Wala lang. just making my first blogger post from a freshly-installed Fedora Core 2.
I have always been a linux fan, but my relationship with it (as a desktop OS) has always been a love-hate one. I usually grow tired of it after sometime when i begin to miss windows' idiotic convenience and ease of use. The fact that i don't have a machine that i can really call mine doesn't make it any better too. I just usually squat my Linux installations into other people's machines (and todays lucky pc is Wokstation Pinoi-01). That's why my files are literally fragmented across many computers. But the good thing about this sinusoidal behavior of using Linux desktop is that every fresh installation always bring some nice surprises and significant improvements in the usability arena. I'm currently using Gnome 2.6 as my Desktop (cherry: the best desktop environment there is, next to Apple's of course). I plan to add the KDE packages later when i get bored... hehe. The spatial Nautilus is something that i have really been looking foward to using, after being indoctrinated to the club by John Siracusa's mighty article.. (I have actually tried many times to configure Windows explorer to use theclassic behavior, just to get the hang of it). But honestly, the spatial experience can be quite hard and frustrating at fist. Old habits + deep folder organization = a desktop cluttered with windows that you'll need a miracle to keep up with it. Lesson learned (that Ed and the Master has also taught me): Keep it flat. The spatial nautilus and I will have our bonding time this week and i hope it turns out fine. That's all for now, i'll be meeting han in 30 minutes and I'm still wearing my shirt from yesterday... have to go.
A blog about a Linux Desktop wouldn't be complete without one. The obligatory (and hastily done)screenshot:
dude, gnome 2.6 couldn't hold a fricking candle to kde 3.3... better eye candy, better performance of native apps, and a hell of a lot cooler too :)
ReplyDeletebut seriously, the whole issue of spatial versus navigational file-management is very interesting. i personally think that it's not feasible to implement spatial file-browsing when in fact, the filesystems in place are pretty much "optimized" to be browsed using browser-like interfaces.
the thing is, right now, we couldn't really afford to "keep it flat" when oftentimes all we have to organize our files are layers and layers of directories. wala naman kasing support para sa metadata.
just as an aside, i think the whole winFS issue is designed to change this, as does the supposed new filesystem for OS X's Tiger. would this new way of organizing information take over the world? i don't think so, but there's certainly some applications that could use (and use it well). think gmail.
sabi nga sa last article ni joel on software, it's not just about usability. sometimes people continue to use and embrace applications and systems with bad UI design simply because it does exactly what they want them to do.
Honestly i'd like KDE for myself. I mean, the possibilities with it is almost endless. But, what's funny is that i will use the same argument to explain why I wouldn't like it for my mom (or grandma, as the cliche goes...). Because the possibilities are almost endless... But i digress. I'd still prefer a shiny Panther over the two (and run KDE on top of it. Now if only I could afford that piece of ugly computer). Tiger is even better.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't think that the spatial browsing will gain enough muscle (again) to attract a big fan base. And as you noted Joel said, it's not because it is a lousy UI model, but because it will not work for most users now (thanks to windows explorer). Old habits die hard (and reorganizing your stuff is such a pain the ass). Maybe it's not the filesystem that is optimized for a browser-based navigation, but it's the user's fundamental idea of files and folders. Whereas we windows users have the Windows Explorer to browse our filesystem and to provide us a window to show the contents of a folder, the mac people were living in another world. For them,there was no such thing as a "Finder window" that "displayed the contents of a folder." Double-clicking a folder opened it. The resulting window was the folder. (original text)... (for those who dont' know, the finder was apple's Explorer)
Oo nga, at this point mediocre pa talaga metadata support ng mga current filesystems. But at least apps are making headway. (iTunes is a great example, if you don't mind a brushed metal interface).
And about search-based navigation, Yes, i think they will take over the world in the same way Google's excellent search took over Yahoo's extensive Directories. Pero on the second thought, maybe a hybrid model will succeed in the desktop space. Google did something more than just create instant billionaires out of its founders. It breathed fresh life to competition which will result in innovations in the way we manage information. Desktop Search is the next big thing and both Apple (with their Spotlight) and Windows (with their WinFS) are readying up to deliver. Google's not sleeping either. As for the Linux camp, i know that the pieces, although still in the works, are already in place (click click click click click), But i have yet to see a perfect fit of all these techonologies into one usable interface.
The next two years is a pretty exciting time for the industry...
Hmmm. And i thought i was making a post. Reply comment lang pala dapat. hehe.
as much as i would like to show my support for all bloggers by makin it a point to read their blogs... I'm just completely lost here.. as the saying goes.. "what the f#$%??" hehehe
ReplyDeleteOS X looks nice... but I think it's a wee bit overrated. have you ever tried using a mac? i mean, for doing actual work? it's not very easy, especially if you came in from the windows world.
ReplyDeletewhat i'm saying is, yes, the mac os looks good, and yes, studies show that for new users, the UI is very intuitive. but there has to be a reason why not more people are switching to macs even with their new campaign to get people to switch, right? sometimes, it just doesn't work well enough for windows users to switch over.
second, i think there's a reason why spatial file management was dumped even by windows (remember, win 3.x and 95 used spatial file management before they integrated IE to windows). for power users, and i guess even for regular users, directories pretty much do the job fairly enough. i don't know if you've ever worked on a fairly large development project, but imagine a dynamic website with 60 script files, which use about 90 templates, 10 include files, and 200 images. and imagine you have twenty of those lying in your computer. ang hirap lagyan ng metadata nun diba? so wala kang choice but to set up deep folders to organize them. the so-called "bad habits" by UI experts are really the only solution.
as for desktop search, is it really the future or the future as MS would like us to believe? after all, they had that brilliant idea about treating your desktop as a webpage, we all knew how that worked out. when was the last time you felt the need to search your hard drive?
again, i quote joel on software:
"WinFS, advertised as a way to make searching work by making the file system be a relational database, ignores the fact that the real way to make searching work is by making searching work. Don't make me type metadata for all my files that I can search using a query language. Just do me a favor and search the damned hard drive, quickly, for the string I typed, using full-text indexes and other technologies that were boring in 1973."
google search is very useful because it gives you the power to look for things that you have no idea where to find. this isn't the case with the desktop. you always pretty much have an idea where to find your stuff. why? because you placed them in deep folders :)
i wouldn't really know how overrated OS X is, because nope, i have never really used one for more than 5 minutes, lest used one for actual work. Finding it "not very easy, especially if you came in from the windows world." doesn't really come as a surprise either. No argument. You don't have to be a UI expert to be able to say that.
ReplyDeleteIf it's still not obvious, i find OS X impressive, but i wouldn't really go into debate with you about its merits because i have never actually "used" it.
Answering the question why there are not many people switching to the platform will take many essays to answer. But Joel is again pretty much right on when he discussed why Apple and Sun can't sell computers:
"Why? Because Apple and Sun computers don't run Windows programs, or, if they do, it's in some kind of expensive emulation mode that doesn't work so great. Remember, people buy computers for the applications that they run, and there's so much more great desktop software available for Windows than Mac that it's very hard to be a Mac user."
And he didn't even discuss here the price aspect. Macs are expensive.
I am with you in quoting Joel about how lousy a metadata-based solution is if it means that the burden of creating metadata keywords is passed on to the users. I would want to make search work for me, and not the other way around. The issue of how usable a search-based solution of accessing files is one of the key points that will have to be addressed for desktop search to be a success. Calling it search-based actually confuses some users, leading them to believe that all that WinFS and Spotlight will provide for them is a search box and a page of search results, much like what Google does now. But it doesn't have to be that way, and i don't think that it will be. For example, Tiger's smart folders (quicktime movie) is one good example of making search work for the users.
I don't agree though with what you said in your last paragraph. If you're a nitpick and you organize your files everyday then yes, you will have an idea of where to find what you're looking for. But i'd bet that this can't be true 100% of the time. And what about in the case when you need a file that you have not used for quite a while? You have to remember exactly where you put it, under what folder and subfolders you filed it (good luck). Much like how we used to remember URLs, before Google came.
I put it wrong when i said "keep it flat." What i meant to say was, keep it as flat as possible.
At this point, we don't really have a choice. The reason why users don't often use search is because desktop search sucks. It can take forever to find a file using Windows XP's search and you're still not sure that it will give you the file that you want. Does the current scenario of the file-folder metaphor work? Of course it does. But i think it could be better. :)