"The overwhelming majority of Linux window systems and desktop environments were Windows 95 work-alikes, NeXTstep work-alikes, or attempts at minimalism based on BlackBox or aewm."
The majority of existing Linux window managers are not representative of the window managers that the majority of Linux users actually use.
There are just a lot of Linux window managers, most of them were probably coded and abandoned decades ago, but they still exist and the code is still out there, because they're open source and the repository they reside in is still maintained by someone, even if no one actually uses them.
You'd be very hard pressed to argue that the versions of KDE and Gnome used by the majority of Linux users fit in to either of your three categories: "Windows 95 work-alikes, NeXTstep work-alikes, or attempts at minimalism based on BlackBox or aewm"
"In the meantime, Microsoft kept improving Windows until, with XP, they had an operating system that even many Slashdotters were forced to admit was usable and productive."
Maybe Microsoft plants at Slashdot would admit that, but most Slashdot users certainly would not. They might admit that XP was better than Vista or Windows 8, though.
"Apple went to the brink of ruin and bounced back to usability preeminence using Unix code, but violating -- nay, extravagantly violating -- the Unix philosophy when it comes to user interfaces."
Some would call the one-button-mouse "usability preeminence", others would call it dumbing down the UI to pander to the lowest common denominator.
Yes, it's undeniable that Apple and MS made a lot of money selling their wares to the technologically illiterate masses.
On HN, where the making money is considered a holy virtue, this might lead some to call Apple's and MS's strategy genius, and to imply that their UIs must be great by association.
But not everyone is so enamored with making money, pandering to the masses, or dumbing down UIs so that even an idiot could use them.
"If one wants to have a good user interface, then mechanism should not always be separated from policy. Configurability should not be paramount. An authority must be in charge to enforce interface consistency, if only imperfectly."
Fortunately there's choice of window managers and UIs on Linux, and we don't have to suffer any benevolent dictators enforcing interface consistency on us all. There is no one-size-fits-all interface, UI, or window manager. I, for one, and grateful for the customizability and flexibility that the Linux ecosystem and X offers us.
Comments
"The overwhelming majority of Linux window systems and desktop environments were Windows 95 work-alikes, NeXTstep work-alikes, or attempts at minimalism based on BlackBox or aewm."
The majority of existing Linux window managers are not representative of the window managers that the majority of Linux users actually use.
There are just a lot of Linux window managers, most of them were probably coded and abandoned decades ago, but they still exist and the code is still out there, because they're open source and the repository they reside in is still maintained by someone, even if no one actually uses them.
You'd be very hard pressed to argue that the versions of KDE and Gnome used by the majority of Linux users fit in to either of your three categories: "Windows 95 work-alikes, NeXTstep work-alikes, or attempts at minimalism based on BlackBox or aewm"
"In the meantime, Microsoft kept improving Windows until, with XP, they had an operating system that even many Slashdotters were forced to admit was usable and productive."
Maybe Microsoft plants at Slashdot would admit that, but most Slashdot users certainly would not. They might admit that XP was better than Vista or Windows 8, though.
"Apple went to the brink of ruin and bounced back to usability preeminence using Unix code, but violating -- nay, extravagantly violating -- the Unix philosophy when it comes to user interfaces."
Some would call the one-button-mouse "usability preeminence", others would call it dumbing down the UI to pander to the lowest common denominator.
Yes, it's undeniable that Apple and MS made a lot of money selling their wares to the technologically illiterate masses.
On HN, where the making money is considered a holy virtue, this might lead some to call Apple's and MS's strategy genius, and to imply that their UIs must be great by association.
But not everyone is so enamored with making money, pandering to the masses, or dumbing down UIs so that even an idiot could use them.
"If one wants to have a good user interface, then mechanism should not always be separated from policy. Configurability should not be paramount. An authority must be in charge to enforce interface consistency, if only imperfectly."
Fortunately there's choice of window managers and UIs on Linux, and we don't have to suffer any benevolent dictators enforcing interface consistency on us all. There is no one-size-fits-all interface, UI, or window manager. I, for one, and grateful for the customizability and flexibility that the Linux ecosystem and X offers us.