Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!
newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!ina.zfn.uni-bremen.de!
marvin.pc-labor.uni-bremen.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.belwue.de!
zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!
zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!not-for-mail
From: aap...@panix.com (Andrew Appel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Standard Linux GUI
Date: 17 May 1994 13:46:41 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <2ravu1$8gm@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Is it just me or does anybody else feel that what the Linux (UNIX)
community needs is a SINGLE, STANDARD, ONLY ONE, Graphical User Interface
(GUI)? The purpose of a GUI is to reduce the learning curve when moving
from application to application in a graphical environment. Unfortunately,
due to the lack of any real (FREE) standards, it is just as aggravating
to move between many X applications as it is between most TEXT applications.
I'd love to see Linux workstations in every home, every office, all
across America and the World, but the reality is that Microsoft Windows,
Macintosh, and NextStep are all standard GUIs that the average users can
figure out. For those of you who don't understand purchasing in large
corporations: "IT IS THOSE AVERAGE USERS, NOT THE TECH WEENIES, THAT ARE
MAKING THE PURCHASING DECISIONS!"
Any comments? (ANDY)
P.S. Before you mention MOTIF remember that it also is not free!
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!
newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!ina.zfn.uni-bremen.de!
marvin.pc-labor.uni-bremen.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
news.belwue.de!zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!netmbx.de!
Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
sdd.hp.com!hp-cv!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!
usenet.ee.pdx.edu!not-for-mail
From: m...@cs.pdx.edu (Mike Harvey)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Standard Linux GUI
Date: 17 May 1994 13:18:32 -0700
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <2rb8qo$o4m@cs.pdx.edu>
References: <2ravu1$8gm@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.pdx.edu
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19 #2
aap...@panix.com (Andrew Appel) writes:
>Is it just me or does anybody else feel that what the Linux (UNIX)
>community needs is a SINGLE, STANDARD, ONLY ONE, Graphical User Interface
>(GUI)? The purpose of a GUI is to reduce the learning curve when moving
>from application to application in a graphical environment. Unfortunately,
>due to the lack of any real (FREE) standards, it is just as aggravating
>to move between many X applications as it is between most TEXT applications.
>I'd love to see Linux workstations in every home, every office, all
>across America and the World, but the reality is that Microsoft Windows,
>Macintosh, and NextStep are all standard GUIs that the average users can
>figure out. For those of you who don't understand purchasing in large
>corporations: "IT IS THOSE AVERAGE USERS, NOT THE TECH WEENIES, THAT ARE
>MAKING THE PURCHASING DECISIONS!"
>Any comments? (ANDY)
What about fvwm, the default interface which comes with Slackware?
It's my favorite of the ones included in the distribution and the easiest
to sit down and use without reading any manpages. It looks nice and
has nice easily-configurable popup menus. It beats MS windows and OS/2
PM hands down, IMHO. If it is too simple/nonpowerful it could probably
be beefed up a bit, though I think its probably adequate for average
users. Also, I think its free...
>P.S. Before you mention MOTIF remember that it also is not free!
Mike
--
Mike Harvey
m...@cs.pdx.edu
Put all things to the test; keep what is good.
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!
newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!ina.zfn.uni-bremen.de!
marvin.pc-labor.uni-bremen.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
news.belwue.de!zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!netmbx.de!
Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!
news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!
gallifrey!newcombe
From: newco...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu (Dan Newcombe)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Standard Linux GUI
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 17:01:58 UNDEFINED
Organization: Clayton State College
Lines: 44
Message-ID: < newcombe.187.003EA8E3@aa.csc.peachnet.edu>
References: <2ravu1$8gm@panix.com> <2rb8qo$o4m@cs.pdx.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.144.82.16
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B]
In article <2rb8qo$...@cs.pdx.edu> m...@cs.pdx.edu (Mike Harvey) writes:
>>Is it just me or does anybody else feel that what the Linux (UNIX)
>>community needs is a SINGLE, STANDARD, ONLY ONE, Graphical User Interface
>>(GUI)? The purpose of a GUI is to reduce the learning curve when moving
>>from application to application in a graphical environment. Unfortunately,
>>due to the lack of any real (FREE) standards, it is just as aggravating
>>to move between many X applications as it is between most TEXT applications.
>What about fvwm, the default interface which comes with Slackware?
Yes, fvwm is nice, but as the name implies, it is only a Window Manager.
Those are pretty much the same, click on a window and drag it, etc...
What needs to be standardized is the User Interface. This is how things work
in programs. For instance, pull down menus:
When I click on a menu, do I need to keep my mouse button down until I
highlight the selection I want, then release? or do I click on the menu, then
release, and then click on the choice?
Windows, via it's API, has a standard interface. If I want a pull down menu,
under Borland C++, I create the resource, and tell my program it's there
(simplified version). When I click on the menu, Windows handles it all, until
I make my menu choice, and THAT is returned to the program. This way all
menus in all programs work the same. On a like note, there is the Open File
dialog. This is a standard call also, and therefore, all programs that need
to open a file could look the same.
Under X, as was said, there are many different API's: Xt, Xlib, Xaw, Xview,
Motif, Tcl, and probably about a dozen I forgot. This gives each application
a different style and different feel. Each application, even though the menu
may be exactly the same as the previous application, could interface totally
different.
This is what is being argued should be standardized. Personally, I think that
the OSF should place Motif (not just the specs) in the public domain, but then
again, I am a dreamer :)
-Dan
--
Dan Newcombe newco...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu
Clayton State College Morrow, Georgia
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"And the man in the mirror has sad eyes." -Marillion
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!get.hooked.net!decwrl!pa.dec.com!
decuac.dec.com!haven.umd.edu!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.duke.edu!
MathWorks.Com!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!
senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!not-for-mail
From: t...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Standard Linux GUI
Date: 18 May 1994 16:21:24 -0400
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 45
Sender: n...@athena.mit.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2rdtc4$h0u@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: t...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o)
NNTP-Posting-Host: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
From: aap...@panix.com (Andrew Appel)
Date: 17 May 1994 13:46:41 -0400
Is it just me or does anybody else feel that what the Linux (UNIX)
community needs is a SINGLE, STANDARD, ONLY ONE, Graphical User Interface
(GUI)? The purpose of a GUI is to reduce the learning curve when moving
from application to application in a graphical environment. Unfortunately,
due to the lack of any real (FREE) standards, it is just as aggravating
to move between many X applications as it is between most TEXT applications.
I'd love to see Linux workstations in every home, every office, all
across America and the World, but the reality is that Microsoft Windows,
Macintosh, and NextStep are all standard GUIs that the average users can
figure out. For those of you who don't understand purchasing in large
corporations: "IT IS THOSE AVERAGE USERS, NOT THE TECH WEENIES, THAT ARE
MAKING THE PURCHASING DECISIONS!"
Great. Why don't you write the Singls, Standard, ONLY ONE, Graphical
User Interface, and the try convince everyone to port their programs to
use it. Bearing in mind, of course, that nearly everyone working on
Linux is a volunteer, and you can't do things like "do it this way or we
won't give you access to the source code" like they do in commercial
ventures.
For myself, I hardly ever use a GUI since I can type faster than most
people can mouse, so I don't care what the GUI looks like --- as long as
I have a way of getting around it.
It should be noted that NeXTStep has the problem that if you don't like
click-to-focus, go to Hell. You can't change it. "And there shall be
one, and only one, GUI". I dealt with this particular problem by
refusing to do any development on the NeXTStep..... if you piss off
enough developers, you can very easily doom a volunteer effort.
(Although this case, it's not a problem; everyone will ignore you if you
just rant and rave about how you're commanding everyone to use the some
particular GUI.)
Give it up. It won't work.
- Ted
P.S. If you really want to do this, why don't you port all existing
applications that you want to use to a standard GUI, and put together
your own distribution? That's the Linux Way, and if it's really that
great, everyone will start using it.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!sashimi.wwa.com!gagme.wwa.com!n5ial!jim
From: j...@n5ial.mythical.com (Jim Graham)
Subject: Re: Standard Linux GUI
References: <2ravu1$8gm@panix.com>
Organization: Future site of Vaporware Corporation (maybe). --Teletoons (NW)
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 17:50:07 GMT
Message-ID: <1994May18.175007.16044@n5ial.mythical.com>
Lines: 43
In article <2ravu1$...@panix.com> aap...@panix.com (Andrew Appel) writes:
>Is it just me or does anybody else feel that what the Linux (UNIX)
>community needs is a SINGLE, STANDARD, ONLY ONE, Graphical User Interface
>(GUI)?
Yeah, right.... People have different likes/dislikes, and right now, they
have a choice. That, IMHO, is how it should be. Also, I seriously doubt
that any of the standard-making bodies are going to form a committee to
publish a standard GUI just for Linux...for UNIX in general, perhaps, but
not just for Linux.
Btw, there is a {de facto} standard interface for X11 under UNIX---Motif.
I, personally, don't like Motif, and don't use it here, but it is a
{de facto} standard, just the same.
>Unfortunately, due to the lack of any real (FREE) standards,
Are you suggesting that it has to be free to be a standard? Or are you
just wanting a standard that happens to be free? If you're suggesting
that it has to be free to be a standard, welcome to the real world...it
doesn't always work that way. :-(
>the reality is that Microsoft Windows,
>Macintosh, and NextStep are all standard GUIs
Ummmm, last time I checked, they were {de facto} standards, not actually
true standards. If I'm wrong about this, please do correct me.
>P.S. Before you mention MOTIF remember that it also is not free!
Are we talking about what something costs? Or are we talking about
standards (and/or {de facto} standards)?
Later,
--jim
--
73 DE N5IAL (/4) < Running Linux *1.00*! >
j...@n5ial.mythical.com ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
|| j.gra...@ieee.org Packet: N5IAL@W4ZBB (Ft. Walton Beach, FL)
E-mail me for information about KAMterm (host mode for Kantronics TNCs).
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!sundog.tiac.net!usenet.elf.com!rpi!
gatech!cc.gatech.edu!byron
From: b...@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: Standard Linux GUI
Message-ID: <1994May19.163009.3803@cc.gatech.edu>
Sender: n...@cc.gatech.edu
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
References: <2ravu1$8gm@panix.com> <1994May18.175007.16044@n5ial.mythical.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 16:30:09 GMT
Lines: 78
In article <1994May18.175007.16...@n5ial.mythical.com>,
Jim Graham < j...@n5ial.mythical.com> wrote:
>In article <2ravu1$...@panix.com> aap...@panix.com (Andrew Appel) writes:
>
>>Is it just me or does anybody else feel that what the Linux (UNIX)
>>community needs is a SINGLE, STANDARD, ONLY ONE, Graphical User Interface
>>(GUI)?
>
>Yeah, right.... People have different likes/dislikes, and right now, they
>have a choice. That, IMHO, is how it should be. Also, I seriously doubt
>that any of the standard-making bodies are going to form a committee to
>publish a standard GUI just for Linux...for UNIX in general, perhaps, but
>not just for Linux.
I though I was going to have to write this myself because no one seemed to
be interested in arguing the point. Standard GUI's limit the flexibility
of the system and its applications.
Matt Welsh and I have been having an ongoing discussion about how to
introduce new users to the power of Linux. His position is that new users
should learn Unix/Linux in all it's current complex glory. I favor adding
some type of online interface to ease the transisition. However I'm pretty
sure we both agree that limited and standardizing is not the way to go.
Linux is not for the average user. It's for users that are willing to take
the time to learn the system in order to use it effectively. Permanently
dropping a watered down so that it's easy to use interface will limit
the potential of the system (See Matt, I have been listening! ;-)
There's no need for a standard GUI. X plus the applications that run under
Linux now, plus 15 different window managers, plus TCL all add something to
the complex and very powerful mix that we call Linux.
The problem with generalizing and standardizing is this:
"There are exceptions to every generalization, including this one!"
Might I suggest however that we hone a subset for people to start out with
just so they can get familiar with how things work. It should be powerful
enough so that the average user could use it for a lifetime, just enough
so that users can wade in the kiddie pool for awhile and get used to the
water. Then you provide enough documentation and applications that a user
can build an environment to suit their needs.
For some reason a lot of folks have picked up the old business mold when
it comes to using computers: "Conform to the system, or get out!" People
use computers, not the other way around. Not everyone uses a machine the
same way. We need the complexity and diversity we have now so that users can
benefit by being able to customize things the way they see fit.
>
>Btw, there is a {de facto} standard interface for X11 under UNIX---Motif.
>I, personally, don't like Motif, and don't use it here, but it is a
>{de facto} standard, just the same.
And the worst part about it is that it costs real money.
>
>>Unfortunately, due to the lack of any real (FREE) standards,
>
>Are you suggesting that it has to be free to be a standard? Or are you
>just wanting a standard that happens to be free? If you're suggesting
>that it has to be free to be a standard, welcome to the real world...it
>doesn't always work that way. :-(
>
>>the reality is that Microsoft Windows,
>>Macintosh, and NextStep are all standard GUIs
The reality is that many of us power users can't stand Microsoft Windows,
Macintosh, and NextStep for exactly that reason: In an effort to simplify
and standardize they had to make compromises in the interface that I'm
personally not willing to accept. I don't use them. I use Linux. 'nuff said.
BAJ
---
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: b...@cc.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!get.hooked.net!decwrl!parc!biosci!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!
darwin.sura.net!cc.gatech.edu!byron
From: b...@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: Standard Linux GUI
Message-ID: <1994May19.181838.7363@cc.gatech.edu>
Sender: n...@cc.gatech.edu
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
References: <2ravu1$8gm@panix.com> <1994May18.175007.16044@n5ial.mythical.com>
<1994May19.163009.3803@cc.gatech.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 18:18:38 GMT
Lines: 22
Couple of typos. Guess that's what I get for typing too fast!
>Linux is not for the average user. It's for users that are willing to take
>the time to learn the system in order to use it effectively. Permanently
>dropping a watered down so that it's easy to use interface will limit
^ in ^ GUI ^ the
>the potential of the system (See Matt, I have been listening! ;-)
>
>Might I suggest however that we hone a subset for people to start out with
>just so they can get familiar with how things work. It should be powerful
>enough so that the average user could use it for a lifetime, just enough
^ couldn't
>so that users can wade in the kiddie pool for awhile and get used to the
>water. Then you provide enough documentation and applications that a user
>can build an environment to suit their needs.
Later,
BAJ
---
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: b...@cc.gatech.edu