1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
|
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Sinner from the Prairy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sinnerbofh@gmail.com">sinnerbofh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Fabrice Facorat wrote:<br>
<br>
> 2010/10/1 Romain d'Alverny<br>
> <<a href="mailto:rdalverny@gmail.com">rdalverny@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div>(...)<br>
<div class="im">>> Both (substance, appearance) are crucial. If you only consider one<br>
>> without balancing, making it consistent with the other, you're not<br>
>> going down the right path. The interface, the whole experience with it<br>
>> is the product.<br>
><br>
> sure, but appearance is the key point.<br>
><br>
> Archos is a good example of what we should not do ...<br>
><br>
> I'm still amazed by the technicals limits of the iPhone, and how<br>
> people can still want to buy them ... same for iPod ...<br>
><br>
> iPod : no mp3, no FM radio, no USB mass storage support<br>
> iPhone : no standard visio, no ability to create without iTunes or<br>
> third party tools photo albums, less capable facebook integration, no<br>
> FM radio, no flash, and so on ...<br>
<br>
</div>iProducts don't have all the bullet points, all the technical specs that an<br>
UberGeek would like.<br>
<br>
But the ones they have: work great, are integrated with the rest of the<br>
ecosystem, are user-friendly and they are aesthetically pleasant.<br>
<br>
By focusing on 90% of specs and getting them to be 95% perfect, instead of<br>
having 100% of specs and getting them to be just 50% workable, regular<br>
people (95% of the population) like their products.<br>
<br>
Apple's approach mimics the Unix philosophy (every small tool covers a task<br>
extremely well, and integrates with the rest of the Unix system): every<br>
single technical bullet point included does a task extremely well with the<br>
rest of the tools and look'n'feel.<br>
<br>
Mandriva tries that, with look'n'feel consistent on MCC, KDE and Gnome.<br>
draketools work on TUI or GUI. They work well.<br>
<br>
IMHO, Mageia should improve on Mandriva, not try to get just "bullet points"<br>
on what our distro does.<br>
<br>
Let's pick our battles, go the Unix way, make sure what Mageia does, it does<br>
very well. And as Linux is Linux is Linux is Linux, it will do everything<br>
else as well (and the kitchen sink).<br>
<br>
<br>
Salut,<br>
<font color="#888888">Sinner<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>IMHO, a home user would have one major DE, KDE or Gnome or other. I think it is unlikely to change it (maybe once in 10 years). The key in appearance is to have a nice aspect in each DE rather be the same look in Gnome or KDE or other. I guess that each environment will fit some user's taste in its native look.<br>
The Drake tools must be cross DE and consistent.<br>Mac OS is an unix derivative. I love their look and ergonomy. They have a serious team of ergonomists and designers. This is what a Linux distro needs to be successful. i.e. Mageia. The IMHO, Apple products are too expensive, a regular PC at the same performance and of a acceptable quality offers the same for a half of the price. And you could renew it faster for the same money. Their apps are brilliant from usability point of view and very good looking. They focus on a very limited hardware in variety. This is their advantage. Their hardware is also the best in quality (this is why they cost so much also). I prefer open source though.<br>
|
