mmckinlay@gnu.org (Mo McKinlay) wrote on 13.08.00 in <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008131132190.6145-100000@sphere.man.uk.ekto.org>:
> # When people advance *Windows* as a *consistent* UI, something is *badly*
> # wrong.
>
> No, not really. Between applications, Windows is very consitent. Between
> versions, there's horrible inconsisitencies (which I said, I believe).
Well, see, I *don't* think Windows "naked" is really very consistent.
> # Yes, it's more consistant than X, but that's about the limit.
>
> X isn't a desktop environment. GNOME is, KDE is, CDE is, X isn't.
Well yes, *X* has an excuse.
> # (Incidentally, they also have the "treat structured files as directories"
> # thing. In purely user-level code. For a strictly selected set of
> # structured files and contents thereof.)
>
> Quite simply: That's nice for the MacOS, but the only comparison that can
> be made is the type of feature we're discussing; the situation is very
> different.
It's a point about design and implementation of GUI features. What to do
about structured files (which you can't avoid anyway, starting with tar),
and how to implement it.
To be painfully obvious, I'd trust Apple's GUI design decisions over
Microsoft's in about 99.9% of the situations. Apple's UI designers usually
know what they are doing; I'm yet to be convinced Microsoft *has* UI
designers.
Oh, and note that NeXT's UI designers currently work for Apple.
OTOH, I do trust NeXT's API designers (now working for Apple) far more
than either Microsoft's *or* old Apple's API designers.
And they seem to have decided that open(URL) is a good type of interface.
MfG Kai
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:35 EST