Best way to sum up grounding my last post is that it is a lot more hyperbole than I usually engage in on this blog. Still, I am very tempted to continue and to go full-on hard-sell and branding with this idea.
Far From an Easy Task
I think that the whole idea is feasible, but with some important qualifications on specific stages of planning and implementation and cooperation, as well as a rebalance of the timing of development and reward compared to other desktops. And I think that with the right development scenario, that the reward portion would follow the conventional wisdom that you would get something more from it when you can put more into it up front.
It is a large scale concept to be sure. After an intense rebalance of the concept of work investment compared to other projects, the intent would be to create a strong, single working example. This single desktop would in fact be more expensive in labor and/or money compared to one other single static design desktop, like Gnome or KDE.
The cuteness of the idea of it being less expensive is not fully sarcastic though. It is a about a scenario of success where users who enjoy it find its adaptability useful enough to effectively replace many other desktops that they would be torn between, while also presenting the potential for new kinds of features that can greatly enhance technical usability beyond what any particular desktop has ever provided.
Not a Majority Takeover
The idea is not for a literal desktop majority takeover, which is kind of a playfully dumb idea in the first place. (for starters, in the world of free software, one does not control such things.) It is really about a particular niche audience, and drastically favoring that audience to an extent that is extremely biased. It's just that within that scope of audience, it is very refined for what it does, and able to accommodate many purposes. Despite its flexibility, it will be wrongheaded for many people.
The context of appealing to a majority is greatly contextualized by a subset of users who would see the appeal, and recognize the benefits. I would expect that the idea will be objectionable to a large group of people, but that it would catch for a lot of people when seen in practice, and as it gains momentum.
Handicapping Linux
Strong words. The commandline has always quite capable.
It's about a difference between what can be done versus what has been done with GUI, and with combining GUI with variable custom commands and tools for customization.
Compatible with Old Applications
Of course, this in no way suggests that old applications will have the same custom options. It simply means that traditional applications can still run, and even be largely favored for a time.
No comments:
Post a Comment