fragility

A recent discussion on the prt.sc internal mailing list about Apple fanboys made me think I should write something about this. I was never accused of being an Apple fanboy or an Apple hater and that’s because I am neither one or another (I was already accused of being fanboy and hater of other things but I’ll write about that some other day).

First of all, let me say that I never had an Apple product. That said, I have to admit I have a soft spot for Apple. I like beautiful things, and Apple knows how to make beautiful products. However, I’m far from loving Apple “no matter what”.

I don’t like the iPhone, and I’m not going to say why because all the reasons why I don’t like it have already been said all over the web, and that’s also why I’ve never written about it. No point in copy pasting other peoples articles there. And I think the iPod Touch is one of the most stupid products they’ve launched in the last years, unless you have lots of money to spend and you don’t care how you spend it. I don’t think it’s completely useless, but if I really want to listen to music, I’d buy a Classic, and if I really want to do several stuff one device, I’d rather go for the iPhone (if there was nothing else in the world of course).

So if I was going to buy an iPod right now, it would be the Classic. The price per storage unit is really great. I wouldn’t buy a Shuffle or a Nano, I think there are better alternatives.

So what do I really like about Apple ? OSX and their laptops. And if I can, and if the supposed Macbooks that are coming have a nice set of features for a nice price, I’ll try to get one. Right now, I wouldn’t buy one because I really think they need to update Macbooks. What about OSX ? It’s Unix underneath, it’s pretty, it’s good. I never worked with it 24/7 but I played with it several times and I’ve read a lot about it. Hell, I almost taught a friend of mine to use it when he bought his Powerbook. There are some things (mostly small things) about it which annoy me, but it’s nothing that would stop me from using it. One thing’s for sure: if I ever get a Mac I’ll probably miss Linux and Gnome a bit.

Another thing that annoys me about Apple (and this has also been written about a lot) is the fact they don’t have something at the level of the iMac without a screen. But I surely wouldn’t mind having an iMac, or a Mac Pro. A mini ? Not really.

And, as a company there are some policies I like and some I don’t. I won’t go into detail, but let me put it this way: if i ever met personally with Steve Jobs I wouldn’t have a chill down my spine (not that I don’t admire what he’s done with Apple).

And that’s about it. If anyone ever asks me what I think about Apple or accuses me of being a fanboy/hater/whatever this is my long answer. The short one ? meh !

A long time ago, when the first articles about XGL appeared on OSnews or Slashdot, i was one of the few who were really excited about it (at least in my circle of “geekiest friends”). The videos at the time showed basically what we have nowadays, but nobody seemed to care much about it. “Oh, they’re just imitating OSX”. I can’t remember for sure, but i think at the time there was no publicly available code for anyone to try and compile. I guess it was made available later, but with not much fuss around it.

This was all before the main XGL/Compiz developer said that he was left alone in the project, and nobody else was contributing code, so he was going to abandon it. Then it came Novell, and they hired the guy. They did a couple of months of closed doors development and then, about one year ago, they opened up the code on the cvs (or svn, not sure) repository.

All this time i had been very excited about this and used to read lots of articles on the subject. And when it became available, i tried it as soon as there were packages available for Ubuntu. Ok, it was unstable, there was lots of work to do, it was normal, the project was young. One of the things that i found most annoying was the lack of features on the window manager. So i abandoned it, and came back to good old Metacity.

With time, things advanced. They worked on better support for video cards and their drivers, AIGLX appeared, Compiz was forked into Beryl. All this time i was using Metacity and not giving a damn about all that stuff.

When Edgy came out, i thought i’d give it another try. With all this time and new stuff, it had to be a lot better right ? Wrong. This time i tried AIGLX and Beryl. It was a lot slower, more unstable, the features in the window manager hadn’t improved that much, but…ooohhhh…stupid new effects ! What for ? I know they’re pretty and all that, but why the hell are they working first on new effects instead of better support for drivers, or better window manager features ? Maybe it would be nice if Metacity was adapted to it, or at least if they mimicked metacity behavior and made it “Metacity compatible” (so one could use Devil’s Pie). And what’s the thing with only having additional desktop “on the sides”. Why can’t we have them up and down like in Metacity ? Someone said to me “Because of the cube ! Then it wouldn’t be a cube !”. I don’t give a damn about the cube ! I don’t even like it (i once tried working with it for 10 minutes, and with my intensive virtual desktop usage i felt kinda dizzy after those 10 minutes). One is not forced to use the cube, and they could still maintain the “cube like” behavior if they wanted.

The stupid thing here, is that they missed the point of the whole desktop improvment thing. They are thinking about eye candy first, and usability second. And the best things about the desktop environments on GNU/Linux which was improved usability over Windows (with features like multiple desktops, and some others) are being forgotten, just because of the eye candy.

So as long as they keep failing to bring eye candy and usability together, i’ll keep hating the 3D desktop on GNU/Linux. I know, i’m not forced to use it, and i could just ignore it’s existence. But having been so excited about it in the past, i know feel disappointed.

And this is one of the bad things (IMHO) about FOSS. The lack of direction. Yes, organized projects like Gnome, or KDE, or the Linux kernel have a direction, and a bunch of people who tries to keep those projects on the line, but smaller and mainly newer projects are usually a crazy train that got out of hand. Maybe they had a well defined purpose at the beginning, maybe they have a goal, but there’s not really anyone who goes out and says “STOP ! WE’RE DOING IT WRONG AND HAVE TO FOCUS ON OUR GOALS”. Enlightenment DR 17 also comes to mind. Yeah, maybe this is the fun part about FOSS projects, the craziness of it, having lots of people with lots of ideas in constant brainstorming and no boss to tell us what to do. But if those projects want to really become something, they have to stop and rethink their strategies, otherwise they’ll be forgotten, developers will get tired and start leaving the project, and they’ll end up dying.