Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: Matt_H on April 03, 2007, 05:08:14 AM
-
I noticed this (http://theosib.livejournal.com/1742.html) on a rare visit over to OSNews. It describes problems with file hierarchy, configuration, and UI standards across Linux, Windows, and Mac.
I think the Amiga has had the potential to easily and successfully accomplish what the author would like to see as a general practice in system standards. It shows there might still be some mainstream viability left in our favorite OS.
One point has to do with the distribution of application files. Linux throws things all over the filesystem, creating a huge mess if anything ever needs to be removed manually. Windows tends to keep everything in Program Files, but has the added quagmire of the registry. The Mac has simplified things with the .app structure and .plist configurations.
The Amiga has essentially been a clean system for years with individual application directories and ENVARC:. In program directories, only relevant files have icons and thus are the only immediately accessible element for a novice user. ENVARC: maintains the centrality of configuration files without growing into a corruptible mess. It's faster to access because the system checks individual files rather than having to parse one gigantic one. Since it all gets copied to RAM, it gives the Amiga one of its best features: Save, Use, Cancel.
Of course, some programs insist on copying support files to places in SYS: (Wordworth is particularly bad in this respect), but there are solutions to this. MorphOS accomplishes it by using multi-assigns to separate core system files from those added later by the user. I've become quite fond of this feature, and I'm considering implementing it manually on my OS4 and Classic machines. However, the fact that some applications do copy things into LIBS: and DEVS: I think is a disturbing trend that threatens the unique file structure we have on our systems. I would like to encourage developers that use shared libraries or other support files to allow their programs search for them in PROGDIR:, or PROGDIR:Libs, etc. That at least gives the user the option of consolidating or isolating their programs. Custom options for file/program structure seem to be few and far between on other platforms, and the fact that we can do it easily I think is of great value.
The second salient point I found in the article was this:
This is why I think it's good that Apple and Microsoft have UI development guides that encourage developers to make their apps act consistently with other apps in areas where their functionalities conceptually overlap.
We have UI guidelines, too! We've had them since at least 1991 in the form of the Amiga UI Style Guide. Pretty much every serious application from that era followed the style guidelines, and they look and behave beautifully and logically. The relatively recent split in GUI choices between MUI and ReAction I think has resulted in a lot of people forgetting the GadTools basics of window layouts, public screens, menu design, etc. Commodore's UI guidelines are at a very high level of abstraction, basically one of interface theory, and can be easily applied to any of the contemporary GUI toolkits on any platform. No matter the GUI, all our Workbench-based programs have the potential to be unified by the style guidelines, which places us above Linux and still on par with Windows and Mac in terms of consistency of use.
Phew! This turned into quite a post. I hope we can get some good discussion out of it :-)
-
People just forget, don't they.
-
The fact that our core system design can still compete with the major players is a good feeling. If people knew about that (and were able to immediately buy hardware), we could probably get a bunch of new hobbyist users.