OSNews

So true. Example: my native language has only a handful of extended characters and still it bugs me that a window manager such as Blackbox has a problem updating window titles that contain such characters. It's a great little window manager and this is not enough to stop me from using it, but it sure bugs me. I can imagine the frustration for someone whose language would cause constant problems like this.

Oh, and just to address the claim in the article: Blackbox didn't "stagnate". It has come so close to what it proposed to do that further development is not needed. (Too bad it's not considered interesting to also fix whatever bugs are left in, like the one above, though.) Blackbox and Fluxbox have different goals.

Edited 2007-11-21 00:38

I think that is a misconception. I find that gnome in general has more in common with MaoOS_old than windows in general. Its an amalgam for sure, but it still feels less like windows than say KDE. KDE4 may change things, and then I think that the comparisons to windows would only be superficial at the most. That is not to say that gnome or KDE can't be configured to work or act very much like windows, the same can be said bout Linux in general. That is what makes Linux what it is, its ability to provide users choice and this article is just one in a long list of alternatives that users can use with their favorite OS.

A lot of people seem to accuse Linux DE's or distro's of aping windows. This may be the case in certain areas but usually windows is nto the only one being drawn on for inspiration. Take the Slab menu for example (Novell, Opensuse, etc.) At a glance it looks very similar to the windows start menu, but as you use it you start to realize that it works more like OSX, with user defined shortcuts and a separate window to access more applications (Finder->applications. Why don't people complain about having to open a separate window in OSX?) Basically the slab marries the two concepts both windows and OSX into one whole. Had hey been smart they would have found a sane way of doing system notification there too.

Because there are very few conversations about the deficiencies of the Mac OS X GUI, and those who don't like it have moved on to other OSs or DEs that do what they want.

I Mac OS does dearly needs an application launcher or an application menu, and no the dock doesn't count. I consider it a pretty quick launch bar and a mediocre task bar. I haven't lived with the 10.5 dock yet, so I can't say how the new features affect it.

Stacka can actually be a pretty decent application launcher. A little messy but cool nonetheless. Its no worse than the start menu, which isn't saying much. There is no dedicated icon but other than that stacks works pretty well in that respect. I wasn't actually complaining about having to open a new window to find apps. I happen to like it. It keeps things clean for the most part, I was just wondering why the double-standards.

Because you don't need to. You can drag the Applications folder to the Dock and that makes it behave like the start menu. Alternatively, you can create your own Application's folder, populate it with subfolders for different categories like Accessories, Office, Multimedia, etc and populate these subfolders with aliases to applications in /Applications. You then put this new folder on the Dock and you've got a nice hierarchical applications menu.

Or you could just be lazy like me and hit Cmd+Space to invoke spotlight and type in the first few letters of the application you want to launch....

I used to do that too, but I got tired of trying to click on the application I wanted among the shifting search results. I use a program I hacked up[1] instead; hit Ctrl+Space to bring it up if you want to give it a try.

Alternatively, you could hit Cmd+Enter to select the top result in the Spotlight search window, but I still prefer my hack.

[1] http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/smittal/Launcher.dmg

What is "windowslike" about this?
Some pictures to show off the difference to this reocurring theme, while infusing myself with some morningcoffee and feeling the urge to ramble against that :-)
General desktop, rarely seen because usually it is covered by running applications:
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2814/snapshot1kp7.png
The Browser:
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1/snapshot2af8.png
Some older filemanagement showoff:
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5422/bildschirmphoto1kn3.png
And just in case...what is wrong about being like something which is known to most people having to use computers, and therefore known how to handle it almost immediately?
I have tried many of the alternatives, and been stuck in KDE-Country, because for me, overall it gives the best "bang for the buck". Whereas "buck" is not right exactly, since it is free to download in whichever distribution you are using, it is just a matter of time and taste customising it to your needs. Once you have done that it flies, depending on which hardware you are running it, and which bells and whistles you have switched on or off. But, it scales down very well to something as "lowly" as a Pentium III running at 1GHz with onboard i815 VGA and 512MB Ram. With scaling down well i mean something which is not visible by watching screenshots, imagine a opening a folder with hundreds of files in it, showing the generated file previews in fractions of a second. Imagine that while playing music with the oh so bloated Amarok, or watching a video in f.e. KMPlayer while doing that. Stuttering ? Err, no, why should it? And this "why should it" i have found in no other combination of ease of use and general usability. Now imagine how this combination flies on actual hardware ;->
/endrant

Edited 2007-11-20 08:05

Nah... not ultra modern, not by a long shot. But then, what is these days?

An unlikely wish. They don't exactly encourage skinning, even. I don't know what it's like in Vista, but XP requires a hacked DLL, just to allow unauthorized themes (that is, all of them). I think they like to protect their corporate identity.

It's really a shame. Windows 98 was greatly improved by installing a replacement shell but, in my experience, it was just too unstable. I put that down to it not being officially supported, though it may just have been general Windows 9x crashy-ness.

They don't even support skins/themes... unless, of course, they were blessed [ie. released by] Microsoft themselves. Which means you're limited to the very small handful of MSstyles that comes with Windows itself, or an even smaller handful of downloadable ones (mostly crappy promotions to other MS products, like the Zune theme... bleh).

I'll take the Windows Classic theme or a hacked uxtheme.dll with BSRoyale any day. With most graphical effects off, of course.

I was browsing around today through Wikipedia reading up on Alternative Windows shells, and was thinking pretty much the exact same thing.

It was a shame that MS didn't pick up one of the shell replacements, or crib ideas from them, to replace explorer.exe. They do have some really good ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_shell_replacement

Oh yes indeed! :-D Can you imagine an Openbox-powered Vista? That would be too cool!

And a lot faster:-)

So what's keeping you? AFAIK the likes of Openbox have been ported to Windows as BB4Win, BBLean and xoblite. One of them must have made the switch to Vista by now.

"But I cannot resist telling you that one of my favourites windowmagers of all times is iceWM. I do like taskbars, and I find this is a ultra fast, flexible and very useful windowmanager. In fact, it is the one I use on a daily basus on an old PII/233MHz and it flies."

I can confirm this. IceWM is a great window manager and can be customized using themes and text based configuration files. I've used IceWM on a P1/150MHz with 64 MB RAM (later 128) and it made up a usable system.

Later on, I switched to XFCE 3 (on a P2/300MHz) and XFCE 4 on slower hardware. XFCE 3 was a good window manager for those users who were familiar with Solaris/CDE on their Sun boxes. XFCE 4 added lots of useful features without increasing the system to a pile of bloat.

For my daily use, I prefer WindowMaker. Until today, I didn't found any window manager that is as fast, as customizable (especially in regards of keyboard bindings) and as pleasant in look and feel as this relict from better times. :-)

"For my daily use, I prefer WindowMaker. Until today, I didn't found any window manager that is as fast, as customizable (especially in regards of keyboard bindings)... "

For a moment i thought you were taking about my primary window manager, Ratpoison; my secondary one is IceWM

Edited 2007-11-20 00:25

Amen!

I find windowmaker as the fastest of all...just amazing. Maybe it is not for everyone out there, but believe me, once you try it you will never leave it aside. In terms of appearance it is stylish, in memory usage surely the lowest!

IceWM is also my favorite. It is my first choice even though I have plenty of power to KDE or Gnome. I like the speed and simplicity, but the detail I actually like the best is that I can modify the menu by editing a text file.

What can Linux on the desktop do for me, that a properly-configured XP install won't?

Cost less and not treat you as a pirate by default, for starters.

Agreed, beside that, you can get rid of the resource hungry antivirus and antispyware scanners and think of working with multiple visual desktops. Once your used tho that, you'll miss it on a DE that doesn't support it.

Thanks to all who modded down my honest question to a -3. Perhaps what I've heard about most desktop linux users is true (blind hatred for MS, elitist bigots, etc.)?

At lm2mst and diogob attempted to answer my question.

lm2mst and diogo, which 'distrobutions' do you suggest i try.

Those who modded me down can ... do whatever continues to make you feel powerful, while sitting behind your computer screens.

While, I didn't mod you down, I imagine the reason for others to do so was that your post was off-topic.

The article was about desktop environments for Linux. If you had talked about how the Windows XP desktop is really good, that would have been on-topic, albeit unpopular.

To just pick a very well-worn fight on a flimsy basis in a loosely related article is not going to win you many friends. This is generally considered trolling, to which the best response is, of course, no response.

I think I've touched the mod button once in my short time here and it was +.. I have noticed that these forums are pretty sensative to tone though so anything that is missread as being critical is going to get a reaction.

That's beside the point though.. if your intersted.. the real hot tip os liveCDs.. grab any distribution that catches your eye and offers a liveCD.. boot.. play with.. if you don't like it.. eject and push the power button.. nothing touches your hard drive and everything is there on the disk to give you a pretty good start.

Check out Ubuntu or Kubuntu.. the later is KDE which feels more like windows these days (Gnome/KDE have flopped back and forth between osX and Windows feels over the years)

Check out Mandriva 2008 One. this is the liveCD version of the newest release. I'm a Mandriva fan though so that's always the first thing I consider.

Check out Knoppix.. it usually only comes in a liveCD

Check out Mint.. it's a nice liveCD distro which uses Enlightenment window manager if I remember correctly.

Fedora liveCD is probably worth looking at.

What distro do you use on the server boxes.. that would be the first thing I'd look at to test on a desktop unless it's CentOS.

Basically.. grab any liveCD for a distro that sounds interesting and have a look. That's really the best way to start these days.

Depends on your current or target hardware and what the purpose of the OS is.

Give some specs and I'll help you to pick the right distribution.

As many confirm, *BSD and GNU/Linux have a lot to offer over Windows XP.

On let's say a Pentium IV CPU with 512 MiB RAM, the Desktop Environment isn't an issue. I for example run KDE with Compiz-Fusion on a Dell Optiplex GX240 (P4 1,70 Ghz), 384 MIB RAM and old school nVIDIA Geoforce 2 MX/400... And that's a general purpose desktop on which I love to play FPS like Alien Arena and the likes. A typical server system, requires less.

And for the modding down part: I HAVE NEVER MODDED DOWN EVEN ONE COMMENT on OSNEWS, in all those years and never will!

++ BTW, it's ML2MST, the callsign of my old school MS-DOS based CB Packet Radio station ;-)

Cheers!

What can Linux on the desktop do for me, that a properly-configured XP install won't?

When I learn about a software package (let's assume it's named NAME) that sounds like it might be helpful for me, I fetch it from who-knows-where and install it in one step like this:

sudo urpmi NAME

Other distros use equivalent apt-get or yum commands.

If I decide to uninstall it, I use this command:

sudo urpme NAME

What is the equivalent Windows command?

the equivelent on windows means you don't have to learn a set of command (that are different on pretty much every linux distribution).

You download the program, click the installer and it puts an icon on your taskbar, on your desktop (if you like). - unlike apt-get that might install things anywhere it please and is often hard to find when installed.

The other beauty of the windows system is. if you get a computer magazine it comes with software that you can install straight from the disk. not have to compile from source - which means having all your header libraries installed.

Another benefit, is that you can then copy the install program on a disk or usb file and give it to a friend (if it's freeware or shareware of course) or install it on a machine that isn't connected to the internet or doesn't have broadband.

Try using sudo urpmi openoffice 2.2 on a 56k dialup connection..

Try doing the same on a non-internet connected computer.

Sigh!

Au contraire, the commands of the linux command line are the same across all distributions.

See the GNU Project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Project
http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/



You forgot the hardest bit for Windows ... finding a trustworthy program to download.

apt-get does not install things just anywhere, and apt-get installs icons on the system menu. You don't have to find anything.

If you don't like the command line, use Synaptic. That is a GUI program that takes care of everything from finding the program, downloading it and any dependencies, and installing it all automatically with a few clicks. Even a Windows user would find Synaptic easy.

http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/action.html
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/gallery.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_Package_Manager
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SynapticHowto



You do not have to compile from source. There are such things as Linux computer magazines.
http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/
http://www.linux-mag.com/



Why do you imagine this is not possible also for Linux?
http://autopackage.org/



Do you somehow imagine that a 56k dialup is faster for Windows?



Use the postal service:
http://www.linuxcd.org/
http://www.osdisc.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi/products/linux?ad=google
http://www.osdisc.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi/products/dvd
http://www.edmunds-enterprises.com/linux/index.php
http://www.linuxcollections.com/

It isn't hard.

Edited 2007-11-20 12:39

Um the same can be said if you use a Linux magazine. Not everything has to be compiled from source. You can usually find packages straight from the devs in whatever popular format your distro uses. There are only really three formats with varying degrees of compatibility. There is RPM, DEB, and TGZ as the major ones. One of them is just a plain old archive format, the others are a little more complex but there are many distros that use them as their basis. Windows has the luxury of only coming form one source and so MS controls how things are packaged across the OS.

There is no reason whatsoever that full compiled app can't be distributed in a tgz file. In fact most games on Linux are packaged this way, with very little to no dependencies at all to deal with. The reason Linux uses package managers is two-fold, due to the way most apps in Linux share libraries. Library files are usually packaged separately.

1. This reduces memory usage and footprint since many apps can use the same lib without having to install their own version like most installers do in Windows.

2. Security, because each lib is its own entity and package. updating errors in a lib or a security flaw is trivial. You usually don't have to reinstall the apps that use the libs at all, only the libs are affected.

Now, memory footprint isn't really an issue with the amount of ram most people have to spare nowadays. But the security issue is important, as well as having to download 80MB-100MB packages just to update a lib, like you have to do with Windows and OSX. Most Linux packages are usually only 20MB at the most in size, and thats monsters like OO.o. But for the most part installing apps, many apps, in most Linux distro would surprise you at how little the download sizes are.

the equivalent on windows means you don't have to learn a set of command (that are different on pretty much every linux distribution).

This comment hearkens back to the 80's argument about which is better, the command line or the GUI. I referenced the commands instead of the GUI tools because that's my preference. Even though this article is about GUIs, the terminal window running a Bash shell is ever present, and is the primary application I run under any WM. But you don't have too--you can click on the menus until you find synaptic or rpmdrake or pup.

Yes, there are different management tools on different distros, but I hardly see choice as a disadvantage. Lack of choice and therefore lack competition are contributors to the problems with Windows.

lemur2's answer hit many excellent points also.

Linux distro's have easy to use package managers. There nothing remotely like it under Windows.



You're trolling. The freedesktop.org standards have been out for a while now and any package comes with standard ways of making it into the menu. Not only that, but it appears in the right category too. And wait, there's more: it will show up in the menu of every window manager or desktop environment you have installed, ie. both in the Gnome menu on my gnome-panel and the Blackbox menu.

Should I even mention that when you get that .exe installer on Windows it sometimes comes with spyware?



Oh, more trolling. You don't have to install anything from source on a Linux system. But the possibility is there if you need it.



As opposed to putting rpm or deb files on that disk?



Try doing anything with a Windows machine without a network connection, right after installation. Oh, that's right, it only comes with a handful of applications: Explorer, Solitaire, Media Player and Calculator. Whoo-peee, what a feast.

That's not the answer.

There is a german saying, if you can't describe (the advantages of) something within 1-2 sentences, it means you don't know it (them, the advantages).

I should have quoted it.

was a reply to

What can Linux on the desktop do for me, that a properly-configured XP install won't?

Just Work.

While this statement is a bit untrue, as I've seen plenty of xp installs just work. Some of us just don't like dealing with some of the nuances of windows. As a student developer setting up a gcc is a royal pain in windows, while it's nearly idiot proof on most linux distros. Plus as a science major there's all sorts of useful software just sitting in my repositories.

Also, on my laptop I need to do a total of 11 driver installs on a fresh copy of XP. If you ask me that's absolutely nuts. Vista thankfully brought this down to a total of 2, but Vista has it's own problem. A linux install meanwhile takes me half the time and all I need is two clicks of a mouse to enable my wireless and accelerated video drivers. My trackpad in particular is a sticking point. It stinks in windows as its scroll no matter its sensitivity is jumpy and horribly unresponsive, not to mention on some websites it plain refuses to function. Yet in linux it is smooth as can be.

In general my biggest beef with windows is its software maintenance scheme(installs, upgrades, finding new programs) as it's nothing short of a PITA. I'll admit I'm an exception though as windows has never been my primary OS.

For me though I guess it's the reverse, what can windows do for ME that a properly configured linux install can't?

Not a Really Good Argument (tm) since people just might drop on you saying the opposite (myself included). I won't do that, just told so you know, and I almost agree with the rest you said.



Well, there are some things, strictly windows related, but I wouldn't really care about that. Thing is, if one is able enough to know what one needs, one could sometimes find out that both of them could do the job. If this is the case, subjective preference will decide. But most of the time it's some external influence, e.g. at work we have to do only windows development since I'm about the only one who knows Linux and teamwork dictates.

If you are a *nix server developer is very handy to have apt-get and lots of libraries out of the box. And you have a environment closer to the server for testing purposes.

Xfce is great also, altought is not mentioned in the article.

Xfce isn't a WM, it's a small desktop environment.

Freedom from the "upgrade treadmill".

Protect you from viruses & malware.

Give you a one-stop, easily searchable, guaranteed no malware GUI application installer.

Choice and customisability of the desktop. (Themes, "windowblinds" etc by default).

Cross-platform compatibility & interoperability.

Choice of well-documented filesystems.

Pervasive use of open formats, not tied to any platform.

A browser compliant with W3C standards, including SVG, and which can pass the acid2 test.

"Future-proofing".

Choice of underlying computer architecture (not tied to x86 platforms alone).

Larger range of compatible hardware.

Hardware recognised immediately, no need to search for the right "driver CD".

Full range of desktop applications in addition to the bare OS.

A working 64-bit desktop with all drivers.

Virtualisation support built-in to the kernel.

Freedom to copy the exact same desktop software to as many machines as you would want, without additional costs.

Ability to run all applications as a normal user, no need to run desktop applications as root.

Attachments are not simply dumped by mail clients.

No subscriptions required (even to virus databases & the like).

An update service that will not "push" unwanted software on you.

Lack of spying on you ... no information sent back to big brother.

Lack of ongoing registration & activation requirements.

No killswitch (no genuine disadvantage), even if you replace a hard drive or a video card.

A 3D desktop with visual bling if you want it.

...

...

... apart from that, not much.

Edited 2007-11-20 01:40

This is an awesome list!

I think I've been using linux for so many years that I take all of these things for granted. Some features haven't been around so long but I use windows so rarely that I wasn't aware windows didn't have these features...or maybe I just hadn't given it any thought.

In actual fact, my windows XP install is currently corrupted due to being hit with spyware that every anti-spyware tool has been unsuccessful at removing.
It needs a reinstall, and I just dont have the patience and time to even bother with it. Its the first time I've been hit with spyware and I've always used a good firewall and run anti-spyware every now and then. I didn't like to have anti-virus or anti-spyware tools running all the time since it drains resources and I use windows mainly for games. I'd agree with all the people that say Windows XP is stable, except that it can be killed by spyware...so use it at your own risk. My data is safer with Linux.

Thankyou. IMO it bears just pointing out every now & then.

Here is an analysis that compares Windows vs Linux just from the EULA vs GPL point of view:

http://www.cyber.com.au/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf

I guess then that there is a great many more points I could add to this list, but unfortunately my time on this earth is finite.

Edited 2007-11-20 03:02

Can I understand it right ? I can install and use OpenOffice 2.x on Red Hat 7.0 installation, as I can on Windows 98 ?



It's a myth.



I am sure you never tried Ubuntu's Synaptics with offline DVDs as repositories ;-)



But not between applications - compare win's clipboard and GNOME equivalent of it.



So unlucky me. Using Ubuntu for one and half year, and still cannot make Realtek RT 2500 WiFi PCI Cards on two desktop to run on Ubuntu. Latest driver included in 7.10 repos failed to detect my card, saying "card not installed". IT IS installed, damn it! ;-)



Drivers - maybe. But not all applications.



Unless you're unlucky one, equipped with Radeon 8250 and updated to brand new X-server version 7.3 ...



There are no Opera for Windows ?



Registration IS required on Windows ? No!



I don't see how it is related to OS ?

Not quite right. You can install OpenOffice 2.3 right now on Fedora 8. The cost of upgrade from earlier versions? $0. Hence, you are not on a treadmill. You can in fact still be running RedHat 7.0 if that is what you want to do ... there is no imperative need to update. And if you want to update, you can do it at no cost and no disruption.



How so? Do you perh