From: matthews@cs.hope.edu (Eric Matthews)
Subject: Re: Packaging Linux
Reply-To: matthews@cs.hope.edu
Organization: Hope College
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:14:35 GMT

In article 721861107@ee.ualberta.ca, daum@ee.ualberta.ca (Tanya Louise Daum) writes:
> I was reading this morning in a local computer paper about NeXT software and
> how the NeXT is the only computer with "a consistent and user friendly" user
> interface across almost all applications excluding the Macintosh.
> 
> This got me thinking about the innadequacy of raw X windows and the
> applications already built.  Most applications aren't terribly user
> friendly, and certainly aren't consistent.  I know there are packaged
> environments for X out there that have this sort of internal consistency and
> user friendliness (Interviews struck me as kind of nice) but they have not
> caught on, etc.
> 
> If we want to bring Linux to the "joe average user" market instead of the
> power hacker market, we have to do something about the rather arcane nature
> of Unix applications.
> 
> What I'm thinking of is this: imagine turning on your computer, booting up
> Linux, and immediately getting a login prompt in a window.  Then it would
> run your window manager, pop up a Mac or NeXT like file manager, and the
> file system would be packaged so that there would be a large selection of
> finished, glossy, X based applications with a common user interface -- a
> word processor, lots of utilities, some games, perhaps even a spreadsheet.
> 
> Can anybody suggest to me a package of stuff that we could include in a
> package for free that would include file manager, utilities, window manager,
> etc.?  I could get to work on constructing a package much like the SLS,
> except window based?
> 
> Comrade @ LambdaMOO (telnet lambda.parc.xerox.com 8888) daum@bode.ualberta.ca

	I second your notion about packaging LINUX.  I have shown LINUX to many
DOS users and they were impressed.  Thanks to WINDOWS and OS-2 many DOS users 
now are familiar with multi-tasking, virtual memory, and graphical user 
enviroments.  Stepping up to a unix-like OS isn't such a scarry proposition.
If LINUX were packaged with a GUI in the same manner as the SLS distribution, 
LINUX would be competing with OS-2 and WINDOWS NT.  LINUX, being free and having
a large software base, would be very competitive.

	Maybe, I'm a bit too ambitious, but I think that LINUX is the greatest
thing since sliced bread.  WINDOWS and OS-2 have made a lot of promises, some
of which are delivered by LINUX.  A standardized graphical enviroment would
complete the list of promises.

	As far a GUI's are concerned, I myself like the OPEN LOOK stuff.
OPEN LOOK programs all have the same `feel'.  I don't know if the OPEN LOOK
specification is publically available, but I do know that DESKview/X can
provide an OPEN LOOK window manager, so it may be possible.

	As far as utilities are concerned, a good word processor will be
essential.  All DOS users do word processing, so having a quality word 
processor bundled with the package would be a good idea.

	As I said earlier I may be too ambitious, but I think people are
responsive to LINUX.  Why?  Because I was.

						Eric J. Matthews

				


Newsgroups: comp.os.linux