Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
X GUI

ROX Desktop Update 181

tal197 writes: "More than two years since the ROX desktop (a desktop based around the filesystem) was last mentioned on slashdot, the second stable branch of the central ROX-Filer component has just been released. It's still pretty light and fast, despite all the changes, and integrates well with other desktops too."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ROX Desktop Update

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Desktop (Score:3, Insightful)

    by October_30th ( 531777 ) on Monday February 18, 2002 @03:03PM (#3027775) Homepage Journal
    Look. There are two similar "designers" here.

    There are the windows XPerience designers who want to lock everything down. Ok. That works with the closed source.

    Then there are the open source guys who are afraid to/incapable of settling on a well defined, common standard that would bring unified desktop and improve user friendliness on Unix. Why? Because they are afraid of things getting locked down. But how could the desktop get locked down when everything is open source?! Settle on a standard and if anyone is not satisfied, let him/her compile her own programs and live outside the standard! Don't make us all live in the "download the most recent code and recompile it" hell. Some of us just want a desktop that works and looks good. We don't want to tweak our computers!

  • Re:Desktop (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2002 @03:03PM (#3027776)
    You can have 50 desktops but if you have to exit all 50 of them to go into Windows to play games or do word processing or any one of 10 other common tasks that you can't really do in Linux as well if at all, it doesn't really matter so much...
  • Re:Desktop (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2002 @03:12PM (#3027832)
    That is exactly the mentality that made MS the monopoly it is today.

    People sold themselves into slavery with MS. There may have been some questionable (downright illegal) practices, but I don't think this really made a difference. Business owners and consequently office workers adopted one single interface.

    Only after this mindset was established did MS have the leverage to really screw other companies out of business. CP/M wasn't a victim of anti-competitive practices. DR-DOS wasn't a victim until Win3.1.

    Variety is the spice of life. Competition is a good thing, even in Open Source, where money isn't the motivator.

    New ideas would never grow if there was only one desktop. No one likes branches in projects, especially just to try out usability features. The only recourse is to start a different project, or move to a different project, that thinks along the lines that you do. Once the features are tried, tested, and appreciated by one user base, then maybe the commitee that is the larger application might be convinced to try it.

    If everyone decided to leave it to one filesystem, we probably wouldn't have any descent journaling filesystems, for instance. Ext2 was great, why use anything different? Why use new significantly new features in a system we already know and love?

    Variety, competition, and choice are all good things, in life as well as open source.
  • by mbrubeck ( 73587 ) on Monday February 18, 2002 @03:38PM (#3027929) Homepage
    I grew up with Macintosh System 6. That was a long time ago; first I jumped ship to BeOS back in the PR1 days and became a bash and vi junkie; later moving to Debian and becoming a free software hacker. For the most part I abandoned my MacOS roots.

    I never managed to shake a nagging feeling of loss: I missed the Finder. Oh, I tried various graphical file managers -- Midnight Commander, assorted OS/2 and NeXT clones, and more recently Nautilus. None of them worked for me; I tried to use them but always found myself switching back to the shell to get anything done. Most recently, I tried MacOS X and had the same problem! My beloved Finder -- constant from System 6 all the way to MacOS 9 -- had been replaced by this strange marriage of Windows Explorer and the NeXT Workspace Manager.

    What did I want that all these tools failed to deliver? A physical feeling of the filesystem. The idea that this directory is here... and this one is over there... and I can reach through the screen with my mouse, scoop up a bunch of files, and drop them in a new location. Also a sense of immediacy. The file manager must be lightweight and optimized enough that opening a new directory is, perceptually, a zero-cost operation. The interface must be sparse enough that you feel you are working in the filesystem, not through a bunch of widgets and menus. Sure, browsers like Nautilus or the OS X Finder support classic Finder-style browsing, but they don't stay out of your way enough for you to ignore the browser and focus on the files.

    The introduction [sourceforge.net] on the ROX pages sums up some of how I feel:

    However, recent desktop efforts (such as KDE and GNOME) seem to be following the Windows approach of trying to hide the filesystem and get users to do things via a Start-menu or similar. Modern desktop users, on Windows or Unix, often have no idea where their programs are installed, or even where their data files are saved. This leads to a feeling of not being in control, and a poor understanding of how the system works.

    One other system managed to give me the same intuitive feel for the filesystem, and that was the Be Tracker, a blatant but well-crafted Finder clone. Despite serious flaws (no hierarchal list views!), it was so nice to use that it was my primary interface into my computer when I used BeOS. The ROX Filer looks like a promising start. I will download it and hope, and contribute where I can.

  • Re:Desktop (Score:2, Insightful)

    by October_30th ( 531777 ) on Monday February 18, 2002 @03:40PM (#3027932) Homepage Journal

    I think it'll involve clowns and the color mauve

    If it meant that the clowns and the color mauve are standard across ALL the applications, I'd still use it.

    The current "use whatever widget set you want" anarchy is just horrible.

  • by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Monday February 18, 2002 @03:57PM (#3028005) Homepage
    The problem with this system is that often space is wasted. You can have hundreds of copies of the same library in all the installation directories.

    True, DLL Hell isn't much better, but there has to be a clever median between the two.

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday February 18, 2002 @04:01PM (#3028045) Homepage
    Exactly... whoever thought that making the web-browser into the file manager needs to be beaten with large numbers of sticks. and I am quite saddened that Linux professionals that program KDE and Gnome also decided that bloat is better.

    If I want a web browser I'll open a web browser. I wanted to use a file manager. and this is where ROX fits in. If you kill nautlius (actually delete that nightmare from your drive) and place ROX in it's place as both the file manager AND desktop you increase Gnome's useability by over 50% in just the speed gains alone.

    I firmly believe that both KDE and Gnome need to stop all development, take away anything faster than a P-II-450 from all the developers and work on making both environments lightning fast on that low end hardware. THEN you are allowed to add toys, but no damned integration...

    remember this is linux... a UNIX style OS. and that premise that you havea lot of small fast apps that do one thing very well and very fast.

    having a webbrowser in my desktop and file manager is not the brightest Idea anyone at either camp had.
  • by tuffy ( 10202 ) on Monday February 18, 2002 @04:38PM (#3028247) Homepage Journal
    The primary bit that is really cool is the really simple API for creating, accessing and modifying xml configuration files that follow the same ~/Choices/ convention that ROX-Filer follows, which seems infinitely better than the standard of polluting your home directory with dotfiles and dotdirectories...

    The seemingly hard-coded use of the "~/Choices" directory is the one thing that irks me about the ROX-Filer. The convention of .directory is that stuff which needs some disk space but is used only by apps should be hidden from view so that I don't have to look at it when I list my home dir contents. Now, I'm stuck with the vaguely-worded "Choices" directory that would've been better placed in a ".ROX" directory so that I wouldn't have to look at it all the time, but would know what it was at a glance when doing a "ls -a".

  • by frohike ( 32045 ) <bard.allusion@net> on Monday February 18, 2002 @08:22PM (#3029388) Homepage
    What you've identified as a "physical feeling for files" is caused by precisely one overriding principle throughout the old MacOS's -- careful attention to spatial memory. All pre-X MacOS's left everything exactly where you put it, so next time you open a browser window, it would open to the same place and everything would be where you left it. TOG talks about this in one of his famous essays about Fits' Law, and lambasts OS X for basically doing away with it in favor of cutesy things that bounce all over the screen. (sorry, no URL handy, hopefully someone else can supply it..)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19, 2002 @03:09AM (#3030667)
    I think the main point of the original poster is not the name -- could be Choices, Preferences, Rox or Policy...

    He's saying, I understood, it should be a hidden directory.

    That is the best way with preferences, policy and context, when they are implied and not explicit.

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Working...