Re: A stupid question (or two)

[mawarkus t-online de (Matthias Warkus)]

+++ Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 08:12:02AM -0500 +++
Jeff Grammer e-mails me. Film at 11. Reply right now, after the break.
> Being someone who absolutely HATES (and I mean HATES) GUI.  If someone was
> going to create a completely new end-user graphical interface for computers,
> why did you model it after "ancient" technology?  What I mean is, even
> MS-Windows is literally based on the same "look and feel" and the original
> Macintosh computer from the mid to late 1980's.  Why didn't you look at
> completely "revolutionizing" the end-user interface completely?  KDE AND
> GNOME are already "tired", because all they both are, are just
> "re-inventions", no strike that, "ports" really of an old user interface.

Hm. Perhaps it actually works? Perhaps the fact that Windows looks
like it doesn't automatically mean it's bad?

BTW, it's not all that much like Windows.

> Now, please don't misunderstand me, I applaud and vehemently support any
> effort to de-throne Microsquish.

Sigh, Linux is not an effort to do this, and AFAIK, Gnome isn't
either. To many people it may look that way, but I suppose the Gnome
developers just want to make a nice desktop.

> I'm just not sure that a Linux desktop
> that just looks like another MS-Windows makes any sense.  Apple caused
> Microsquish to develop Windows by being very innovative and completely
> "re-thinking" the way people used their computers.

No. Xerox did it. And even before Xerox, there were attempts to create
GUIs.

> For example, I've been thinking for quite some time about my own NEW type of
> GUI.  Something that is modeled after the "look, feel and ease of use" of
> cable-tv, instead of computers.
  ^^^^^^^^

NOT. This sounds like absolute horror.

mawa
-- 
Level 1 - Physical Layer
    User codes Linux device drivers. Does not have a life.
                                                        -- Cliff Pratt