helloSystem !

It still needs a lot of UX/UI polish. Half the work already done due to it using a solid base OS; FreeBSD. Hopefully it'll incite more native third party application support. (no emulation needed).
 
Just waiting for alternative of GhostBSD, couse it burned 2 ssds already, don't know why. Probably ssds was bad
 
forums.freebsd.org

GhostBSD, pfSense, TrueNAS, and all other FreeBSD Derivatives

Questions about 'derivative FreeBSDs', like GhostBSD DesktopBSD TrueNAS XigmaNAS OPNsense pfSense PacBSD BSD Router Project NomadBSD helloSystem should be asked on the forums and/or mailing lists for these specific products. See below for links. If you still think your questions should be...
forums.freebsd.org forums.freebsd.org

blind0ne said:
… Did anyone already installed it?
Click to expand...

Yes. In Reddit, chronological order:
  1. helloSystem 0.3
  2. A quick look at helloSystem as of Xmas 2020
  3. helloSystem : Three-layer UX design philosophy for Simplicity and Power
  4. helloSystem 0.3.0 is released, a FreeBSD variant for the desktop.
  5. At a look at helloSystem 0.3.0 - Full on Mac-a-licious!
  6. hello — helloSystem experimental documentation
  7. helloSystem is a FreeBSD Distro Modelled on Mac OS X
  8. HelloSystem ; A FreeBSD Based OS for Mac Switchers
  9. VirtualBox guest additions mouse integration not working with helloSystem on FreeBSD 13.0⋯
  10. helloSystem 0.6.0 has been released the FreeBSD based desktop system
  11. helloSystem 0.6 distribution released based FreeBSD and similar to macOS
  12. Walktrough of helloSystem 0.6.0
  13. Can i install hello system's desktop on freebsd?
  14. Help figuring out how to daemonize intel_backlight
  15. HelloSystem 0.7 Released
  16. rhythmbox without gnome?
 
Hmm. FreeBSD plus WindowMaker is pretty darn close to the original NextStep interface which is pretty close to what MacOS used to be. There is also a GnuStep port which gives even more similarities.
Is this a write/rewrite of a Window Manager? I can't seem to find that info out.
Looking at the screenshots, XFCE with a panel or toolbar at the top, then I think the bottom bar is a utility something like "panel" or "dock".
It will be interesting to see how well Gnome and KDE applications work. It's always interesting running them in a Window Manager other than native (like you use twm but like some kde applications).

A beauty of the original Mac/NextStep interface was "All the applications followed the same rules". As the hello folks state Apple started deviating from their own guidelines which opened the door for everyone to ignore them.

Note:
I am not saying helloSystem is not worth the effort; the originators have an itch they are trying to scratch. Depending on how they scratch it, it could make an awesome port for FreeBSD which would be easier than maintaining a distribution.

I wish them all the luck.
 
Thanks for the hint; just gave it a short try and it looks amazing. Since I'm switching back to FBSD after a long time I'm still not quite sure to make this my primary OS. We'll see how well it performs in the daily business...
 

Attachments

  • pic00021.jpg
    pic00021.jpg
    130.3 KB · Views: 247
My opinions, only based on having one of the original beige Macs when they first came out, having mucked around with Next-ish types of machines and mucking around with the GnuStep code/applications on FreeBSD.

So something based on QT, that can run non-QT apps. But I'm guessing that only QT apps, written to take advantage of the hello changes will use the hello features.
Ok, transition period, but that gives an inconsistent user experience.
It begs the question, do "you" start taking popular apps like firefox, libreoffice and create patches so they can take advantage of the hello features?

The couple of posts talking about GnuStep mirror exactly what I was thinking.

When you look at a Mac, NextStep system, as a user you only see how it looks and how it works at a high level. One can theme a lot of existing Window Managers to give a very similar look and feel. Most people seem to care about fonts and icons more than actual functionality.
The "problem" is that MacOS/NextStep had a lot of stuff behind the look and feel; proper applications used those libraries so that all apps had a consistent behavior.
GnuStep gives that framework, effectively the system libraries. A lot of the GnuStep applications work rather nicely (the email client is nice). I think that a lot of older Cocoa based Mac apps could almost be rebuilt against GnuStep and work. But they need to be "open-enough" to do that.

So "hello" sounds like it's more of a Qt based MacOS-AppKit/NextStep work-alike. Not an interface level reimplementation in Qt.

Again, I am not saying they shouldn't be working on this, just that all applications will need to buy into the framework and be written to use said framework. If they don't you wind up with the inconsistent user experience that the authors state as a dig against current Apple policies.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: a6h
I don't know what to think for software which is still version 0.x after years of development. It sounds like it is alpha-version, not even beta. Remember when VLC player was ver. 0.X after 10 years of development. Fortunately it become 1.x at some time and now is even 3.x
 
mer said:
Again, I am not saying they shouldn't be working on this, just that all applications will need to buy into the framework and be written to use said framework. If they don't you wind up with the inconsistent user experience that the authors state as a dig against current Apple policies.
Click to expand...
Agreed, this is possibly my only criticism of it (and the fact that it really should be a simple set of ports rather than an entire fork of the OS which they don't stand a chance of maintaining. They are not OS developers!)

For example pretty much zero applications are going to use the top bar. So this will stay generic and empty whilst individual apps continue to provide their own menu bar. It will never feel close to a macOS interface. It will never work like one (for better or for worse depending on whos opinion you go for ;))
 
kpedersen I completely agree with your last paragraph. I personally liked the consistency of the user experience on MacOS, I like the look and feel of NextStep. I remember when Microsoft actually had a Mac specific version of Office, so that the look and feel was the same. But it's always about the application and the applications need to conform to the guidelines. When Apple started violating their own guidelines, it went downhill.

Walking the dogs earlier I was thinking about "Preferences". Look at applications: alot have a "Preferences" or "Settings" to perform user level configuration. Well, it used to be under a "Tools" menu, now it's moved to "Edit" menu. Why? And every application may have it in a different place.
Consistency is the key for a good user experience.

So would it be possible for the "hello" folks to create a meta-port that creates the Hello Desktop? I don't know. Top of a beer SWAG it would include their Qt Framework, then some subset of applications that follow it (some brand new, some maybe patches on top of existing?). I'm thinking of falkon vs falkon-qtonly ports (broswers, KDE or no KDE support).

I don't have an answer, but I'm one of those "just barely younger than dirt" folks that like the simple window manager paradigm instead of a "Desktop Environment".
 
mer said:
Hmm. FreeBSD plus WindowMaker is pretty darn close to the original NextStep interface which is pretty close to what MacOS used to be. There is also a GnuStep port which gives even more similarities.

A beauty of the original Mac/NextStep interface was "All the applications followed the same rules". As the hello folks state Apple started deviating from their own guidelines which opened the door for everyone to ignore them.
Click to expand...

I used to run this desktop years ago as main (I still do in some cases, but not full, just WM)
It was : Windowmaker, gnome2-session, compton, tray dockapps, script that generates WM menu from XDG menu, GTK2-Gnustep theme.

It was a beautiful Next-alike experience with eye candy, modern interactive desktop via gnome2-session, and unified look and feel via GTK2 theme, for GTK applications.

This was a way to turn GNOME ecosystem to NextStep alike visual paradigm.

Unfortunately things moved on, and went further away from classic paradigms. GTK3 dogma is not really compatible with Step in look and feel thus noone made a theme that looks and behaves as well as GTK2-Gnustep. 2K/4K resolutions came, and imho, wmaker looks best at 1600x something, HD is ok, up from that the legacy starts to show. Original openstep application workflow (implemented in gnustep) doesn't do well on hardware-modern desktop. Noone favours multiwindow apps anymore, and the whole UI system is made for lower resolution desktop.

The dockapps are also going into legacy, they're harder and harder to build on modern platform. Most of them are unmaintained and possibly use legacy or totally obsolete APIs. Even if they worked, they were built as fixed raster applets in low resolution for low resolution desktop.

Not to mention the fonts, the DPI setting compliance, so on and so forth.

Windowmaker is still in active development. They do implement modern features such as window border snapping and so on.
Bringing it up to the times would require rewrite of WINGs widget API. I'm familiar with that code and it's still really "classic X11 toolkit". Retaining NextStep feel but having a modern scalable widget toolkit would present a stable API with an already existing set of dogmas and design rules that *step apps follow, such as nice glyph based toolbars, tabs, everything that's present in WPrefs app but just HIDPI and 4k capable. Developers could rely on that. We need a slim toolkit not *step reimplementation, because it will never be in the range of QT and other gigantic full application frameworks.
 
Zare good stuff, I agree. It can be hard for people to separate the way something "looks and feels" vs the way something is implemented.

Sometimes people forget that a computer/desktop is a tool to accomplish real work and they focus on the eye candy. Other people just want to get something done and the eye candy distracts from the work.

Toolkits are great if people use them. If a good application is using "toolkit A" sometimes it's hard to put wrappers or patches in place to use "Toolkit B" because sometimes the concepts of the toolkits are too different to easily wrap.

Regardless of "are they correct", the original Apple Human Interface Guidelines is a good concept. "This is how something should look and feel, this is how things should be done for consistency". Once you decide that who cares how it's actually implemented (Qt/GnuStep/GTK2/3/4/5/????).

grahamperrin I apologize for talking about something in the wrong place. I'll not let it happen again.
 
It still needs a lot of UX/UI polish. Half the work already done due to it using a solid base OS; FreeBSD. Hopefully it'll incite more native third party application support. (no emulation needed).



It's keeping it simple. so trying to say its unpolished is disingenuous
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top