[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: "John Summerfield"
From:       John Summerfield <summer () OS2 ! ami ! com ! au>
Date:       1999-09-17 23:30:47
[Download RAW message or body]

> Thats what I meant in a mail before: there are discussions about a
> thread for months (collected allready ~90 mails only about
> Close/Exit/Quit and have read all of them) and then joins a "new" person
> and says "that's silly".
> 
> John: if you have a solution (!) make a web-page and mail it to me. I'll
> add a link to the page and if your solution is the best (we see that
> through responsed mails), I'll drop the old (which isn't "my" solution
> but the input of many users...).
> 
> And please read the old mails before judging the work of others. Writing
> "AAAAAAAAAAARGGGGHH" is no argument for me.

In that particular case, I'd read several mails on the subject, responded 
to some, then read that a decision had been taken. As I read mail offline, 
I find researching archives impractical, especially so considering the 
volume of mail I handle.

> 
> I'm respecting that you use computers for 30 years, but you're not a
> typical USER then - you're an expert. If you like OS/2 and you think IBM

If I'm an expert, then at least my opinions are worth something;-). I also 
try to remember when I was a beginner; fortunately it's not too hard 
because I'm often a beginner. And I have done some user-interface design 
(though principally for IBM mainframes).

I mentioned the 30 years to emphasise I've had some time to think about 
it. I've not studied in any formal sense HCI.

> does a good work - fine, you're right. But don't expect everyone thinks
> like you and wants KDE behave like OS/2.

I don't say that KDE should behave like KDE, though CUA compliance would 
surely be a good thing. However, as one who's used OS/2, and dabbled in 
programming for it. for some years, I have come to a good understanding 
and appreciation of the work that's gone into its design.


I do say that there's a lot in OS/2 that is worth noting and considering. 
Superficially OS/2 and Windows are quite similar; for example they share 
many common accelerators; ALT-F4 to close a window for example. However, 
there's another layer to OS/2 and that's where its differences really 
count.


OS/2 has a "program object." A clumsy name perhaps. It's similar to the 
KDE Launcher, but more configurable. For example, I can create a program 
object for EPM (my faviourine programmers' editor), specify that it's to 
start in a particular directory (where I store my C source code perhaps), 
that it's to open files who's names end in any of .C ,cpp, .h, .hpp, .rc 
etc. If I subsequently renmame or move epm (and I specified its full path 
name in the program object) the program object is updated automatically to 
reflect that name; I got caught once when I renamed something.exe to 
something.oxe and I created a new something.exe - the program's behaviour 
didn't change.


A programmer can subclass (in almost any compiled language) a program 
object, a datafile, a folder and add custom behaviour. Contemplate a mail 
folder; drop a text file into it and it becomes a letter. Open its 
settings (properties) notebook and add address info and send it. Drop an 
empty text file and it opens your composer.


OS/2 and KDE already share similarities. KDE has a pager; similar to 
OS/2's Launchpad. Both have single-button program launching. OS/2's has 
drawers (like gnome's pager). I happen NOT to like the windows-style 
unfolding menus; they are relatively slow to navigate and you always have 
to start again from the Start button or whatever. on OS/2 I  can have 
several launchpads; I can close any or all of them at will. A double-click 
on the desktop opens the master.

From using KDE (and gnome) I have the impression they are designed mostly 
by people who are familiar with Windows. Windows' interfaces are far 
behind  OS/2 (and I do use both).


There's a lot to like in both gnome and KDE; I  find both improvements on 
Windows (I and haven't yet decided which I prefer). However, I think that 
OS/2 can shed light on the way forward to both teams. If the developers 
know what OS/2 offers, they can more easily imagine ways to improve KDE>

If you find a group of OS/2 users who've also used KDE and/or gnome, I 
rather think you'll find most agree with me that it would be a Realy Good 
Thing for IBM to port OS?2's WPS to Linux; I've found some who do, none 
who don't.

-- 
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://os2.ami.com.au/os2/ for OS/2 support.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]