an additional attribute database over the file system so that you can see what you've got in the way most relevant to you at the moment. Now, it's possible that they forgot to make this part sufficiently scriptable for the common geek, but I severely doubt it.
So I'm not sure whether Eazel's stuff will be the bee's knees, but I'm encouraged that they've figured out that different views for different purposes and users is the key concept to implement, rather than (merely) nicer looking icons or pin-striped menubars.
Re:GNOME takes the lead. (Score:1)
Wrong. The Linux Desktop's ace-in-the-hole is Kylix.
Because Kylix is not tied to KDE. Not tied to Gnome. Not tied to anything - not even a *window manager*
Borland is a member of both the Gnome Foundation and the KDE League. And this should tell you a lot about the platform agenda of Borland: No Platform Agenda. Just The Best Tools.
MacOS Comparison (Score:3)
-Mr. Fusion
Re:An eyesore (Score:3)
I think this point is really important, it disturbes me the way things are going.
Surely, the point of a GUI front ent to an OS is:
i) to give you the relevant information quickly, efficiently and as unobtrusively as possible.
ii) to let you navigate the data and apps to get the job done as easily as you can.
This sounds to me exactly the same demands placed on the signs we take for granted in metros and streets. Taking Harry Beck's fantastic, London Underground map [thetube.com] as an example, it takes the complex tangled mess of underground lines and represents it with a clean and simple diagram. Sans serif fonts, no complex shading, straight lines and a complete lack of unnecessary clutter.
The same is true for road signs and the direction signs around public spaces. No beautifully shaded pictures of toilets or telephones, just a few distilled strokes that are enough to clearly represent the concept. I dread to think how many more people would die in fires if these simple design principles weren't stuck to by the graphic designers responsible for 'Fire-Exit' signs...
Free OS's will be the savior of the .com company (Score:1)
Re:Eazel on Darwin!?! (Score:1)
Why would you want to do this? OSX is more than BSD+Aqua. You'd be missing all kinds of neat stuff (like Cocoa, WebObjects, and Quartz) that is not available (nor will ever be available for that matter) in Darwin.
well it was actually more of a joke than anything. but after using Nautilus i've realized that i'd love to see some of the components make it into a Finder replacement for OS X, but not as a replacement for the Quartz engine.
- j
Re:OT: What is with the Philly theme names? (Score:1)
Re:MacOS Comparison (Score:1)
Bingo. The Mac is going downhill, and it's Apple's own fault.
MacOS 8/9 have lots of neat little features which make it a great GUI, still better than anything I've seen on UNIX. However, MacOS X throws out many of these features, apparnetly for no real reason. MacOS X thankfully adds preemptive multitasking and memory protection, which the mac has needed for years, but unnecessarily destroys much of what makes the Mac GUI so great for end users. It's sad really. And according to some people [slashdot.org], it doesn't have to be that way.
MacOS X? (Score:1)
man, i hope somebody eventually makes Easel available for MacOS X. now that would be an operating system environment worth using!
- j
Re:Internet Explorer is the interface of the futur (Score:2)
Ahh, those wonderful days when it was actually better to use Netscape instead of IE...
this seems cool to me (Score:1)
anyway, you now have my trivial opinion. Enjoy!
Re:MacOS Comparison (Score:2)
What Eazel is doing is Gnome. A next-generation file manager has been planned for the Gnome Project for a long time. Eazel came along and decided to implement it [eazel.com]. Nautilus is the file manager for Gnome 1.4. The Eazel developers are entirely a part of the Gnome community. Just hang out on #gnome or #nautilus on gimpnet for a while to see what I mean.
----
Merriam Webster online says: (Score:2)
Pronunciation: 'E-z&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Dutch ezel, literally, ass, from Middle Dutch esel; akin to Old English esol ass; both from a prehistoric East Germanic-West Germanic word borrowed from Latin asinus ass
Date: 1596
: a frame for supporting something (as an artist's canvas)
It's good to know it's not just a play on "easy", don't you think
Finally, no Openlook or CDE (Score:3)
I use SPARC/Solaris as my primary development setup. While I prefer the setup in Linux, thye development tools are still much better under Solaris (though Linux is gaining ground); for example, dbx under Solaris runs circles around gdb. There are also some commercial/legacy things that come with it that aren't as simple to set up under an open source environment (e.g., Display Postscript, Motif, etc.). Lots of the APIs and the like are also better documented (see the Linker and Libraries guide). New Java VMs are also released more quickly. And, best of all, it is close enough to Linux, etc. that porting is trivial.
Unfortunately, Sun has really flubbed the default interface. There is an odd melange of CDE-style tools and ugly Openlook stuff that makes lots of assuptions about how you have your window manager set up and whose mouse controls and menus work differently than every other UI package in the world. To make it usable, you have to strip it of all that stuff and build the various programs that your typical Linux distro sets up (fvwm2, etc.) If Sun has come to its senses and has realized that rather than making embarassing attempts at UI, it should just outsource the job to someone who cares, the difference will become even more transparent.
Re:Dell and Linux (Score:2)
Re:Sun Shares dropped today... (Score:1)
Re:Eazel? (Score:1)
----
Re:question (Score:1)
(While the reasons that BeOS as a whole won't be open-sourced have been hashed out here recently, it makes perfect sense for them to open-source the app server - for one thing, there's themeability locked in there somewhere. OSS hackers could unlock it and then some. And, of course, I'm talking about BeOS code that would have to be ported. But hey.)
Re:mmm... (Score:1)
Wrong. Solaris is used for both desktop computing and serving--at my employer, just in my particular division, we have 300 workstations in constant use by engineers as desktop machines. Based on the fact that you don't even know how Solaris can be used and think freedom can only be had through an individually run project, it's not worth my time to continue this discussion.
Re:mmm... (Score:1)
--------------------------
Re:Internet Explorer is the interface of the futur (Score:1)
And the reason why I turn off this behaviour in windoze (it's becoming harder though with subsequent windoze 'upgrades') is that it takes ages just to open and list the folders and files in a directory.
Of course, that could just be M$'s brute force approach to computing at work.
Re:Internet Explorer is the interface of the futur (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, no dice. There are a bunch of themers for Windows.
And then, the file icons aren't just improved,
there's also varying levels of detail about each file based on how far you "zoom" in or out. So, you can go from just the plane-jane name up to "this file has X items and was last
modified at 4:30."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tracker, Explorer, and just about every file manager ever written allows you to set the attributes you want to show.
I dare say better than what we've currently got
>>>>>>>>>>
That's because most of what you currently have is pretty bad.
Re:But how much will it cost??? (Score:2)
Thats odd. I live in Europe, also ordered Solaris 8 and it took them only 3 days to deliver. Considering the fact that I had to pay more for shipping & handling I think you're exagurating big time here.
That's a lot of money for a free OS on 2 CDs plus 6 CDs worth of junk that I don't want.
Read the site and that license again. Its not free software (yet?); "There are no fees for the right to use the software on computers with a capacity of eight or fewer processors", so it isn't free.
You "only need to register for your Solaris 8 Free 1-8 way license for Intel here [sun.com] and Sparc here [sun.com] ". I would not be surprised if you didn't even read the site properly and are now "illigally" using the software. I think you're coming close to trolling; you had all the options to see [sun.com] what you were buying, you could have read the FAQ [sun.com] to see that you are not getting a free OS so basicly I see no reason to start whining afterwards.
Besides; 2 CD's & 6 worth of junk? It somehow figures; I'd expect a reaction such as yours from someone who would call CD's filled with buttloads of documentation (docserver2), Staroffice, Oracle 8i SQL server (trial), JAVA tools and much utilities (GNU extras) junk.
IMHO you got no one to kick but yourself if you are unsatisfied.
Re:Dell and Linux (Score:2)
I would agree. I recently got a flier from Dell, and the little words printed below their server machines 'Red Hat Linux available pre-installed at no extra charge' is a big deal when it comes to getting acceptance from corporate america. I personally wasn't too impressed with their prices compared to the Penguin Computing machines we've been getting lately, but a Dell is a much more recognized name than Penguin at this time. Dell's prices aren't bad compared to other 'big name' vendors either.
Re:MacOS Comparison (Score:2)
Nautilus is essentially feature compatible with IE6. In other words, its a tuning of what has been done (better) before. OS X, on the other hand has three things going for it...
A) It looks orgasmically good. And its themable!
B) Quartz wipes the floor with X (except remote display)
C) Mac users would never use anything resembling IE.
Function melts form (Score:2)
KDE has a huge installer base (Score:1)
GNOME has quite a few things going for it: Nautilis, StarOffice, etc, but then so does KDE: Konqueror, KOffice. KOffice isn't quite finished, but then neither is Nautilis. I wouldn't be choosing any sides just yet.
-Justin
Re:MacOS Comparison (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, the new distros are going AGAINST that idea. By creating a held-together-by-thumbtacks-and-bubblegum miasma of proprietory perl scripts and config files and package layouts and dependency files, ad nauseum, they are making it impossible to tweek the system beyond the "out-of-box" configuration. Instead of making the underlying system more elegant and logical, they are simply adding incoherent and non-uniform tools on top of a incoherent and non-uniform system. If a standard GUI interface was created, for say, the Slackware config files, something that would configure everything from sound to X to the kernel, then you'd end up with an elegant, modifable system. (Well, after they clean out
Screenshots (Score:1)
------------
Re:MacOS Comparison (Score:2)
Re:Good stuff! (Score:1)
It's a sad thing, really, that so many people equate look with feel. It leads to bad interface design.
Lots of people claim that if the interface of a window manager, toolkit, desktop environment, &c is deficient, well, that's ok because they're themable.
The fact is that themability doesn't do much at all. A different theme can change the look of an application, but I've yet to come across a themable application where a theme can change the feel.
Each toolkit (or window manager) has a certain feel to it: the mousing threshhold is generally different. Themes do not change this. Consequently, gtk's radio buttons will feel like gtk's radio buttons no matter what theme you're using.
Similarly, the various Xaw hacks (Xaw-3d, Xaw-xpm) are not very useful since nearly all Xaw applications have the same (user-unfriendly) feel to them. Changing a few colours doesn't buy much.
Whether this is good or bad is certainly debatable, but claiming that a theme can modify look and feel is very misleading and ultimately damaging.
--
Re:mmm... (Score:1)
----
Re:GNOME takes the lead. (Score:1)
Maybe yes, maybe no. I highly doubt that we will know which desktop will become the most popular until it happens, if it happens. Remember, Sun is waiting until GNOME 2.0 comes out before it starts putting it on its machines, which will be quite some time from now, at least a year. A lot can happen in a year. Wait and see.
Re:Why? (Score:1)
>>>>>>>
Good god! Please don't tell me you're using 256 colors. We should set up a fund to pay for new (post '80s) graphics cards for people still using pallatized modes.
Re:Ambiguous radio buttons (Score:1)
Not quite. As quoted below, he was talking about usability.
Just don't confuse 'pretty' with 'usable'. Those stupid radio button widgets that GTK uses are ridiculously unusable compared to those of Windows... that's NOT 'usable', though they do look nice.
Feel is nothing if not a usability issue. Was the original poster's problem a look one or a feel one? I'm still not entirely sure. However, I feel that my points on look and feel, and how they're not the same thing, stand well enough in their own right. Everyone that I've discussed the issue with agrees with me that themes buy very little, for what that's worth.
--
Re:Sun is the dot in .com (Score:1)
I bet you alot of money that they were not using those E10K's the way they should have been... Remember that E10K's have the ability for a 14gigabit backplane... 14 device paths, each at 1 gigabit... They hold what? 16 system boards, each with 4 processors... And with Sun coming out with the 512mb simms (the ablility to have a max memory of 16 x 4gig (64gig total), and when Solaris 8/Ultra 3 processors (gighertz speed) become Enterprise stable, I bet that Network Solutions will wish they hadnt switched...
Go SUN!!!
Great, now dump the rest of that legacy crap (Score:3)
Re:Internet Explorer is the interface of the futur (Score:1)
file managers are indeed old technology. nautilus, while not yet perfect, is by far the best i have used. it includes networking enhancements, groovy document handling via component programs, and impressive customization. we try to make it useful for both beginners and experts, and do not intend to replace the command line.
the company includes top-flight graphic designers, UI experts, and GNOME hackers. my admittedly biased view is that the ratio is appropriate and the synthesis useful.
playing with nautilus is a much better evaluation than looking at screenshots. :-)
aaron.
Re:GNOME takes the lead. (Score:1)
LOL! I sense a new .signature coming on...
Re:Finally, no Openlook or CDE (Score:1)
I like openlook. It has everything I want in a window manager (clean, simple, a configurable menu for launching programs, and a Front key) and does not impose on me anything that I don't want (icons, buttons, an icon panel, sounds, flaming widgets/applets/epplets or any of that other eye-candy crap). It is a perfect display mechanism for the xterms that make up my day. The best part about it is that it runs identically on both my Sun at the office and my Linux system at home -- I don't have to think about how to do something, I just do it.
Unfortunately for me, Sun appears to be abandoning the olwm world -- when you log into a Solaris 8 system, it warns you: OpenLook may not be shipped in future versions, do you want to change to CDE? CDE?! Ick. I'd sooner use KDE. But I don't want to use either.
Choice, man -- it should all be about choice.
--
Re:MacOS Comparison (Score:1)
I don't know about that - I like the high level of configurability, but I'm a power user. People like my wife, who want things to "just work", don't change any of the settings of the desktop.
Gnome is simpler for a new user to modify than most window managers IMHO, since it has a GUI setup tool (which is almost, but not quite, internally logically consistent). But most "simple users" don't want to see that configurability and don't get comfortable with it for quite a while.
Re:MacOS Comparison (Score:1)
Hey, I've got no problem with optional configurability; that's what allows my wife and I to use the same machine in very different ways.
But the original poster was arguing that simple users can modify the way that Linux operates, and in my experience, simple users don't want to do so. The Gnome desktop preferences tool can be configured to only display preferences relative to the experience level of the user, which is a good start. But to change really anything around requires some understanding of what those changes would do, and to most folks like Grandma the risk of not being able to log onto AOL and chat with the grandkids far outweighs the potential usability advance from making the desktop font bigger, etc.
I guess my point is that there are some people who are uncomfortable with any sort of configuration, and will avoid it at all costs. I don't think Linux has made configuring your machine easier for these people, and I don't hold out much hope for anything else to do so in the near future. Once we have natural language voice recognition help systems built into all machines, then maybe some sort of semi-smart digital assistant could ask about some configuration options and get feedback from Grandma.
No, wait, that's what that damn paperclip does. Never mind :)
Am I the only one? (Score:2)
These bozo's think that somehow showing a text file's contents in the icon is going to help me find what I want? Yes, maybe if there are two files in a directory, but come on, what if I have a directory with 1000 documents? They are on crack.
I understand the desire to do something different, to strike out in new directions and not create yet another windows explorer or Mac Finder clone, but what they have done instead is create a gross parody of existing user interfaces, ala Aqua.
I think that Eazel will perhaps be marginally more successful that Microsoft's Bob, it looks just about as usable.
-josh
Nautilus, Eazel and Helixcode are worrisome. (Score:2)
All the other serious Linux players deliver working code, watch the userbase grow and then maybe say yes when big vendors come knocking. These guys have got the order a little mixed up.
Nautilus isn't as good as Konquorer yet but the promoters talk up it's future features impressively. It isn't stable enough for regular work yet but alas, it's still alpha. So why is Sun committing to use this particular solution now?
It's called marketing. Basically if two companies can get together and announce something which sounds positive for both with only minimal long term risks, they will. That's why some of these guys are in both the KDE League and the Gnome Foundation. That's why the Gnome Foundation is not nearly as dangerous as most people make out. I.e. It will likely end up doing the same marketing job as the KDE League ( just more efficiently
Remember that it was 5 years between committing to CDE and actually shipping it for SUN. Even assuming a speedup for the open source arena we still won't see Gnome on your shiny new ultra 10 anytime soon. Unless you install it. By then Sun will likely ship 4 desktop environments. CDE, Open Windows, Gnome & KDE and that's the barest minimum.
You see these big old vendors are not stupid. At least no stupider than Mandrake and RedHat. Both of whom openly and loudly promote one desktop environment over all others yet ship all the popular free ones.
Re:mmm... (Score:1)
Honestly, the Gnome team has proved they can't hold to a schedule at all. That's fine in the Open Source world where its done when its done, but Sun is a buisness. Shipping betaware sounds like...like...Microsoft
--------------------------
Eazel on Darwin!?! (Score:1)
Apple says that they're porting Darwin to intel, but who know how long that'll take...
Re:running nautilus (Score:1)
----
Good stuff! (Score:2)
Truly intuitive user interface, combined with intergration with StarOffice and Mozilla
--
Too Little, too late? (Score:2)
Here's the plan : Sun makes their OS look like Linux, and sells all the hardware they can make, even though you pay roughly 5x the cost of a Lintel solution. Granted, some of the Sun clustering and services are mind-blowing, but they won't be selling many 1s/2s this way. Although I'm sure the entrenched solaris shops will welcome the changes.
But will it be "in time"? 3dfx? Gone. Aetna? Thousands laid off. GM? Thousands laid off, oldsmobile line ended.Sun, MS? share prices plummet. Son of a Bush (SOB) is not even in the oval office yet, and the economy is already cratering. Has the republican feeding frenzy begun, after 6 years of incredible prosperity?
At least IBM has pledged 1B. to Linux endeavours. With the loss of the dot com money, a lot of people might not be able to do free software work anymore.
Or perhaps they will be doing a lot more?
Re:mmm... (Score:2)
Frankly, I'm glad Andy and a bunch of former Apple and Be engineers are bringing their expertise to Linux and GNOME. It says a lot about the direction we're headed.
Why focus on Eazel? (Score:2)
I know Sun is an active member of the Gnome foundation, but they, along with many others are assuming that Eazel will be the best thing since sliced bread. Had it been released prior to KDE 2, I'd have probably agreed, but now it seems they're just putting all their eggs in one basket.
Companies support most successful OSS projects (Score:2)
I think you are slightly off. Most successful Open Source projects benefit in one way or the other from corporate sponsorship either from developers being hired to hack the kernel full-time (like RedHat does with Alan Cox and a bunch of other Linux kernel hackers or like Netscape does for Mozilla) or contibuting code and/or advice (like IBM and Sun have done for the Apache project or Sun does with GNOME). Once most projects get large enough, there is usually positive corporate involvement.
I have never taken a particular interest in the GIMP project so I'm not sure if it bucks the trend or not.
Grabel's Law
Re:GNOME takes the lead. (Score:2)
Sun pledged to use it for their primary user interface after Openlook but then ended up doing the Motif/CDE thing instead.
I'll believe it when it ships.
OT: What is with the Philly theme names? (Score:2)
Just curious, I happen to live in that general area now... I guess one of the developers is from here or something?
Re:But how much will it cost??? (Score:3)
And you must have a different meaning of free than I do. The right to use it on up to eight processor machines is free. There is no licensing fee for those computers. Sun throws the word "FREE!!!" around their site like popcorn, and yet you can't actually install it unless _you_ own the media. Can't borrow it from a friend, don't forget--that's a violation of the license agreement.
Believe me, I've read the FAQ.
For the record, I'm not running it on my own machines, legally or illegally. Once I get the console wired up, I'll be installing NetBSD until I acquire a legal copy of Solaris 8.
As for the six CDs of junk, they're junk. Why would I want to pay for a CD containing an OLD VERSION of a (crappy!) office suite? Besides, everything on those CDs is available for free and unrestricted download from one site or another. I've got the docs I need, I don't need a demo of Oracle 8i, and I will suffer through thumbscrews before using StarOffice 5.x (especially 5.1!) again.
My point is that it's a lot more expensive to get Solaris now that the license is free than it was when companies had to pay big bucks ($500--not that big!) for the license. Furthermore, claiming that the cost of the media is $75 is absurd. If they'd just be honest and say, "for a moderate fee" or the like, then I'd be happier.
Also, they've been promising a download option RSN, for about three months.
Re:Dell and Linux (Score:2)
Re:Good stuff! (Score:2)
Re:GNOME takes the lead. (Score:2)
sig:
Re:GNOME takes the lead. (Score:2)
Metcalf's Law was that the value of a network rises in proportion to the square of the number of nodes. Sun's decision to use GNOME will raise the number of nodes using GNOME technologies - hence, GNOME will be more valuable than KDE.
This assumes that the square of the nodes in the "Gnome network" after Suns annoucement is "more valuable" than the square of the number of nodes in the "KDE network." Last time I checked, Sun was big in the server and high-end workstation arena, not desktop space which is what Nautilus is targeting. You also assume that comercial software targeting GNOME has much of any effect on the KDE developer base. This is just absurd. Consider for a moment...
Not Over Remote X Sessions (Score:2)
Over a remote X session Nautilus is totally worthless and I'd say a large chuck of Solaris desktop users are doing remote sessions a la eXceed. Can you downgrade that thing to 256 colors? I hope so because over X it takes a LONG time for that thing to paint all those pretty icons. Doesn't it use Mozilla libs for crips sake!
I wish someone would focus on the fundamentals rather than making it look great. Someone should make a file manager that works as well as WINFILE.EXE the old Windows file manager!
Re:Good stuff! (Score:2)
Sun is the dot in .com (Score:3)
But how much will it cost??? (Score:3)
When is Sun going to get off their asses and allow Solaris to be downloaded, as they've been promising for months now? I know all about the 'free binary license' as long as you buy the media for $75USD plus shipping and handling. Up north of the US border, that amounts to about $175 by the time it gets to my door. That's a lot of money for a free OS on 2 CDs plus 6 CDs worth of junk that I don't want. Not bad for work, admittedly, but for my Sparc at home it's just silly, and a long ways from "FREE!!!"
Eazel? (Score:2)
Re:wrong quote (Score:2)
However, some people have argued that the general concepts can be traced back much further - to the Italian jesuit monk Carlo Lodoli. The cornerstone of Lodoli's teaching was the maxim that nothing should be put on show (in rapresentazione) that was not in function (in funzione), that is, a working part of the structure.
(Good OO design/ Abstract Data Types ?)....
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2360/jm-eng.fff-h
So, arguably Lodoli said it first, in Italian, in 1750..
These ideas, plus the idea of organic architecture were all kicking around in the mid 18th century with people like Horatio Greenough writing about them. Mix in the purity of Asian and Japanese art that was getting seen in the west for the first time and it's not surprising that the same ideas were sprouting in different places at the same time (e.g. Charles Rennie Macintosh in Glasgow as he rejected the decoration of Art Nouveau for a more elegant simplicity).
Re:Sun integrating Star Office into Nautilus (Score:2)
Re:Too Little, too late? (Score:2)
Whilst all these
bought Sun kit, so are large numbers of brick-and-mortar concerns who are going online, as well as the usual in-house stuff. Big companies are still "internet-enabling" their enterprise systems. It is of little importance whether the
The other thing to bear in mind is that Sun is all about big, backend servers these days, the workstations are a relatively small part of its business, although still impressive and important, it has most of the workstation market!
PS If anyone wants a job with Sun in Scotland, I get a bonus if I introduce you, so send those CV's in to me!
steven at azimov dot demon dot co dot uk
I do not speak for Sun Microsystems, these comments are mine and not endorsed by my employer.
Re:MacOS Comparison (Score:3)
It's my belief that the OSX interface is only confusing to previus mac users because it's a bit different than the old look and feel. I'm writing this on OSX right now, and I don't find it awkward, but I had not used a mac in 5 or 6 years before this.
If that's the case, then moving to Nautilis would seem to be more confusing as it's even more different from older macos.
$0.02
Re:"Eazel" is just wrong (Score:2)