A Recent DevX editorial makes the (often made) claim that Linux’s lack of a single standard UI will hamper its adoption on the desktop and makes developing applications for Linux more difficult. Hard-core Linux users love having the choice of many operating environments, and they are hardly likely to resolve the KDE vs Gnome argument anytime soon. Is there any hope of more standardization? Should we even want it?
most people could care less about what OS is running on their computer, and they do not want to leave their “comfort zone” to learn how to install/configure and use a new OS…
3 … 2 …. 1 …. FIGHT !!!
The general concept of having choice between operating envrionments is great, and is one of the things that make Linux such an awesome OS. However, imho, the main problem is the hardware interface. Sure, you have the kernel and all the stuff in that. But there should be some sort of PnP written directly into it.
That way, you can have whatever filesystem you want, whatever desktop you want, GDK+ or Qt, it doesn’t matter. BUT, your hardware will work no matter what. Hardware compatability is the number one difficulty on Linux, besides compiling issues…
Once that’s resolved, LLL (Long Live Linux).
–Mike.
Should not use linux until they no longer have any choice in the matter. By then it will work identical to whatever they’re currently using. It will have to. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Ever noticed that the widgets and styles in Outlook are completely different than other system apps like Explorer?
There are still many apps out there being developed that only use old-school (pre xp) widgets because using the new standards can introduce problems that wouldn’t be there otherwise.
Windows lacks consistancy just as much as Linux does. The supposed ‘standard’ UI in Windows is a myth.
Talk all you want about Gnome and KDE… I’m happy with Fluxbox.
BTW, bets on how long it takes top_speed to get here?
Okay… don’t have time to read the article now but I think I’m gonna feel sorry for A. Russell Jones (the author).
1001 flame wars right?
Plug and play? It’s built into the kernel… And I personally have had no problems whatsoever with hardware until now. Filesystems? What are you talking about? You can choose between a whole lot of filesystems – ReiserFS, Ext 3/2, even lousy old VFAT. I’m not too sure you’ve ever used Linux, and as for compiling issues there are binaries available for thousands of packages, and compilation only comes into play rarely and that too for lesser known packages, and sometimes when you wish to customize things, unless you’re using a source-based distro, that is.
Windows lacks consistancy just as much as Linux does. The supposed ‘standard’ UI in Windows is a myth.
I think you missed the point of the article. The point it, while little things are different, you don’t have to worry if the program won’t work at all, or have clipboard problems with other programs. True, a modern commercial distribution will happily run KDE, Gnome, etc, the integration between programs of different bases is lacking.
Apple violates their own standards too
Nobody follows HIGs 100% because that would be stupid and in a lot of cases generate apps with considerably less usability.
The myth that people must have 100% consistant interfaces to make computers easy to use is just that…a myth! Cars don’t even have 100% consistant interfaces, same as consumer electronics…does that make an RCA any harder to use, even though I’m used to Sony? However, the basic concepts are all pretty much the same, and that’s the important thing.
People should HAVE to learn how to use advanced features, but still be able to intuitively discover the basic features within a few minutes of play time.
well i don’t think that it’s an issue it a matter of distro and not development , by choosing one main desktop (e.g suse) u can gain standard ui (kde apps) maybe it’s a hard work but company that want to make money got to work for this . linux can be this or can be that but if a user don’t want choice he wouldn’t get it and just be left with the distro default.
You said “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”
I am proof that you can teach an old dog new tricks.Linus is different but i dont find it hard to learn.I am not a tech person in any way.I admit i only do email,web surf and chat but since learning linux i now also have learned how to put my cds on the computer as mp3 so i can listen to them.I never did that with windows.
br3n
The one thing I do have an issue with is the authors idea that every program should have an installer/deinstaller. This makes no sense, as developers shouldn’t have worry about installers. The OS should handle all insts so it’s centrallized. But then you have to have packages that are *very* sepcific, due to incompatability.
The main problem with Linux software is the wild incompatibility between versions. What really needs to happen less that going to one master GUI is the software interfaces need to be more stable. Every commercial distribution is going to have libqt and libgtk2, but when the interfaces between libgtk2.6.0.1 and libgtk2.6.1.0 are wildy different, it makes a mess.
In some ways, the Mac install makes the most sense for ease of install and compatibility. It’s a security risk though. If there’s a bug in one of the included libs, you have to find all the different versions in all the program folders to fix it, and hope that the new version doesn’t have some minor API changes that break the program.
In short, release often, but the API should only change at major releases, and backwards compatibility is key.
I haven’t read the article; I don’t believe there’ll be anything new in it… If a user isn’t interested in choices I don’t believe he’ll venture beyond the distro’s default Desktop Environment/Window Manager. And AFAIK every distro comes with a default DE/WM… As for cutting & pasting why don’t they just advertise the highlight and middle-click feature more often? If it works between Mozilla and a terminal window it should work between QT and GTK+ apps. Apologies in advance if I’m mistaken about this, since I don’t use any QT apps I wouldn’t know…
Linux is all about choice. You dont have a single entity dictating how you want your OS to look and how it functions. Some standards are good of course, but as far as my UI is concerned, I want it my way. And the beauty of the whole thing is that there are several to choose from. Use what best fits your tastes or needs. If youre JohnQ user and dont give a crap about any of it then just stick to what your distro selects as default and enjoy the free software.
X is the true graphical standard of Unix and Linux. It is stable, interoperable and powerfull. Yes, it doesn’t define windows borders or widgets but it permits that you run a KDE application on Gnome and vice-versa.
For development, X libraries and POSIX are standard across Unix, Linux and many other operating systems. M$ is the only exception. Who is wrong ?!
KDE or Gnome are not difficult for Joe users. Run linux from Knoppix is easier than install Windows.
The problem of home users is inertia, piracy (use a pirated Windows full of pirated applications is easier than learn linux) and lack of offer of pre-installed linux boxes and native comercial applications.
But it is a question of time…
This arguement keeps popping up and I don’t quite get it. The author seems to think that turning Linux into Windows is a good thing. Part of what makes Linux interesting and dynamic is that there is no central ruling body. Linux is doing well because things are constantly branching. Some of these branches become dead ends, but sometimes they become the new trunk. Sometimes, as with KDE and Gnome, there are multiple large branches rather that a main trunk.
Now, I think some attention does need to be put towards getting these environments to play well together (applications written for one environment run well on applications written for another). The menu systems and cut-and-paste are being worked on by freedesktop.org. Notice that this initiative (as well as LSB) is just an area where competitors have decided to work together for their common good, not the result of a single controlling body.
This is a good example of yet another person who comes from the Windows world and doesn’t understand the Linux world, thus assumes that our approach is wrong.
GUIs:
(BTW it’s “X”, or “The X Window System”, not “X-Windows”)
There are only two major GUI toolkits: QT and GTK+. Motif? That’s a joke, almost nobody uses it anymore. I’d be surprised if a Linux desktop user has more than 3 Motif apps on his system, if at all.
It doesn’t matter for which toolkit or desktop you program. Your app *will* run correctly on any desktop (or no desktop!) if the right libraries are installed. On all of the popular modern desktop distributions, both the GNOME and KDE libraries are installed by default.
Vendors guarantee support for one or two environments? That’s more than enough. There only are two major environments. Anybody who uses a different environment are power users and already know how to get GNOME or KDE apps working in their environment (which is usually as simple as installing the right libraries. I repeat, those libraries are usually already installed by default).
Supporting both GNOME and KDE is not difficult. I know, at the Autopackage project we try to support both environments. It’s fairly trivial and usually only involves copying files to the right folder.
And 2 of the most popular desktop distros, RedHat and Mandrake, use unified themes, making both toolkits look the same.
The correct solution is not to standardize on one GUI, it’s to standardize on an interface and make sure both environments are interoperable and compatible. More and more stuff are getting compatible. Just look at the Freedesktop.org efford.
As for why Linux is different and has more than one GUI: it’s because people have freedom. If you want people to come together to work on one single environment then you forget one big thing: people are not equal. Different people have different ideas, design philosophies, aestetic preferences, etc. One size does not, and cannot, fit all! Are you going to tell me that everybody loves the Windows UI? I know more than enough people who absolutely hates it.
The author argues that the average user doesn’t care about choosing a GUI. Well, good for them. They don’t have to choose! They can use whatever desktop is set as default by their distribution. Don’t know what GNOME or KDE is? Don’t worry, just click on OK and use the default setting.
It doesn’t matter which one you choose. As I’ve set before, either desktop will allow *all* apps to work correctly! The correct libraries are most likely already installed!
Next, the author is complaining users will get confused by new terms. Well of course, Linux is an entire different operating system. The only thing that’s intuitive is a nipple, every thing else is learned. Do you think new computer user knows what a “window” is? Or what “Run” means? Heck, when I started using a computer I was confused by the words “Programs”, “Shutdown”, and even the whole concept of installing software was confusing! All the menus and toolbars confused the hell out of me.
Expecting people to use new things without learning anything is stupid and counterproductive. If they don’t understand the basics, then teach them. It’s not like a total computer novice can understand Windows either!
And normal users are not IceWM’s target group. GNOME and KDE are. On all popular desktop distros, either GNOME or KDE are set as default. So use the default setting!
“but highly insensitive to the needs of average, technically (and sometimes literally) illiterate users.”
This is a big joke. Look at the GNOME project: they’re exactly targeting average users! The GNOME project is going for simplicity, and listens to all the suggestions UI designer gives. Just subscribe to their mailing lists and see.
Software freedom may not be a big advantage to the average user, but it *is* an advantage to a lot of power users. Do not underestimate the number of power users out there! There are a lot of them, even among the Windows community.
Most people don’t use their legal freedoms to their pull potentials either, but that doesn’t mean that having those freedoms are not a good idea. Same for software freedom. Just because most people don’t use them doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea.
Perhaps the biggest mistake the author makes is to compare Linux to commercial systems. Most of the Linux system is built by *volunteers*. If Linux is a commercial system, it would never have been this big and powerful. So instead of complaining about that volunteers don’t do what you want (they are, after all, just volunteers), how about hiring more programmers that work on Linux full-time?
Instead of thinking “the open source project must do this and that”, that’s jst selfish. Think “the volunteers have helped a lot. but I want it better, so I’ll hire more programmers”. Volunteers don’t get any reward so you shouldn’t expect too much from them.
Ya, I agree. I didnt care for the author or his article at all. His opinion is pretty lame at best and pretty much flies in the face of what open source software is all about. Its almost like he wants an OS/2 to re-emerge or a Microsoft the sequel of some kind.
“For development, X libraries and POSIX are standard across Unix, Linux and many other operating systems. M$ is the only exception. Who is wrong ?! ”
X is bloated as hell. Unefficient. Low performance. And standard limited to *NIX family and derivated.
Unix+Posix != World.
M$ the only exception ? Pleeeeease … I don’t know why, *EVERY* OS I know that is NOT based on X are pretty much *ALL* superior to X based GUI : Windows, OSX, BeOS, EPOC, etc.
Who cares if there’s no *ONE* gui interface for linux…
A good 90+% of computer users just use what they’re given. If a distribution packages everything together nicely enough, and it works *out of the box*… then who cares if KDE, GNOME, Flux, XFCE, etc. are out there as alternatives? The user probably isn’t gonna mess with anything…they’ll just use the stock build.
Having KDE/GNOME/etc. alternatives just mean that the power user can tailor his/her environment to their liking. It’s not unlike having a skinnable interface…or the many customizing programs for windows from STARDOCK.com
Inconsistencies or not… if it WORKS…it WORKS… no one’s gonna care that there are alternatives….
Personally, I don’t see why everyone is so obsessed with Linux becoming a mainstream desktop OS. Getting non-geeks to use anything other than their familiar Windows will be like trying to get a dog to “meow.” Leave them to their Office Assistants, InstallShields, and mass-mailing worms. Linux should stay geared towards being used as a server OS, as a desktop OS for Linux enthusiasts, or maybe even as a desktop OS in a business environment. Stop trying to shove Linux down Grandma’s and Auntie Gertrude’s throats because they’re not going to be happy if they can’t forward that cute little e-mail attachment of the dancing baby.
You can have both choices and good usability!
As I am typing this I am in an office in a hallway full of offices where I am updating a Windows machine. The one thing none of the users have here is freedom to modify the OS, and that is a good thing.
Nobody wants to play with the operating system. Nobody wants to learn a new operating system. Nobody wants to configure, adjust, re-script or compile. They want to do their job, which is accounting. That’s it.
The machines here are not locked down; every user is local admin. Guess what? Nobody even knows or cares what that means. Most of them have not bothered to change the wallpaper.
When it comes to getting work done in the desktop arena, choice and freedom is simply not what people are looking for. They want a simple tool to get them thu to 5 o’clock so they can go home.
“”Cars don’t even have 100% consistant interfaces””
Not 100%, but they are subject to various standards, regulations, and current user knowledge that force consistency.
Before one jumps into a new car that has a manual gearbox one already knows that there will be a steering wheel. One knows there will be 3 pedals of which the left will be the clutch, the middle will be the brake and the right will be the accelerator. One know there will be a gear lever that conforms to one of a small number of standard configurations. One knows that there will be a mechanism for using the windscreen wipers, indicators, warning lights, headlights, foglights etc.
The car is instantly useful to someone who has already used another car. Perhaps it may take some time to learn the idiosyncrasies of the particular model of car, but those idiosyncrasies provide no bar to using the car itself.
There is a huge amount of standardisation across the automotive industry, it’s just so commonplace that we no longer pay attention to it. This happy scenario was not always the case, take a look at some old vintage cars and prepare to be confused if the owner will let you drive them.
“”same as consumer electronics””
‘Play’, ‘Stop’, ‘Forward’, ‘Reverse’, ‘Pause’, ‘Eject’, ‘Record’ all have instantly recognisable standard symbols that are used throughout the audio industry.
“”People should HAVE to learn how to use advanced features, but still be able to intuitively discover the basic features within a few minutes of play time. “”
No. Users should expect to be instantly able to use the system, because the steps they expect to perform in order to generate a specific action should be the same across the industry for basic functionality. There should be no discovery involved.
Each system should have its own means of performing advanced operations, but basic operations should conform to a standard. Standards DO help the user adapt more easily to new situations by allowing them to reuse skills they have already learnt.
HIGs are a necessity, and it is important they are followed. The current scenario has the user playing “guess the peddle” in order to find the accelerator. This is fine for the advanced user, but does not assist the new (To the particular system) user to use the system productively.
Lots of desktop distros do ship with only one GUI, LIndows, Xandros, Lycoris are jsut a few examples and others sucha s SUSE and Redhat by default install only one GUI.
The problem is not the choice in itself, if the user is not really interested he or she will just go to the default GUI selected by the distribution and only if it won’t serve their needs will they even look at anohther. The problem is more the fact that applications are hard to code to fit in with the look n feel and design of more than one GUI such as XFCE, KDE and GNOME. Therefore, users will feel the desktop is not well integrated. They shouldn’t really feel the difference betweena GTK and KDE application, at least in behaviour and look n feel.
Otherwise it is great to have choice of GUI, but as I said as long as applications act the same on all of them.
Unefficient. Derivated.
“Me fail english? That’s Unpossible!”
— Ralph Wiggum
So if windows users need the same GUI, then why are there so many programs that will change the GUI? What’s the point of having the same interface for each linux? I believe that there should be a universal GUI on all Linux/BSD’s…oh wait there is KDE, GNOME!!!
Freedom of choice –Devo
>>
X is bloated as hell. Unefficient. Low performance. And standard limited to *NIX family and derivated.
>>
Is it really? I’m in my apartment right now working remotely. I have a couple of xterms’, emacs and a matlab plot open on my desktop, all running on a remote computer at school and being displayed on my laptop here in the apartment. I’m doing this with a cable modem connection, and I have music streaming with RealPlayer which is consuming some bandwith….
Give me a break…. why don’t you list your credentials.
Forget anything with icons. Usually something with icons excluding enlightenment is slow. I love blackbox, it is so sossososososososososososososososososososososososososososososos
ososososososososososososo FAST!
HIGs are a necessity, and it is important they are followed. The current scenario has the user playing “guess the peddle” in order to find the accelerator. This is fine for the advanced user, but does not assist the new (To the particular system) user to use the system productively.
How do you figure? Most popular computer UI elements ARE close enough. If you’ve only ever used Windows and suddenly sit down to a set of Motif apps, odds are good you’ll figure the basics out. Saying that users should be able to instaly use full application functionality without LEARNING it is like saying anyone should know how to program their VCR without learning it.
Basic features like open, save, print, cut, copy, and paste all work more or less the same. The core widgets (menus, buttons, checkboxes, radio buttons, text boxes, etc.) likewise all work more or less the same. Saying that Motif is automatically harder to use than Windows because it is different is like saying a car with a column shifter is harder to use than one with a floorboard shifter, just because its not what you’re used to.
UI consistancy is NOT holding Linux back, it just makes it look like a Raggedy Ann doll sometimes.
What’s holding Linux back is that it’s not Windows and people won’t put effort into learning something new until they’re given a better reason to. How long did it take Microsoft (with full backwards compatibility, mind you) to get Windows off the ground? (Here’s a hint, how many of you have ever seen a running copy of Windows 1.x or 2.x?)
Sure, blackbox is so fast, but what about the apps that you’re using. Even though you’re using blackbox, if you launch a kde application, all the kde overhead will be started as well, which by the way is why the start times are extremely slow when launching kde apps outside kde. The same holds with gnome apps, although there’s much less overhead.
It’s irrelevant which window manager you use. It’s more relevant how the apps are coded.
… it is somewhat strage… that I get this feeling of “communism” as in “communist” from some people that don’t want or care if linux becomes more accesible to others…
Is Thats your choice???
… well… get with the program OR start looking for an other OS… something that is as hard as unix was when it started… because linux is heading to the DESCKTOPS of PEOPLE… and you will not be happy of that I feel… so get something else other than *nix… maybe one of those 8 bit OS will serve you…
“Is it really? I’m in my apartment right now working remotely. I have a couple of xterms’, emacs and a matlab plot open on my desktop, all running on a remote computer at school and being displayed on my laptop here in the apartment. I’m doing this with a cable modem connection, and I have music streaming with RealPlayer which is consuming some bandwith….”
and how does that help normal people have a good desktop system?? they can do the same with with remote desktop.
what they need is something that is responsive, that can be configured easily (i.e. not by editing text files), easy driver updating etc. My hope for the future is directfb.
“Unefficient. Derivated. “Me fail english? That’s Unpossible!” ”
Me no right to give my opinion because me no english native ? Not Unpossible with Kingston !
The point was that X is in fact efficient. Locally it is as responsive as XP, as I know that’s what you’re comparing to, and it’s a great system for remote displays. For 99% of the users, the performance of X is good quality.
X configuration is now easy. Have you every tried SuSE? They have a fine GUI for configuring X — there is no need to edit configuration files. The resolution can be adjusted on the fly, color depth can be changed, screens can be changed, etc… in most cases the hardware is detected correctly on installation and the user doesn’t ahve to worry anyway.
AFAIK, remote deskotp does not behave in the same way as X.
With X, I can ssh into another machine and launch any X app and it will display on my local computer. It looks exactly like the app was launched on my computer. It integrates with the desktop. AFAIK, remote desktop displays the entire remote desktop on your screen which is not the same…this looks more inefficient to me.
Yes, XFree86 should be improved. Drivers should be available more quickly and some drivers are not very high quality, but this is not all their fault. This is the fault of the vendors as well…
Configuring IceWM may indeed be difficult for many MS Windows users. On the other hand, MS Windows is also a difficult OS for many MS Windows users.
I’ve seen real life examples of MS Windows users who have never figured out how to shut down their computer properly. Instead, when they stop working they just simply turn the power off. (And then they wonder why MS Windows crashes so often.)
It is a futile hope that GNU/Linux would ever be ‘usable’ enough for people who cannot even learn the few mouse clicks that are required to shut down MS Windows.
…be sure that X is running with a nice of -10! (I think, I’m not at my Linux box right now.) That greatly increases responsiveness.
no os has standards, they only try to create standards, look at Microsoft, they developed MSI “MS Installer”, and look theres install sheild, Flash Installer, WinRAR installer, etc.
linux is the same, they have hundreds of various distros, numerous GUI systems, numerous package systems, wheres the standardization in that?
not even cars are 100% standardised, i no this has no relevance but some1 posted earlier about how cars are standardised. well in the US they had the lever Gearchange, in italy they have the clutchless manual, ferrari make a manual gear box that is arranged differently to a usual design to give more feeling into driving, nothing has a standard.
heres another example the US, has different states each with its own laws, that vary, some have death sentence some don’t, some allow gambling, some dont, just get over it nothing in this world is standard
the only mainstream os i’ve seen that is remotely standardised is Apple MacOs, which is mainly because of lack of 3rd party systems for installation, graphics API’s, etc
have an install program that automated all modifications to the target machine and provided reasonable and intelligent default settings
That would be nice. Click on the app. it open the installer, detects all hardware & software, installs, done. I do think it should put icons on the desktop if you want & put it in the menu. Linux does need standards atleast locations for programs.
M$ the only exception ? Pleeeeease … I don’t know why, *EVERY* OS I know that is NOT based on X are pretty much *ALL* superior to X based GUI : Windows, OSX, BeOS, EPOC, etc.
Please define what do you mean by superior OS?
You forget, or do not realise, that a computer is far more versatile than a car. The list of things I can do on a computer far outnumbers what I can do with a car. That increases the complexity.
Its like comparing a kitchen knife to a swiss army knife. A swiss army knife has many more blades and other utilities. Its is more complex and will take a person longer to figure out than a normal bread knife.
The real problem is that people are taught to use windows, and excel. They are told to use excel, word, powerpoint, outlook. On my Linux system, the equivalents would be labelled spreadsheet, word processor, presentation and email. which should be more difficult here. Because people are used to seeing excel does not make a system without an excel icon harder. People do not know how to use computers. They just know how to do certain things without a full understanding about what they are trying to do. The problem is education. Maybe schools should be forced to teach real computing, and not microsoft lock in instead.
I don’t care how many desktop enviroments there are – so long as I can fire one up, and have all the apps work under this enviroment and work together seamlessly. If I have to use desktop enviroment a in order to run app b, that’s where the problem lies.
I want cut/copy/paste to be universal and work across ALL apps. Do that for me, and you can have 3 million desktop enviroments for all I care.
As for Windows not having a standard, sure … many apps LOOK different, but most of them also act the same. There’s not really much inconsistancy between them (ie – ALT+F4 to close the window).
“You forget, or do not realise, that a computer is far more versatile than a car. The list of things I can do on a computer far outnumbers what I can do with a car. That increases the complexity.”
Well, you can drive in a car, you can kill with a car, you can sleep in a car, you can shell stuff out of your car, you can play games with your car (racing) …
😉
> For example, Mandrake ships with three different X-Window GUIs:
> KDE, Gnome, and IceWM.
Yes, that way people with preferences (most of us) can be satisfied with OUR choice of Window Manager/Desktop Environment. Whether it be GNOME, KDE, WindowMaker, IceWM or even BlackBox. etc.
> How much time should users spend
> exploring these different GUIs before they find the one that’s “right”
> and works with all their applications? One month? Five months?
They don’t have to spend anytime doing this, RedHat defaults to GNOME, SuSE to KDE and Mandrake to KDE (IIRC). Hell, if they don’t want to make any decisions, use Lycoris or Lindows where the D.E (KDE) is the only option.
> Are there more productive ways for users to spend their time than trying
> different GUIs? Developers, hobbyists, and large IT shops gain value
> from the ability to try and test a multiplicity of interface choices, but
> the average home or business user will not.
Then (as I said before) use Lycoris, Lindows or another *absolute* newbie distro.
You obviously have absolutely no idea what “communism” means. Using it as a standard “bad” term erodes your point as it denotes an inability to distinguish between words you understand, and words you don’t.
Yes, it is a good read. Better than most of the “standardize now” rubbish articles. But I disagree with the author.
I think that one distro – or group (UL?) – will triumph and become the standard. But we will still have our geeky distros like Debbie, Genny, and the Slacker.
At the beginning I could see his point, even if I disagreed with it. Around the second page when he started talking about how window managers are bad because they’re hard to install, right after stating that his example distro installed it for the user, it began to seem like an English paper which had been rewritten to increase its word count.
“because linux is heading to the DESCKTOPS of PEOPLE… and you will not be happy of that I feel…”
It depends on what you mean by this. If you mean that Linux, as it exists today, will be used by more people – I feel that’s wonderful. But if you mean that the very things which made me want to use Linux in the first place will be removed to make it into a Windows clone, than no, of course I’m not going to be happy about that! Despite the sterotype, I think most people using Linux are doing so because they like Linux, not for some ill thought-out crusade against Microsoft. If someone is looking for a user experience just like Windows, you know…they might just be best off looking at Windows instead of trying to force everything else to fit that mold. Attempting to create a world where every computer is exactly the same no matter what operating system is running on it is an attempt at a pretty dull computing experience in my opinion.
Why Keith Packard’s X11 fork has gone silent. More disturbing news on the KDE/Gnome front. Some of you may have noticed that there has been very little public technical discussion about the X11 fork Keith Packard has been doing called XWin lately. In the past couple months they’ve all been pretty much silent. Wondering why?
Well, I have been told by someone close to the project that it’s because it’s been hijacked by Gnome developers and they don’t want to debate integrating Gnome technologies. Particularly they want to integrate things like GConf and Glib into the X server without having to discuss it. So they are no longer talking about what they are doing on the mailing lists or website forums. If XWin is a success because of things like Xr and they are able to sneak things other things like GConf in without debate or public discussion it would be a huge win for them.
This is why all the public forums are silent: It’s not that they are not doing anything – it’s that they don’t want to tell people about it 😉
I can’t confirm or deny this, but have been told the above information by someone both very visible and well-known in the Linux community and close to Red Hat. He said the person leading this effort is Havoc, not Keith Packard, so Keith is not to blame.
He also stated that in response to KDE getting positive coverage due to it’s usability both RedHat and Sun are actively lobbying their customers against KDE. Not only this, but there have been accusations from people close to both companies that they are feeding anti-KDE articles to news sites from supposedly “neutral” sources. This is not suprising for RedHat, but I rather thought Sun learned from their desktop choice mistake before.
-mosfet.arklinux.org
If this article is true and I sincerely hope it is not, than GNOME developers are attempting to destroy all other DEs just for their own self gain. If this is accepted by the community the implications are enormous and this behaviour goes agains everything that OSS stands for, including choice!
one must go, no need to have 2 API on one os. incosistent gui, incompatibility, more memory required etc.
i prefer gnustep though, just that development very slooow.
I’ve thrown YDL on an old iMac and have been tootling around for it for about 2 weeks.
I’ve found no major problems with the basic KDE GUI.
It’s the half baked everything else that’s causing me to go grey.
The find file function that’s not worth a damn.
The CD player without a way to adjust volume.
The lack of copy and paste in OO for the PPC port that shipped with YDL. (I’m not shitting you. Check the FAQ at the YDL site. There is no C&P.)
The hit and miss hardware support.
In short, the UI took me little time to learn as somebody who uses Windows at work and OS X at home.
It’s the crappy half baked everything else that makes YDL a chore to use.
—
I remember that a osnews reader was trying to compile gnome against directfb and was unable to do so because lots of gnome lib’s have direct calls to xlib instead of using (at the very least) wrappers to abstract from that for portability’s sake. I don’t know if the situation is any different with kde and I don’t know if it’s just lousy programming or if it’s intentional but it makes you wonder doesn’t it?
http://www.directfb.org/mailinglists/directfb-dev/2003/06-2003/msg0…
I just dont get the point of these endless “Linux needs less choice for the average user”. Isnt the whole point of Linux making what *you* want??
What’s stoping ppl from making a distro that mimics Windows??
Feel the need for an OS that doesnt make the user choose? make one! Take KDE/Gnome/whatever and make it the only DE available.
Make a DE with 3 128×128 buttons saying “App1” “App2” and “App3” in pretty colors for all i care!
Thats the great thing about Linux! In Windows im stuck with what MS thinks its best for me…
“Instead, go ask average users what they want. Microsoft does. They perform extensive user testing with every major application.”
Thats the problem…they *just* ask average users want and as power users the rest have to live with the wrong options…
In Linux you have distros from Gentoo to Lycoris (you even have distros you dont have to install like Knoppix!). People who like to be spoon fed use Lycoris others dont.
Finally, why is it so important (or so it looks…) that Linux be used by “average users”?
If only “power users” end up using Linux its a big market share!
I don’t know if the situation is any different with kde and I don’t know if it’s just lousy programming or if it’s intentional but it makes you wonder doesn’t it?
Probably just lousy programming. Those GNOME folks take 3 or 4 revision to do it right.
As for “there can be only one”. That’s bullshit. I want a GNOME/KDE desktop environment, where KDE’s konqueror manages my background and desktop while GNOME just sits there, preloaded. Maybe as a Mac-like bar across the top of my screen with some pager, clock, and volume control embedded in it.
But I can’t live without my konqueror!
Siemens Business Systems, apparently a $6billion IT consulting company has changed its mind and is expecting linux to get 20% of the large corporation desktop market in 5 years. Previously they thought linux would fail on the desktop.
They claim that it takes a user two days to get used to Gnome. And that because Gnome is not as similar to Windows as KDE it creates less confusion.
Anyway the point is things can’t be that bad. Read the article below they have lots of real clients beginning to move large numbers of desktops to linux.
http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/08/13/1424212.shtml?tid=3
I’ll have to hear it from somebody other than Mosfet before I believe it. To this guy, everything is a conspiracy against KDE.
i’m a big KDE fan but i like a few GTK/Gnome apps so i have mixed system as far as UI is concerned but the usability principles between kapps and gapps are pretty similar, especially when i have geramik installed
seriously though, look at windows. the differences between windows media player, real player and quicktime, or IE mozilla and opera.
i don’t think you can ever get total unity in UI but as far as i’m concerned, linux is beating windows when it comes to GUI.
when he’s talking about setting your desktop and that you have to edit .xinitrc files. i have never done that! in kdm, it’s as simple as clicking a little option box to set which environment you want, if you don’t chose, your previous one is started, simple. if a newbie ever read that, (s)he’d run away screaming.
THEY are trying to INCORPORATE GNOME ONLY TECHNOLOGIES INTO THE X FORK, this is intentional and will hurt the other des.
Actually the point is not ordinary people vs. hackers. It seems to me that the problem is we are playing a showhow political game. For example, even technologically we don’t need both KDE and GNOME. They do almost identical things and the drawback of having duplications outweights the benefits as experienced programmers know. Duplicated code is evil and there is no benefit from it. Stop playing games and work on single code.
To me it’s great that you can choose a GUI you prefer be it an all in one solution or one you hack together yourself. For Linux to possibly reach the masses the hardware vendors need to come on board, this is where Linux runs into problems, without hardware support there will be no increased use. Everytime I go out to buy hardware for my PC I need to first go and see if it is supported, if not you can try and write your own driver or choose something different that may be supported by Linux, meanwhile with Windows you decide you want this piece of hardware and the majority of time it will work with Windows, or you look on the box of the hardware and it tells you which Windows it will work on, very seldom does it say compatible with Linux, I’ve seen this once and it was for a D-Link PCMCIA Ethernet card.
Yes hardware support is slowly getting better in Linux but it still has a long way to go. IMHO
“Duplicated code is evil and there is no benefit from it. Stop playing games and work on single code.”
Yeah, why don’t we all go back to work on the single code of Hurd instead of Linux?
You can never get an OS that’s totally consistent, even with UI guidelines some apps will break the rules. A lot of the time visual consistency in Windows is just as bad as in Linux, there can be big aesthetic differences between apps. But personally I can live with that, it may make the UI look messy but it doesn’t significantly damage productivity. OTOH inconsistent keyboard shortcuts and cut, copy and paste does significantly damage productivity.
Windows and Mac OS do have a basic level of consistency between apps, 99% of the time I don’t have to relearn keyboard shortcuts or the location of common menu items and I can copy and paste between all apps. Until that’s true in Linux I don’t think it’s UI will feel as consistent and elegant as Windows, even with themes making KDE and GNOME apps look similar.
“A lot of the time visual consistency in Windows is just as bad as in Linux,”
Although Windows also has inconsistency amongst its applications, I would not reach so far as to say it happens “a lot of the time,” as you speculate. Inconsistency is rare enough in Windows that it is not usually a big deal.
“it may make the UI look messy but it doesn’t significantly damage productivity.”
Yes, it doesn’t significantly damage productivity. Although the widgets act similarly, if the user stumbles upon a slightly different behavior, it will annoy him. Add up a bunch of similar nuisances and the user will lose his patience quickly
As is evident with all these virus outbreaks hitting the Windows world, having choices is much better than not having it. To be fair however, there is a lot of choice in the Windows world. There is probably more choice in Windows than in Linux (most open source projects are available for Windows, but proprietary apps are usually not available for Linux), the only problem is that noone practices it. Also, even though people do practice a lot of choice in the Linux/Unix world with applications, the sad part is that most applications use the same set of libraries.
a standard UI is NOT the answer. while i am all for cross UI themes, a “one size fits all” when it comes to the UI is not good. why? it’s inefficient. some people do things pretty darn quick using the standard windows, gnome, and kde look and feel. however many do not! that is why:
– you have customization software for windows (often at a price on top of the ridiculous price for the OS)
– kde and gnome can be configured to look like what the user wants it too look like
– others use xfce, blackbox/fluxbox/bluebox/openbox, enlightenment, fvwm, windowmaker, etc
Someone who understands the problems with haveing to develop for two desktops wnviroments needs to come out and explain those problems to the rest of us — but as for me and my house we like having the choice. kde or gnome – icewm.
This guy is dead on. One problem with Linux is that there are so many different developers spanned over many different projects all trying to do things with their own philosophy or the philosphy of the desktop environment they are using. Linux is making progress but in terms of making inroads to desktops it’s got a long way to go.
This guy has got it right. Instead of many different GUI’s they need 1 standard gui that works for the average user. If Linux doesn’t go down this path it will fail misserably for the average user.
So the average user doesnt like it. Big woop.
Linux was made for the enjoyment of the developers of it. Even if no one else in the world likes it, the developers will never stop making it,because its their operating system.
Honestly, most “average user” doesnt know a thing about computers, and doesnt want to. Hell, they pirate, and dont listen to good security advice. Let them use Windows.
If this was a dead horse, it would be flogged so hard that we would have mince meat by now.
I’ve given up on the average user. There is no use educating people who don’t want to learn. It is the old story, you can bring a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
If the average user wants to stick with Windows, that is there choice, however, like any choice they make in their life I don’t want to hear a whinge, whine or complaint about the choice they made. Make a decision and stick by it.
In terms of Linuxs adoption, unless the community is willing to hear the truth and do something about it the perception by some, whether it is right or wrong, will be that Linux has no strong direction as a desktop operating system.
As for the authors comments, I think it is time he stepped out of the Windows world, bought a clue and looked at reality. Redhat’s default desktop is Gnome and KDE libraries are installed for support and SuSE’s default desktop is KDE and GNOME libraries are installed for support. Mandrake is the only distribution that hasn’t got a clear desktop default set down.
Ultimately, if the user doesn’t know anything about computers then they will know nothing about Linux meaning this whole argument over standardising is a non-issue as the target audience doesn’t even know the product exists.
There is no more inconsistency on my Debian system then there is on any Windows machine. When you consider the shear number of apps compared to Windows, and venture out of the basic utils that come with the system, rarely do they look or act the same as the basic apps. I primarily use KDE apps, they all look and act the same, they all have set things in set places, and this makes customization easier. If I want a Gnome app for some reason, they are also all the same as I use a theme that matches… I recently went back to XP for a week or so… no 2 apps looked or acted the same, other then the odd few entries, menu’s were never the same. The whole system is very counter-intuitive, this in contrast to the Linux way of doing things, where (for the most part) you have 2 different structures and rule base’s for all apps, I find it hard to beleive anyone that isn’t closed minded can find Windows more intuitive then anything Linux has to offer…
I find my desktop apps run faster then there Windows alternatives, they are usually much more reliable, and are far less buggy usually also. I am not a Linux zealot, I simply use what works the best for me. I used to love Windows, it was all I had ever ran. I have used Linux for 2 years now, and every time I sit at a Windows machine, it just pisses me off, stupid little bugs that I never used to even notice yell at me. Even in linux though, the little bugs etc bug me, why? Because I simply am not used to them anymore. That is why I couldn’t stay with XP Pro, the thing just was too buggy. It didn’t recognize my sound card, it didn’t use the right video card drivers, it fucked up the amount of RAM I have, it reported the wrong values for CPU and harddrive space. This isn’t even going into what I experienced with regular applications. How can people say Linux doesn’t detect hardware as well as Windows? I never have these issues with Linux, NEVER!
I guess for the closed minded, seeing something that isn’t exactly like IE is hard to stomache, I don’t know, I just don’t understand how people that have lived on both sides of the fence so to speak can honestly say such things!
I remember that a osnews reader was trying to compile gnome against directfb and was unable to do so because lots of gnome lib’s have direct calls to xlib instead of using (at the very least) wrappers to abstract from that for portability’s sake. I don’t know if the situation is any different with kde and I don’t know if it’s just lousy programming or if it’s intentional but it makes you wonder doesn’t it?
GTK is a three part jigsaw puzzle. glib provides C functionality that is not available on all platforms. Pango then provides the international support which is based on glib. GTK is then based on GDK which provides an abstraction layer over X11 and also links back into pango and glib.
What the person was most likely whinging about is the lack of a port of GDK to GTK, and generally, if it hasn’t been proted, there are two reasons, firstly, a lack of drive by the developer community and secondly, there is missing functionality. Most likely the issue is with functionality missing from directfb which X11 does have. This isn’t a reliance of X11 but a feature that is lacking in DirectFB.
Most likely the issue is with functionality missing from directfb which X11 does have. This isn’t a reliance of X11 but a feature that is lacking in DirectFB.
Please explain more, I find this terribly exciting and on-topic.
Well GTK has an abstraction layer which is reliant on GDK, GDK is reliant on Pango which provides text rendering and internationalisation support.
What is the net result? to port GTK to Windows, one simply had to port Pango and GDK to GDI, as a result we have application such as XChat available.
Now, a while back there was a move to port GTK to Quartz, however, the primary objective now, however, is to get X11 and GTK to work on MacOS X, once that is done and can provide the appropriate funcationality, the next step can be to tune and optimise using Quartz.
In terms of GDK and Mono, GDK is being used as a step in replacement for any calls made by .net applications that require GDI+ funcationality.
Ultimately, GTK was designed from the ground up to be portable, not only to other UNIX/X11 operating systems but non-X11 based such as Windows and MacOS X.
Open source operating systems like the ones A. russel describe already exist.
A default install of redhat for example, or lindows will do what he thinks a joe public LInux OS should do. I think he needs to look at linux OS’s more closely – do more research Mr Russel.
I think the only thing I can take from his article is that there needs to be a better awaerness for which linux distro suits who. Distro watch is’t bad, but something simpler and clearer for joe blogs may be useful.
>Mandrake is the only distribution that hasn’t got a clear
>desktop default set down.
<sarc> So lets just forget about Debian, Slackware, Gentoo and others because they did not made their dissision yet. </sarc>
Lots of the posts preceding mine have pointed out the weaknesses of Jones argumentation. What strikes me particularly is that despite the abundance of information on the websites of the FSF, KDE, Gnome, Suse, etc., even tech savvy guys like Russell Jones still don’t get it : having the main conditions of our computing experience dictated by a single entity (be it Microsoft or Apple) is a bad thing. It negates the fact that others possess the knowledge required to create the different components necessary to enjoy computers : kernels, operating systems, desktop environments, interfaces, programs, hardware and so on.
Throughout articles dealing with GUI issues, there appears to be the same confusion about a certain word : “standard”. Saying that Microsoft sells the same standard to all their customers is the equivalent of saying that the Cosa Nostra provides all Sicilians with the same standard of living, which is : suffer whatever indignity we inflict upon you but, to comfort yourselves, think that you share the same fate with numerous other smart people.
Because you’re not forced into running KDE or Gnome nor are you forced into running these locally on the PC.
Let’s consider the situation at a typical small business.
You would have PC’s running Windows 98, NT, 2k and Xp mixed togheter.
You can’t upgrade to windows 2k or XP, because the older computers cannot run it. You can’t downgrade to NT, because it’s no longer supported or available. And even it would be possible, it would be very expensive. You’d have to buy new licenses for most PC’s.
So, you’r basically stuck with you’re mixed version setup, meaning that users cannot experience a consistent desktop across the office or take their desktop configuration from one pc to another.
With Linux, you can upgrade all pc’s to the same version. Even a pentium 150 with 40 megs of RAM will run KDE reasonably well, although then you can’t run much applications concurrently anymore.
In an office network however, you can use it as a terminal on one of your newer PC’s or run the applications remotely. On a stand-alone PC you can revert to a lighter window manager and still have a useable system.
So, within a typical small business you can create a consistent desktop across the office using the hardware that is already present for minimal costs.
There is no problem moving from one PC to anothor. All your configuration settings go with you as long as your home directory is shared across the different computers.
Bottom line is: with Linux you can have a consistent desktop experience accross your company using one version of Linux on a mixture of old and new hardware.
With Windows you can only have a consistent desktop with roaming profiles by investing a lot of money in upgrading both soft&hardware into one single version of both windows itself and the applications that run on top of it.
Choice and Usability are not at odds here — indeed, choice aids usability. In Windows, you’re often given a set of applications that you have no real choice in using. Back when I was a Windows user, I had Office, Visual Studio, and IE. Thanks to the hemogenous Windows community, using anything else made it hard for you to use available content. Now, these applications are not internally consistent. To this day, VS.NET looks nothing at all like either the Win2k or WinXP default looks. Office has used its own toolkit for years. So in Windows, you get neither choice, nor usability.
In Linux, I get usability because I have choice. I choose to use pretty-much 100% KDE apps, and as a result, Linux is the most usable OS I’ve had since BeOS. I can get away with using apps that which, though they are not necessarily the most popular, fit all my needs and integrate well with the rest of my software. The reason I can do this is because the Linux crowd loves its ability to choose, and as a result is hetrogenous. Because it is hetrogenous, content makers provide content in open formats usable by everyone. In the Windows world, you often see example code distributed as Visual Studio projects. In the Linux world, you never see example code distributed as KDevelop projects. Instead, you see a nice, standard, makefile that can work with any IDE.
Lets keep Linux as a platform and not a product like Microsoft. Micrsoft is not even a suitable platform while anyone can program on Linux and have control over their platform. Linux should however focus more on making it easier for beginners to have control, and that would involve building tools to document the source code, and working with a distributed and organic knowledge base that is interfaced with these documentation tools. We have the source code, but that doesn’t mean that it is usable, you have to have a lot of knowledge to use the source code, let’s make it easier, and let Linux lead toward developing under the open source rules rather than the vendor rules.
also, Linux doesn’t have to beat out MS Windows or at least it shouldn’t focus on that. It’s more important that Linux stay free and a platform rather than a product. I actually don’t mind how things are right now except for the SCO terrorism. Well lets remove that NUMA code and be done with it. Linux will operate under more hardware, it will become more user friendly and hopefully as the most important point, it will become much more approachable to the beginner. Make the source code more accessible by documenting it much better with tools, and focus in areas where closed source can’t go.
“Even a pentium 150 with 40 megs of RAM will run KDE reasonably well (..)”
Have you read that somewhere or have you actually tried it? I’ve tried both KDE and Gnome on a p200/32mbram/voodoo2, p500/64mbram/onboard, and a p166/48mbram/onboard. Trust me, KDE and Gnome didn’t do quite well. I don’t find that a problem, since xp needs better specs as well.
It’s just that you should try something out first, before stating something you just read somewhere on the net.
And, if you did get to run it, I’d like to know how long it took to open OpenOffice
As long as applications are built to run only on one desktop environment, then this “choice” is a double-edged sword. Deciding which desktop to run also means deciding what kind of apps you won’t run.
i don’t care more about the applications than the desktop environment. i need a stable os with good hardware support, windows and linux have both.
but then it’s about good software. if i want to run a server i choose linux (or some other unix), but for multimedia stuff, video editing or sound applications i’m stuck with linux. if i want to have a choice between several professional applications i have to use osx or windows.
what linux needs is a standardised base for commercial software.
> i don’t care more about the applications…
correction:
i CARE more about the applications…
“”Even a pentium 150 with 40 megs of RAM will run KDE reasonably well (..)”
Have you read that somewhere or have you actually tried it? I’ve tried both KDE and Gnome on a p200/32mbram/voodoo2, p500/64mbram/onboard, and a p166/48mbram/onboard. Trust me, KDE and Gnome didn’t do quite well. I don’t find that a problem, since xp needs better specs as well.”
Shame shame, you’re right. My mistake.
I did install Knoppix on the machine and KDE indeed was very slow.
However icewm, the default with libranet 2.7 that I installed later, is quite useable. I use it to do system administration on a remote web server. Even running galeon on it is bearable.
Icewm is even useable on a 486. I have a 486 notebook with 40 megs of ram running it. I use it to display applications running on my desktop while sitting outside in the garden :-))
“It’s just that you should try something out first, before stating something you just read somewhere on the net.”
See above.
“And, if you did get to run it, I’d like to know how long it took to open OpenOffice
”
It actually did start within minutes, but it was not very useable.
If you want to run an office app on a 486 or older pentium, take siag office or abiword. (Or run it remotely, of course)
“”Even a pentium 150 with 40 megs of RAM will run KDE reasonably well (..)”
He’s right, you know. KDE 1 flies on a system like that.
Oh, wait….
Linux is not an operation system, but a kernel. It does not have a GUI.
Linux is not an operation system, but a kernel. It does not have a GUI.
Linux is not an operation system, but a kernel. It does not have a GUI.
People think that Linux needs to have a GUI, but it has none. The only person who can give Linux a GUI is Linus Torvalds, but so far he did not (and I doubt that he ever will be).
GNU/Linux is an OS, and its official GUI is Gnome. Lindows is an OS, and its GUI is KDE. RedHat is an OS, and its (default) GUI is Gnome. Suse is an OS, and its (default) GUI is KDE.
KDE/Qt is a platform of its own, which may run on Linux, but also runs on various other Linux-like platforms. Most desktop users do not really care for Linux. They could use FreeBSD instead, and they would not even notice. They only care for the Look&Feel, which is KDE. Thus you should not call the thing Linux, but KDE, since that’s what they are interacting with.
Same for Gnome. Call it GNU!
And for hell’s sake, stop using the word Linux for anything but the kernel and the server platform. I know Linux is a well-known name, but it does a bad job at describing a desktop, since it does not have a GUI and you can install a thousand of different GUIs on it.
“Linux is not an operation system, but a kernel. It does not have a GUI.
Linux is not an operation system, but a kernel. It does not have a GUI.
Linux is not an operation system, but a kernel. It does not have a GUI.”
Let’s make a deal, to banish this once and for all: When someone says “Linux” in comparison to Windows, Mac OS X or any other, we mean the distributions close to it, such as MDK, SuSE, Lycoris etc.
Saves us these stupid remarks.
“Linux is not an operation system, but a kernel. It does not have a GUI.”
That argument only holds water unless you’re like me and believe that the kernel *is* the OS. This is not you or I being misinformed so much as a difference in opinnion.
“The only person who can give Linux a GUI is Linus Torvalds, but so far he did not (and I doubt that he ever will be).”
Not true. If anyone with the required skill felt as though it were needed, they could weld a GUI into Linux. Linus Torvalds has a source tree, redhat has a source tree, everyone and their dog in the Linux world has a source tree of their own. Just because his is currently the most popular (being the original author and all), doesn’t mean that it will stay that way. He only has say over his own tree, and as time goes by, trees such as RedHats and SuSE’s will become the standard trees as the directions of Linus and the Major distributers begin to diverge.
“GNU/Linux is an OS, and its official GUI is Gnome.”
Nope. Wrong again. You assume concensus were none exists.
“Same for Gnome. Call it GNU!”
Uh, no, I call it “Gnome”…
“And for hell’s sake, stop using the word Linux for anything but the kernel and the server platform. I know Linux is a well-known name, but it does a bad job at describing a desktop, since it does not have a GUI and you can install a thousand of different GUIs on it. ”
If clairity is indeed your purpose here with this statement, you’d better work on that a little.
“Have you read that somewhere or have you actually tried it? I’ve tried both KDE and Gnome on a p200/32mbram/voodoo2, p500/64mbram/onboard, and a p166/48mbram/onboard. Trust me, KDE and Gnome didn’t do quite well. I don’t find that a problem, since xp needs better specs as well. ”
Lack of ram is the killer for running Linux/KDE on old boxes, rather than CPU speed. If you can find 128mb+ it makes a vast difference, as most of the slowdown is caused by swapping to disk. If you can put 512mb into a p500 then it runs very smoothly with KDE, even a p2-400 is still useable with 384mb.
At least the more recent kernels don’t go into a swap storm with very limited memory, but you are still going to be waiting around a lot with 64mb, especially if the swap file is on an ancient harddrive.
It depends whether it’s worth searching out ram to upgrade the old machines I guess, but ram is cheap, and the difference it makes worth the extra expense.
What the person was most likely whinging about is the lack of a port of GDK to GTK, and generally, if it hasn’t been proted, there are two reasons, firstly, a lack of drive by the developer community and secondly, there is missing functionality. Most likely the issue is with functionality missing from directfb which X11 does have. This isn’t a reliance of X11 but a feature that is lacking in DirectFB.
The problem wasn’t GTK/GDK, those have already been ported a long time ago to directfb [http://www.directfb.org/gtk.xml], it was specific GNOME libs that instead of using GDK actually made calls to xlib, so if there are features missing it would be on GDK not directfb, but the problem is most likely on gnome’s side.
You only need to read Mosfet’s other screeds to understand why he’s hardly a reliable source of information.
First of all, XWin is _just a website_. It’s not a project. It’s for discussing the future of X, and whether a fork is needed. Asking “why it’s quiet” is inane, because the XF86 project has started to become more open, obiviating the need for Xwin.
Second, Mosfet is absolutely convinced that GNOME is trash and that everyone just needs to use KDE, and everything would be alright. He’s _SURE_ that RedHat is out to kill KDE. In other words, he’s the equivalent of a fanatic government conspiracy theorist who’s managed to write some pretty GUI elements.
There is a reason that he was thrown off the main KDE development team.
-Erwos
I’m curious-all the talk about the many and varied Linux desktops, and noone ever talks about the many and varied desktops for -Doze. Windows is just as flexible from a UI standpoint.
Let’s see, for windows, you can use:
Explorer (Aqua or Classic)
Style XP (Explore Skinning App)
Object Desktop (Umm, Shell Customization Suite?)
Lightstep (Shell Replacement)
Winstep (Windowmaker/Nextstep Style Shell Replacement)
Talisman (Shell Replacement)
Serenade (Shell Replacement)
Geoshell (Minimal Shell Replacement)
SharpE (My Favorite, also a Minimal Shell Replacement)
Go! (Very Minimal Shell Replacement-replaces explorer with a command.exe bar.)
Neon (Uses Flash as a explorer replacement)
Blackbox/Blubox (Port of Blackbox/Fluxbox to Windows, Very Nice!)
My point is: each of these applications provides a vastly different experience to the end user, and in many cases, changes the intuitive “feel” of the OS. In fact, switching the UI from explorer to something else reduces system memory load in most cases, and greatly enhances overall stability.
How is this any different from many and varied X-based desktops that come with most Linux DISTRO’s? The fact that these windows apps comes from third parties is not material. The only reason that the Distros have Gnome , KDE, Blackbox, etc., is that they decided to ship the code with the core kernel.
Now, true, I don’t have access to the NT kernel, but I’m not coding kernel modules, drivers, or generally hacking the core to my own uses. But if I want to change how my desktop loks, I’m hardly limited to just changing my wallpaper.
“… and they [Linux powerusers] are hardly likely to resolve the KDE vs Gnome argument anytime soon.”
The way I see it, the argument is resolved. No more argument!
From a non users point of view.
Usablility of Linux seems to be the Achilles Heel here. More specifically the way Linux heros think about usability. Mostly I’d say installers and configurations. Not the desktop or the widgets on individual programs although that could be improved. I’ve tried some of the open source Office stuff and it sucks big time.
Now maybe it’s just a PR thing. But even on OSX, which I do use, there are just too many apps I might want to try that you have to use the terminal to compile. I’m just too busy to screw with figureing out an obscure terminal command and where the file lies in relation to the root etc. I haven’t been around long enough to use a terminal with comfort. And there isn’t much I’d need to use it for that I can think of. Batch renaming of files? I can find a non terminal app to do it on OSX.
Now I do plan to build a baby Linux server. I can understand how Linux could help me there. Like $2000 for a Mac server vs. $400 for a decent little self built Linux box. I’ll go for that because I only have to get it to do one thing, serve. It might take me $700 in time to get it up and running vs. $400 in time to get the Mac up and running. You can see I am still way ahead.
On my Mac I have to get it to do thousands of things on a schedule. Any delay stalls my productivity and annoys my clients. Over the space of a year each time I have to learn some arcane command I loose $time. That adds up. Over the space of 3 years the Mac more than pays for itself in time and headaches.
I also have a Win2K box. I use it for looking at my Web designs to check for cross compatibility issues mostly. I would never use it for email and it’s clunky for most things. XP? Nope I don’t want to get into the habit of being relaxed as Microsoft watches me and hassles me over putting in a new hard drive. Only a corporate worker or a dummy would choose to get locked into Windows.
Meanwhile the Linux server will just chug along. I don’t want to mess with it.
Get it guys?
I think that the success of so many differente linux distributions are proof that choice is good.
There is a reason why the powerusers choose gentoo over mandrake, and visa versa. People with extensive computer knowledge like to have control over their os, while newbie’s need the “fix it for me please”-button.
With windows you are stuck with the latter one, it fails to give the poweruser the freedom he wants.
Ofcorse, windows will do just fine for 95% of the computerusers. The once that are in it for doing a task, and not for the computing itself.
But so will probably a few linux distributions, i`ll be sure to stay away from them 🙂
while newbie’s need the “fix it for me please”-button.
No, people who are new to computers need a computer system that works either intuitively, or without requiring assistance unless absolutely neccessary.
People with extensive computer knowledge like to have control over their os
Everybody loves generalizations. I have “extensive computer knowlege,” but I don’t like fiddling with inane config files and the like (what you would probably consider “control of ..[the] os.”
The once that are in it for doing a task, and not for the computing itself.
Yes, some people use computers to get things done or play games, and some people use computers to tweak endlessly and learn Emacs shortcuts.
I think the trouble is that GUIs are rather matter of personal preferences than runtime performance or functionalities. I am not yet convinced why choice is important. No one demands more kernels than Linux, more servers than Apaches because they are good enough and there is no need to have more than two UNIX kernels, http servers.
Chaos of desktop environments is seemingly similar to that of UNIX favors in the past. Variation is for the reason of policits and not for the purpose of user benefits. The battle between KDE and GNOME looks similar to this.
You want choice? What kind? Isn’t customization good enought for it? We don’t need several ways to create a widget.
Remember the primary motivation of GNOME project, that is, QT was free enough, not technical one. Of course, having two almost identical code base might be beneficial for technical advances but in terms of software engineering, it is wasting time and resources. Again, choice comes with cost and too bad we have unnecessary number of choices.