In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
<scatnubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on 13 Dec 2006 11:16:27 -0800
<1166037387.558959.67040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:12691734.CCgUhsLFtS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > What is Look XP
>> >
>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>> > | LXP is a project that provides to Linux/Unix users an identical ms
>> > | WindowsXP look&feel desktop
>> > `----
>> >
>> > http://lxp.sourceforge.net/
>> >
>> > Seems like a new project. Probably a lot of violations therein. A bit like
>> > that Linux XP desktop, as well as those which the Chinese government
>> > deploys
>> > as it converts thousands of machines to Linux (reported earlier this
>> > year).
>>
>> This is a good thing, IMHO. Not because I want Linux to look like XP (I
>> like Gnome a lot), but because it gets rid of one more excuse for people who
>> dismiss Linux as too difficult to learn. I don't think these dismissive
>> people are maliciously lying, but I think they are simply unable to express
>> themselves well, and mistakenly point to Linux looking different from XP as
>> the reason for Linux not being any good.
>>
>> Now we've removed that barrier and can go a bit deeper, to the real
>> issues -- the core issues. I see this project as a step towards improving
>> communications. It's more symbolically useful than directly useful.
>>
>> - Oliver
>
> I'd disagree. I think if it looks like XP, the uninformed will expect
> it to act like XP, which I think will just make it more difficult to
> learn. I can see people saying that Linux is no good because it looks
> different from XP, but wouldn't they just say well it looks like XP,
> but it doesn't work like XP, so it still sucks?
>
Look includes interaction. For example, a static picture
of a, say, Unreal Tournament 2004 game does not begin to
convey the complexities of the weaponry (including the
transporter, which can frag an opponent if accurately
tossed). Ditto for desktops, although one can glean some
info (e.g., Vista screenshots of multiple workspaces --
I'd have to find it, and Google is being reticent again --
shows that the icon bar has all programs).
In short, if Linux is for some reason required to look
like XP it should behave like XP as well. This might
include a bug-for-bug compatibility list for such things as
"shortcuts", single-click-open/execute for Office (which
could lead to increased local user attack susceptibility),
and a browser that reproduces all of IE's faults.
There are also issues with the file system. Unless there's
a modification to Linux ext2/3, reiserfs, or jfs that
allows for case-preserving (as opposed to the current
case-sensitive) naming, some users and programs can get
confused.
There are also minor copyright issues. The Windows Start
menu icon is probably copyrighted and therefore off-limits
(much like the NASA meatball logo, if one reads the
licensing carefully). Ditto for the 'blue e', unless
the user has actually used something like ies4linux and
is truly using Internet Explorer (on top of WinE).
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
