The desktop Andy Oram would like to see

May 16, 2007 10:58 pm Dave Neary General

Andy Oram from O’Reilly and Associates (a very nice guy over email, and a man I would like to have a pint with one day if our paths ever cross) wrote an article on O’Reilly Radar about the problems he has with the desktop in general, and free software desktops in particular.

I’d rather have lean visual effects with minimal distractions (which can look very attractive) and let desktop developers focus on getting programs to be more open to each other and work together more tightly. I’m getting tired of moving between one silo of an application to another, a division I’m finding increasingly arbitrary.

In brief, Andy wants to have a set of pluggable components, each doing one thing well, which get brought together for a seamless user experience where that makes sense. I agree, but as Federico points out:

To turn a personal tool into an application robust enough for other people to use takes three times as much work as developing the personal tool. This includes polishing, documentation, and debugging.

To turn an application into a library (which Brooks calls a “programming system product”) so it can be used in the way I’ve asked as a component also requires three times as much work as developing the application.

Andy talked to myself, Federico, Lubos Lunak from KDE and others on the nature of the desktop, and what was going on right now to address that. All in all a little utopian and perhaps a bit simplistic, but a good read nonetheless.

One Response

  1. Calum Says:
    May 19th, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    So, in other words, “doing something properly takes more time”– hardly an earth shattering revelation. Why is this a problem? Wouldn’t we rather produce less, high-quality stuff that will attract ISVs, prosumers (terrible word!) and suchlike, than mass produce unfinished stuff that probably takes “three times as long” for that audience to figure out due to lack of documentation etc. instead, if they can be bothered at all?