[unios] Re: runtime example I

[Pat Wendorf]

Anders Petersson wrote:


> >power users are the only ones who will know it even exists.  I think the
> only way
> >it will ever be noticed by the end user is the lack difficulties they have
> with
> >the system (an impossible thing to measure).
>
> I don't think you should need to dig very deep to find differences from
> current systems. Even in routine tasks you could benefit from explicitly
> push objects around. For example, browsing and acting directly on the
> systree is both powerful and convenient. But at the same time it could be
> too powerful for novices. Of course you could restrict the interaction to
> today's level, but that would take away a lot of advantages.

Yes, but if the restrictions could be easily removed, it could be a very smooth
upgrade path :)  Go from crappy interface, to nice interface simply by shutting
down the legacy elements of the UI.

> >and how an object orented (totally flexible) system must handle things like
> >desktops, and menu bars.  There are always constants for how things must work
> >(like one window has to be behind another), Z-Ordering is pretty universal I
> >think.
>
> I have a more OO'ed suggestion. The very background is an object. Windows
> are children of the background (still objects), able to themselves have
> additional children. Every window has some defined properties, like
> position, size, etc. This makes it all to a common object tree structure.
> Children are always in front of their parent. "Sisters" could be ordered by
> their slots' position in the parent's array or how they are ordered by some
> defined property, like a priority number (would be a child of the window).
> For this to be satisfactory, I'd want some way to restrict/define the
> members of a subtree. Probably this could be done by giving much power to
> object servers as to what objects can be allowed. That would truly be a
> neat solution!
>

I agree, and I like the idea.  Actually anything that promotes the system wide
object paradigm will cause less headaches for everyone down the line.


> >is one of the major problems with it <gasp>.  The problem exists that
> there is no
> >real standard desktop that people can learn (they all act similar, but not
> enough
> >for a home user).
>
> That could become a real pain in the ass for an OS as flexible as UniOS is
> supposed to be.

Flexibility is a double edged sword (that was my cliche of the day :).  We can
make the system into anything we want... but that's the problem.  There will have
to be SOME things that will have to be standardized.  I'm not sure what yet, but I
know there will be.

> Could you explain a little closer what the problem lies in?
> Are the different versions binary uncompatible, or is it just a question of
> interface diversion? Or something else?

Actually all of that :)  Linux, at least in my experience, suffers mostly from
library problems.  All the applications for Linux that I have seen must compile
onto the target system, unfortunately there is some industry diversion in what
version of Linux come with what libraries.  But when it comes to X-Windows the
primary problem for new users would be the fact that almost no two linux
distributions come with the same Window Manager.  It's more of a power user's game
to switch between Window Managers, and I have to admit, it's neat to make your
computer act (sorry, look) like a NeXT system :)

The differences are pretty extreme when switching between managers.  For example
the right click button (or even the middle button on a 3 button mouse), will
invariably do something different on each manager.  Also there are some programs
written especially to take advantage of certain window managers. KDE (a popular
window manager) has tons of programs, that only work (well) with KDE.  It's nice
to see all that development and freedom, but it's not helping those who just want
to "get the job done".  Companies can standardize on a certain Linux, with a
certain Window Manager, set up a certain way.  I think that is the only way they
can train casual/work users on the system.

> >XOOM is pissing me, and most of it's members off with that stupid bar.  I
> even
> >wrote them a letter stating that the people that frequent this page will most
> >likely find that bar a complete annoyance, and would never visit their
> >advertisers, or buy any products (I hope I'm not jumping to conclusions, they
> >only seem to sell crap).
>
> OTOH, advertisements are what they live on. However, it gives the site the
> wrong impression.

As soon as my hacker monkey slaves (hehe) report back to me, we will have a new
home...