Oh, please, please, COME ON Ubuntu development people!

[Joep L. Blom]

On 20/04/11 02:58, Tom H wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Joep L. Blom<jlblom at neuroweave.nl>  wrote:
>> On 17/04/11 21:42, Tom H wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Joep L. Blom<jlblom at neuroweave.nl>
>>>   wrote:
>
>
>>>> Your (OT) rant is firstly completely useless and secondly grossly in
>>>> error.
>>>> Or didn't you know that the MacOS is Linux (albeit BSD) with a
>>>> not-so-intelligent overlay.
>
>>> If you're going to correct someone, *please* get your facts right!
>>>
>>> OS X's based on FreeBSD, which most certainly isn't Linux.
>>>
>>> OS X's "overlay" is being imitated by both Canonical and GNOME so it
>>> can't be *that* unintelligent...
>
>> First, Linux was a slip of the pen, (typed and not reread) and to be
>> nitpicking: FreeBSD is not BSD but a much later incarnation of it.Moreover,
>> I have always had the impression that Unix is coined by Kernigan and Ritchy
>> where Ken Thomson was the third man. Don't forget:C was never intended to be
>> a real computer language, it was only a bag of subroutines to program the
>> operating system Unix.
>> I got my first incarnation of Unix from K&  R in 1979 on a few tapes with a
>> huge set of paper (documentation) for the old DEC PDP-11, (talking about
>> real old systems) and was my successor for the PDP-8 which I bought it in
>> 1969 working in a research institution.
>
> I don't follow but it doesn't matter...

What is it you don't follow??
The first incarnation of Unix was written for the PDP-11 from DEC. I 
mentioned that I acquired that machine after I had had experience with 
another machine of DEC, the PDP8 which was not 16-bit but 12-bit (as the 
PDP-9 and PDP-10 were). The PDP-11 was the first machine programmed in 
hexadecimal (instead of octal which were the other machines). Unix was 
the first general 16-bit OS and incorporated several principles with 
respect to security that still forms the base of ala UNIX lookalikes.
>
>> And I humbly disagree as copying is not proof that something is good! Eye
>> candy for one is an eye sore for another and the typical Mac GUI was only
>> meant to be different from the MS GUI and didn't have user friendliness in
>> mind. The only reason to plagiarize the Mac GUI is the thought that it will
>> attract people that like the Mac but don't want the closed Apple
>> environment.
>
> We can't all agree...
>
> Copying is a proof that something's successful. I generally advise
> traders and the like at work to buy a Mac when they ask my advice and
> they love it - every one of them. We're talking about people who've
> been using Windows for years at work and at home.There's less eye
> candy than Windows or KDE but it very user-friendly.
>
I still disagree somewhat as copying the MAC tells only half. The fact 
that the look-and-feel of the MAC is appreciated by many only shows that 
people tend to be easy-going and accept even illogical things in the UI. 
The other half is that the MAC look-and-feel is made only for the MAC 
hardware and this is not different from the way Microsoft forces people. 
That is my main objection against the Apple way. Therefore if you copy 
the MAC way, you enhance proprietary 'eye-candy' and that's in my eyes 
the wrong signal to users.
I agree of course that it is purely a question of taste. But it is just 
as important to have a free choice. In Linux (Ubuntu) you have a choice 
of many different UI (Gnome, Unity. XFSM, KDE, etc.). With the MAC and 
Microsoft you have no choice.
I think everybody has to make his own choice for proprietary software or 
Open Source, standard hardware or proprietary hardware and last - but 
not least - the budget he/she want to spend.
Joep