One of the major roadblocks for Unix was the lack of one single standardized platform for applications. Linux seems to be following along the same line, although on a different parallel. To compete head-to-head with Microsoft, Linux advocates should standardize the platform, A. Russell Jones says.
Linux vs. Windows: Choice vs. Usability
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Well, haven’t read the article yet, but the title suggests what I suggested as well
, about standards and all…
Hehe, nice
http://www.freedesktop.org/
Sure, this doesn’t address the fact that Unix/X11 software is badly integrated to BeOS/Windows/MacOS software, but the desktop is standardized.
Also, I’d rather like to be able to choose btw. a windows-like WM and one that _allows_ focus-follows-mouse and click-doesn’t-raise-window.
A. Russell Jones you are a big dummy, if the OpenSource/Linux community done that then they would be taking away a heck of a lot of freedom of choice, RPM or Deb or compiling from sourcecode, then i or anyone else could not choose KDE or Gnome, or ICEwm, or WindowMaker, or Blackbox/Fluxbox (or for the really geeky twm), choice=freedom-freeddom=choice…
i made my decesions, others made theirs, and after getting to the second page of your stupid article i decided to close the tab that held your webpage and not bother with reading the third, so go back to surfing & emailing with your Ignornet Exploder & OuthouseExpress with WindozeXP, and please NEVER write anything about Linux until you get a better understanding & love for & about OpenSouce & Linux OS/software…
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4274
sorry Eugenia, its old 🙂
The same thing posted within 2 weeks of each other……just another example how this site gets worse and worse everyday.
Edit by Eugenia: Well, not really. I am on vacations throughout August (coming back on Sept 2nd) and I have little to no internet access for a month now. This does has an impact on keeping a pace with the site of course, but it does not mean that it gets worse. As for the duplicate, big deal. Such articles are popular anyway.
Wow…
I agree with the author– A standard wouldn’t do any harm to Desktop Linux.
“so go back to surfing & emailing with your Ignornet Exploder & OuthouseExpress with WindozeXP, and please NEVER write anything about Linux until you get a better understanding & love for & about OpenSouce & Linux OS/software…”
Godgodgod… You really mean that? You sound like a two year old.
Russel Jones is one of those brave souls who doesn’t take OSS’s shortcommings for granted. He’s one of those brave souls willing to break the “don’t critisize OSS” taboo. Clapclap…
Wating for Mystileef’s reaction though
How about having both? Whenever someone talks about standardizing Linux, they immediately think that you’ll lose all the choice you have. I do hope that some group develops a very fast and easy to use desktop, or modify Gnome and/or KDE to work well and look good. Then have people develop applications for this desktop, or themes to make them all look the same. Plus add integrated configuration tools.
It’s not like you’d lose the option of installing or using your preferred GUI. Freedom isn’t only about you and what you like to use. It’s about everyone else, and everyone playing well together.
Maybe KWM is for you? It has a Windows 2000 theme, can be click-focus or mouse-move-focus and can also have click-doesn’t-raise, in fact, I use those two at the moment.
For the rest, I wonder if it is really that important. I mean, do many users abandon Mozilla because it looks different? Many users don’t play computer games because they don’t have the standard Windows UI? I admit, a library like xlib is confusing, but as long as the UI libs generally work the same and support drag’n’drop between them (I can drag files from Konqueror to XMMS) there is no problem IMO.
Why not focus standardizing the basic things like network configuration, /etc/passwd files and such, so that for example a KDE system configuration utility can be written?
didn’t read the whole article – but it seems like Mr. Jones hasn’t used Linux for very long.
One does _not_ even have to choose:
Start up in Gnome one day, the next day start fluxbox,
on the other day start KDE …
Its does not matter in wich DE/WindowManager an application runs – It allways looks and behaves the same.
You can even run all them at once – if you start three X-Servers.
There are mor important problems like incompatible rpm-packages or
directory-differences.
The main point of the article is the desire for a standard Linux GUI, saying that Windows has one.
But that isn’t true. Windows has lots of different GUIs: the raw Win32 C API, VB6, MFC, .NET, and in a couple of years a radically new .NET, all from Microsoft. Not to mention Swing, Qt, wxWin, etc. A single GUI isn’t a necessity. And isn’t possible anyway, unless you freeze out enhancements.
And if you say that Linux doesn’t integrate well, I point to lots of Windows programs that for some reason don’t use the Windows GUI (best case in point: the command entry window, which doesn’t use the Luna window decorations). Other Windows programs fail to use antialiased fonts. It’s a very mixed bag, for which we can thank several generations of GUI development.
I don’t think “a standard GUI” is what makes Windows successful, compared to Linux.
(It’s “herd instinct” that makes Windows successful, in case you were wondering!)
There is a standard GUI platform for linux. Every distro uses it by default and especially as a Gnome user I realize it.
It is called KDE. Once the (Evolution for KDE)K-big-email thing or whatever its called is complete and ready to rock and roll then you can easily have an all-KDE desktop and many users do now. (How many home users need all that Evolution stuff?) My wife uses Kmail and Konqueror and pretty much all KDE apps. In Suse even the Administrator tasks are integrated straight into the Control Center. The only sticking point is OpenOffice really. I am NOT downplaying that whole in the homogenized interface either. But, that is pretty much it.
These sort of articles are misleading and annoying. How the hell are you going to standardize the platform? Lindows and Lycoris and some others have a very integrated desktop with no Gnome, Icewm, or any freakin’ thing else out there. How are linux advocates going to integrate further? What can you do? Force Ximian and RedHat to use KDE? What about competition?
To the end users the GUI is the OS. Just because the distros all carry the linux tag does not mean that many users if presented with two boxes one with Suse and one with Redhat would judge them as being close to the same.
Why the rush to some artificial conformity when most distros have already enforced their own sense of conformity anyway?
Linux is not Windows or Mac OS X.
The model and the background and the history is all different.
Every COMMERCIAL distro besides Redhat. I forgot to say that.
Read subject. This is true. Linux is not Win or Mac. The thing is Linux users like me always tell people about the virtues of Linux. But the only way I can ever get them to actually try it out is to make sure the GUI looks good and is easy enough to use. Maybe create a Windows Desktop Manager (i’m gonna get flamed), for those that have no idea what Linux is. Get it exactly like Windows (no bugs though). Maybe it will make a few more companies use Linux, and hopefully give us Linux freaks a few more jobs.
One does _not_ even have to choose:
Exactly!
I really wonder how the author could have missed that.
If users will not likely change anything as he said, why would they tinker around with other options.
He requests that nobody should need to choose and simply ignores that nobody ever had to choose.
But I guess he just ahd to write something to get some money so he decided to write something hundrets others have already written instead.
i agree with a. russel jones, but there is no way to agree to one standard GUI toolkit. QT cannot be a standard, because there is no free version for closed source applications.
what remains is GTK, but QT/KDE has the bigger user base.
While criticing OSS is welcome, i don’t think this article is worth mentionning. Contrary to commercial products, linux/gnu operating systems are developped under a lot of different umbrellas. I understand that people like that some choices are made for them gui wise but it is part of the oss/free world to allow the user to choose. Freedoom has a price and if you are not willing to pay for it, you are unlikely to reap its benefits.
Standardize on which one?
http://lwn.net/Distributions/
The power of Linux is its diversity. Perhaps your arguement should be made to RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE and Caldera. But somehow I doubt Caldera would be willing to listen.
I’m sure eventually these problems will work themselves out on their own without our parental/authoritative intervention.
Ugh. There are some linux users that do not hate MS. We did not move to linux for a free version of a Windows like interface.
I moved to Linux because I liked choice in my UI.
I moved to Linux because I was learning Unix for my job.
I moved to Linux because I did not like Windows.
Windows comes with every system you will likely ever buy. If you want Windows why not just use Windows?
Why the hell would anyone go through the pain of installing another OS on their system if they are happy with the OS that came with their box? Especially the holy grail of home users.
If I wanted XP or 2000 or whatever I would use it.
But that isn’t true. Windows has lots of different GUIs: the raw Win32 C API, VB6, MFC, .NET, and in a couple of years a radically new .NET, all from Microsoft. Not to mention Swing, Qt, wxWin, etc. A single GUI isn’t a necessity. And isn’t possible anyway, unless you freeze out enhancements.
but they look the same and most of them are building on top of the Win32 GUI API. they all use the same window borders and buttons. a checkbox, a radio button, a drop down menu, the file dialog wil look the same (only Java/Swing does it one thing, but you can use Java/SWT).
compare a GTK, QT and TCL/TK program on windows and linux. on windows they integrate well on linux they will look and behave differently.
Its like Pepsi or Coke.
I think we should all standardize on Coke! Choice just confuses me.
come one! it’s not about the taste, it’s about the interface. if you use a pepsi and coke can, i’m quite sure they use exactly the same interface…
That’s all well and good in a hobbyist world, where users are enthusiasts who are more than happy to handle manual configurations and endure inconveniences in order to maintain an open system where application developers target the GUI(s) of their choice. It’s also fine in a locked-down, IT-mandated business situation where administrators and business needs dictate UI and application choices for users. But that approach isn’t going to work for the general public. >>>
I’ve adjusted the eye-candy factor on my YDL box and guess what … YDL, the GUIs, and assorted apps are still half-baked from a home use perspective.
I still have no idea of how to switch from KDE to Gnome or Windowmaker.
That’s what sucks about the CLI. If you don’t know the exact command you need, you’re hosed.
It’s an interesting article, and I agree with most of it… But I think the author does not say how the problems are handled at the moment.
In the section about “How to make IceWM my default window manager.” he makes it seem a difficult task, with four paragraphs about reading web sites and editing text files.
When I have used Mandrake, this just involved selecting it from the drop down menu on the login screen.
Linux has many ways of doing the same thing. Perhaps that is part of the problem.
I have often read people give advice to newbies on newsgroups with a command line solution. The advice is totally correct, but ignores the fact that there is an easy gui based way of doing it. So the newbie thinks it’s a complex task when it really just involves a couple of mouse clicks. I think this comes from a long term mistrust of gui configuration in the Linux community, and the way even experienced Linux users may not know how far a distro’s gui tools have progressed.
As far as package managers go, the present solution is to provide a large amount of tested packages with the distro, and a distro specific gui package manager. This is not ideal, but it works. There is not all that much high quality, stable, newbie-friendly and free software out there, so it is practical to expect a DVD full to be a good representation.
“QT cannot be a standard, because there is no free version for closed source applications.”
I don’t follow your logic. Closed source, commercial apps have historically never used free libraries – the companies are used to paying for licenses for development environments, compilers, libraries, OSes, and what-have-you, usually on a per-seat basis. I don’t see why paying TrollTech for a Qt license to develop a closed-source app for KDE would be such a big deal.
This is one of the worst articles that I have read.
> Because the interfaces are slightly different, application
> developers generally target one or two primary GUI
> programming models.
I run KDE, just WHAT program for another GUI CAN’T I use?
I use Evolution and Galeon almost all the time, and that was developed by the GNOME people. When I see a program out there, it might have a couple of distros listed that it runs under, but a good Open Source program could be converted *IF* there is a problem. So far there are no problems.
Now let me see, I go from my Volvo to my sisters Pontiac, OH my I CAN’T drive the car because it has a different dashboard with controls in different places. NOT! NOT!
> Choice, to most users, is the ability to choose any
> program
> they wish, and have it install and run seamlessly, without
> affecting any other application already installed; without
> requiring them to know which GUI they’re running (or even
> that they’re running a GUI);
Same piece of GARBAGE! There is NO PROBLEM! I think that Mandrake has THOUSANDS of different programs available. And I’ve loaded many of them, NO PROBLEM.
MarkP
I laugh a lot everytime I see people who doesn’t understand what Open Source means going nuts everytime someone puts the finger on the wound.
Having a bloody set of directories and Desktop standarized on every distro DOES NOT MEAN that you can not download anything else and replace that standard desktop.
Wake up! Linux has two mayor drawbacks Binary compatibility and Rubbish Desktop.
However and fortunately not all seems to be lost KDE and GNOME are doing a great job, and there’s people working on an standarized way to deploy apps between distros.
Diversity is a great thing, but simplicity is what matters F****g morons.
It is a wrog concept. Linux is like a genetic algorithm. Diversity selects only the stronger ideas and programs.
Windows is like a “dolly” clone. It is the reason why Windows is so sucetible to virus 🙂 Your excessive standardization kill any inovative ideas and makes it weak.
“I don’t follow your logic. Closed source, commercial apps have historically never used free libraries – the companies are used to paying for licenses for development environments, compilers, libraries, OSes, and what-have-you, usually on a per-seat basis. I don’t see why paying TrollTech for a Qt license to develop a closed-source app for KDE would be such a big deal.”
do i need to buy a library license to develop on windows or macos?
i didn’t talk only about commercial apps, i talked about closed source apps.
what happens when a future release of QT becomes buggy as hell and completly useless? what should a developer of a commercial or closed source software do?
> I still have no idea of how to switch from KDE to Gnome or
> Windowmaker.
Gosh, on Mandrake or SUSE, when you log in you select the GUI you want, with a click. If you can’t read simple English, go back to school.
Recent tests show that Linux is as easy as Windows.
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1475577157&fp=2&fpid=1
I’m reading about the recent exploits of a Win user, and he IS in the computer business, trying to convert from one McGaffe (sp?) to Norton. He was lost…
This “hard” stuff is getting rediculous!
MarkP
Exactly, you beat me to it. He states that most Windows users never adjust the interface from the default. So why would they ever try adjusting which wm or desktop they use in Linux?
Wouldn’t they just stick with what the distro’s default was? Heck, they wouldn’t even KNOW they had a choice unless they did some reading.
He also makes it seem like every distro still boots to the CLI and has no gui driven tools to make the change in wm. Has this author even used linux lately??
After trying a lot of distro’s back in the Red Hat 5.2 days, I settled on mandrake for a while, and they made it easy to choose which wm you wanted everytime you boot (graphically, by the way). This is how I got the feel of all the choices out there.
Later, as I became more comfortable, I switched to Slackware, which does make you edit things by hand, but I don’t think most people would suggest slack to a new user.
This whole article just seems like a big waste of space
A) GNOME apps can be run within KDE, and vise-versa. I do it every day.
B) freedesktop.org is setting standards that mean that GNOME and KDE will be even more compatible in the future. For instance, Gaim now docks into the KDE panel. Soon, we may even have unified app menus for both desktops.
C) the standard “platform” for Linux is X11… all X11 apps run just fine regardless of what window manager the user is running…
D) Lots of Windows apps deviate from the standard Win32 look and feel… look at WinAmp, Trillian, Macromedia Fireworks. I don’t see any Windows users having a nervous breakdown just because one app looks a little bit different from MS Office.
What GNU/Linux needs is a standardized package management system similar to Windows or Mac. A use should be able to either double click on a setup.exe and have the program installed into a predefined location (ie /opt) ala Windows or have a drag onto the HD icon and have the program installed to a predefined location (ie /Applications/App_Name) ala Apple.
No one really cares what DE they use so long as they can get their work done in a timely fashion, and they can install packages easily. The Lindows Click ‘n’ Run (Debian w/synaptic) and the Mandrake Graphical URPMI feature is a good example of this. Select the program you wish to install. The program is installed and added to the application menu. I should never have to worry about package dependancies as a “USER”.
Linux is doing just fine as it is. There is NO need for a standard GUI and no need to steal the desktop from Windows. Linux has and will continue to grow regardless of it’s shortfalls. The desktop is not going to be around forever, and at this time Linux is the only OS that is flexible enough to have a presence in all markets. Time is on Linux’s side and changing it to be just like Windows only puts it in the backseat.
Every major distro can pretty much be considered to be a separate “OS”, especially as far as the desktop is concerned, because of their substantial differences in GUIs and package managers, etc., etc.
Imagine a world where every national government and mega-corporation had their own customized Linux distribution. How would you write software for such an environment? Create a separate build for every distro or just target a small segment of the global Linux market.
When i install Red Hat or SuSE, i get either Gnome or KDE.
That’s all i can choose at setup…
What is the problem??
Normal users get Gnome or KDE. That is 1 choice they have to make.
The biggest problem I have encountered with the different GUIs out there is that my distro (SuSE) chose to put libraries in non-default locations. Means that sometimes I have use –prefix=/blah/blah when I configure and compile. Took a few days to figure out. I actually just started installing GTK, Qt, etc. libraries and installing them in the default locations. Use the default lib for my stuff; let SuSE use its lib when it wants to.
The only real problems I have now are that applications sometimes don’t always show up in the ‘K’ menu (even after using kappfinder) and I can’t cut and paste across applications that use different GUI’s.
A) GNOME apps can be run within KDE, and vise-versa. I do it every day.
do they look the same?
B) freedesktop.org is setting standards that mean that GNOME and KDE will be even more compatible in the future. For instance, Gaim now docks into the KDE panel. Soon, we may even have unified app menus for both desktops.
this is a good thing. i wish them success.
C) the standard “platform” for Linux is X11… all X11 apps run just fine regardless of what window manager the user is running…
which is from a user perspective more or less the same as “the standard GUI interface on linux is an undefined amount of pixels in different colors.”
exactly this is the problem of linux.
D) Lots of Windows apps deviate from the standard Win32 look and feel… look at WinAmp, Trillian, Macromedia Fireworks. I don’t see any Windows users having a nervous breakdown just because one app looks a little bit different from MS Office.
WinAmp is one good example for bad GUI design, although it still have the same buttons in the configuration dialogs and the same standard file open dialog as most other win application.
OK, you have a point for small/independent developers who want to develop closed source apps.
“do i need to buy a library license to develop on windows or macos?”
I don’t think so, but things like Visual Studio aren’t cheap.
“i didn’t talk only about commercial apps, i talked about closed source apps.”
See above – you have a point here
“what happens when a future release of QT becomes buggy as hell and completly useless? what should a developer of a commercial or closed source software do?”
Why do you think this will happen, and if it does, how is it a different situation than on Windows or MacOS?
Anyway I agree with the point that the GTK libs allow greater flexibility for the type of development you describe. Even so, I do not believe that the Qt licensing is such a big deal that “QT cannot be a standard”
I hate it when people keep bringing up this same topic. If people really wanted a uniform GUI like windows then why how are GUI/Shell modifications like stardock, litestep etc. so popular with the windows crowd.
Anybody who’s used windows/mac can figure out how to use desktops and widgets from the various toolkits. They work on the same principles.
I like the variety of toolkits, desktops etc. It allows one to select according to which features are best tailored to one’s needs.
There will always be different desktops and toolkits so ditch the b*tch and quit resurecting this unproductive topic. If you don’t like X feature in X toolkit, quit whining about it and hammer out the code needed to change it.
Anyway I agree with the point that the GTK libs allow greater flexibility for the type of development you describe. Even so, I do not believe that the Qt licensing is such a big deal that “QT cannot be a standard”
okay, now you have the point. why should the user care about about Qt licensing issues, when they have good quality open source software.
If he really wants standardisation…..we should all use Windows. I understand these are just opinions, but I am so tired of reporters professing that less choice is better.
Back in the days of Windows 3.1, WP Office, and Smart Suite, I read a comparison between the major office suits that basically stated MS Office was in last place, but they recommended it above the others because then there would be a standard. Great, now Windows users have to pay $$$$ for their office software, what a service those journalists provided their readers.
GNome and KDE have both progressed at incredible rates, I can’t see anyone denying that. I am not sure anyone can claim though that either would have progressed faster if the other didn’t exist. That doesn’t make sense.
That being said, I’m sure that those distros focusing on the Desktop are quite capable of making their own decisions as to which WM to package with their product.
This brings up the last point – new Linux users are going to use a Distro, which comes with preferred software. They are not going to bulid their own linux from scratch. If they did, they’d be more than capable of setting up their own WM.
No McLinux!
> Unfortunately, to some degree differences in GUI
> X-Window interfaces extend to the programming interfaces
> as well, meaning that software developers must either
> support multiple GUIs or choose which GUI(s) they plan
> to support.
Bullshit. I can run any application designed for any GUI toolkit any time I want while running any window or desktop manager. It’s true that applications made for a different GUI toolkit than your other apps are made for can create a bit of an aesthetic clash visually when they’re both on the same screen at the same time (a fine example would be the way pre-1992 Athena-based X apps can look on the same screen with a QT app from KDE sometimes), but apart from this small question of aesthetic purity, the statement that one must choose all ones apps to go along with one particular GUI is pure ignorance.
> From the outset, the average Windows user will be lost.
> What’s a window manager? Why would I need one?
From the outset, your oven user would be lost using a toaster. “What’s bread? Why would I need to toast it?”
Oh please. Can we give up this specious idea that every piece of software should be usable immediately without any familiarity with what it is or does? Every piece of software you’ll ever see requires some minimal degree of familiarity with how it works. If people are really so hellbent on migrating to Linux or any other Unix-compatible system, and use the X-Window system, while they don’t necessarily need to become an Xlib programmer, it might still behoove them to find out what a window manager is. If they’re that much of a whining dolt that they can’t even do that, well…Apple has been catering to that sort of user now for about twenty years. Maybe they need a Mac.
> That question will arise quickly-as soon as their new
> Linux installation boots to a shell (a command prompt).
> I suspect most Windows users will stop there, thinking
> that the machine is broken.
What has this guy been using? Slackware? It’s true that there are Linux and BSD distributions that are oriented toward experienced users and admins which leave GUI configuration completely to you, and *do* still install the system pretty much as he describes (I prefer such systems) — systems like Debian, Slackware, FreeBSD, etc — but are these the types of distributions we’re going to give to people who are so whiny they won’t take the time to learn what a window manager is? Any halfway recent commercial distribution of Linux, such as SuSE, RedHat, Mandrake, or a zillion others, is going to have some kind of out-of-the-box pointy-clicky default GUI desktop environment, usually based on KDE, a desktop manager that probably my grandma could use. Other distributions like what he’s describing tend to be for server admins and experienced UNIX users, and I don’t know why in hell he’d be suggesting something like that for use by an idiot.
It’s hard to believe that there aren’t any better articles on OpenSource software out there than this type, but this seems to be the only kind that ever gets onto OSNews — articles written by people who are habit-bound Windows users, ostensibly writing about Linux…but about as familiar with Linux as they are with cattle ranches. They’ve taken the customary two-minute look at some or other install of Linux, and felt inspired to write a column about it. If such a journalist were writing about the Mac, they’d probably fear being ridiculed in email by zillions of Mac users for statements betraying a profound ignorance of the platform, and would refrain from writing until they had gained some understanding of the subject, but in the world of Linux, technical knowledge is so dispersed into the larger world of Unix knowledge that it seems the perception is that writing about Linux online is a lot like writing about dogs — anything you say is just a matter of opinion, right?
Right. When it’s your opinion. When you start talking about the actual operation of things like GUI’s, libraries, applications, kernels, etc…then you *really* should have some idea what you’re fricking talking about.
I work as a system administrator for a US Government agency and I can honestly say that in this environment (as well as countless other corporate computing environments I’ve encountered over the years) that short of setting the wallpaper and screensaver…and maybe the color theme…most workers don’t configure their systems much.
Of course, there’s one giant reason for that…
For the most part, they can’t.
Take your average administrative assistant’s workstation (yeah, the secretaries’ box…) and look at the permissions she’s given to configure her machine are exceedingly limited. At best (s)he can move around icons, set up a wallpaper, screensaver, and color theme…maybe even change the resolution of his/her display.
Who sets up all the applications? The start menu? The default icons on the desktop?
The IT staff.
If a corporation decides to roll out Linux on their workstations rather than Windows, the individual users most likely won’t be allowed to choose between Gnome, KDE, XFCE, IceWM, Enlightenment, Fluxbox, or GNUStep.
They’ll use whatever their IT staff chooses to support.
If their technicians are more comfortable in a KDE environment, then the users will default to KDE – and most likely when they log into the machine won’t have any other choice.
Same could happen for Gnome. Or XFCE.
I doubt many work environments will try and get the people in shipping and recieving to try and learn how to use Fluxbox…
…but the “difficult” means to configure which DE to use (oooh! Click a button on GDM/KDM! Or, worst case, edit your .xinitrc or .xsession) would be maintained by an IT staff who have (hopefully) had some manner of training into what they’re doing and how to fix things that might break.
…and as the author of the article was speaking of usage in a corporate environment, I really see his arguement as a non-issue.
Thanks.
Have a nice day.
Perhaps this organization, already doing good stuff for the kernel and libraries, should define a common desktop for compliance in the way that many UNIX vendors used to standardize on CDE
I wouldnt like to be the person who had to make the decision between Gnome and KDE though
They’re always preaching about standards, especially when it comes to file formats. Not only does that prevent some Corporation from ruling file formats with proprietary crud (which doesn’t apply to this discussion), but it also ensures everybody is compatible and different programs will be able to open and save files the same way.
But when it comes to UI design, they’re like “screw it … who needs standards anyway?” I think standardizing the UI can have just as many benefits as standardizing file formats.
As for Windows, programs look different, but most of them react the same way to keyboard commands and such. For example, in every Windows program I’ve used (except those coded in TCL, I can use CTRT+X/C/V for CUT/COPY/PASTE, ALT+F4 closes the program, I can easily cut/paste text and graphics between any two programs that support this, etc.
What if I choose Mac OS X?
Isn’t that a viable OS, too?
Please re-read the article. He is *not* talking about techno-savvy people. He is talking about your Mother, or Grandmother.
He is talking about widespread home user use of Linux, and until the interfaces and applications can appeal to people who just don’t care about what’s under the hood. The sooner that is done the sooner more people will use Linux. Or maybe the community doesn’t want that. I mean, hell who wants a lot of people using the software?
Yeah, like the hardworking, freedom-loving, blessed open software developers give a damn about what SCO, Bill Gates and his puppets think. :rollseyes:
Regards,
Mystilleef
Reading the replies to the article it seems to me that there are two groups of Linux users, those who use Linux because it’s a hacker’s dream and others who want to see Linux on the desktop everywhere. For the second group the article makes a lot of sense, for the hackers it clearly doesn’t as it takes away from them the very freedom they seek. It seems we can’t haveit both ways.
I can read “simple english”.
I could read at the age of 3. Were you likewise hyperlexic? I currently read at 1500 – 1700wpm with 97% accuracy. Do you?
I’m also my department’s technical writer. So just maybe, perhaps, possibly I might know a thing or three about reading and writing instructions in simple english.
1) YDL (which is based on Red Hat) never gave me a choice of desktop GUI during the install. [Not that I mind KDE. It’s fairly straightforward.]
2) I have opened up every single menu related to settings and have not seen an option to switch GUI, or if there is one, it’s not clearly labled.
3) The woefully incomplete manual makes no mention of how to switch a GUI.
4) The same apallingly bad manual also makes no mention of how to install software or how to uninstall it.
I’d love to have some “simple english” instructions about how to make Linux do what I want, but as it turns out, I’m taking a red pen to that bedamned manual and making reams of notes about what’s not there or what is simply incorrect.
Why don’t you log out and change your default desktop from the GDM login screen. I suppose YDL uses GDM, just like Redhat… If I recall well, Redhat 8.0 also had the switchdesk utility somewhere in the menu tree. On another note, does YDL use Bluecurve too?
For example, in every Windows program I’ve used (except those coded in TCL, I can use CTRT+X/C/V for CUT/COPY/PASTE, ALT+F4 closes the program,
As far as I know, this is also true in both KDE and GNOME.
@Needo:
He is talking about widespread home user use of Linux, and until the interfaces and applications can appeal to people who just don’t care about what’s under the hood.
There are plenty of newbie-friendly distros out there. Personally, I’ve done the test with my non-computer literate roommates: I’ve set up desktops for them and just let them loose. Now they use Linux every day and have had no trouble adjusting – and never did they ever have to use the command line.
@Smoerk:
come one! it’s not about the taste, it’s about the interface. if you use a pepsi and coke can, i’m quite sure they use exactly the same interface…
Okay, then what about cans and bottles – I think that’s too much choice, we should only have so that we don’t confuse the shee..uh, people.
Seriously, those that advocate against choice so as to defend some kind of “universal” interface (which is an illusion anyway) are really acting as apologists for the existence of monopolies.
Choice is good: it breeds competition and lets people who have different tastes satisfy their own preferences. When I was a Linux newbie migrating from Windows, having a wide choice of Window Managers never bothered me a single bit – on the contrary, I spent the first few evenings just playing around with the various ones to see which one I liked best before settling down on Gnome for a few months, then switching to KDE. (I still use Gnome and XCFE once in a while…). That’s because I wanted to play around – if I didn’t, then I would have stuck with the default one, which is what grandma is going to do anyway.
So tell me again, what’s the problem with have choice? 🙂
It’s called reading man. That’s all you gotta do. The Command Line just takes some patience, work, and intelligence. You seem to lack all three. Posts like yours scare me.
My main philosophical problem with KDE is that the license gives a lot of control to TrollTech. TrollTech is the ONLY legal provider of QT for non-GPL products. If you see non-GPL apps as important to Linux’s future (unlike Stallman), then you see that making KDE the standard also makes Linux dependent upon TrollTech. I’m not saying that TrollTech will abuse this control, just that I am wary of giving ANY company too much control over Linux standards.
Just to throw out a worst-case (and incredibly unlikely) scenario, what would happen if MS (or SCO) bought TrollTech and decided to halt commercial licensing of QT on Linux. GPL software could continue being developed with the QT library, but no new commercial products could use QT on Linux.
I think the same could have been said about Windows and Apple 10-15 years ago. Apple had usability while Windows certainly had choice. Funny how the worm turns.
Just to throw out a worst-case (and incredibly unlikely) scenario, what would happen if MS (or SCO) bought TrollTech and decided to halt commercial licensing of QT on Linux. GPL software could continue being developed with the QT library, but no new commercial products could use QT on Linux.
It won´t happen… http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/00000004.html
Cheers,
DeadFish Man
“I don’t understand the OSS community
…
But when it comes to UI design, they’re like “screw it … who needs standards anyway?” I think standardizing the UI can have just as many benefits as standardizing file formats.”
Because you’re wrong. Just take a look at the GNOME usability mailing list. There’s tons of work going on regarding fixing GNOME apps to be HIG compliant.
Do you have any idea how much work this is? Have you ever actively participated in an open source project? The truth is that a lot of people are working very hard to improve their user interfaces.
This of course does not apply to *all* open source projects (read: the smaller, volunteer-driven ones). But hey, I know hundreds of Windows freeware apps with insane user interfaces too.
So, stop spreading false stereotypes and start contribute code to further accelerate the process.
Who the heck really cares about the old, boring, GUI standard argument. People do have a standard they either use KDE or GNOME, KDE apps run great in GNOME and GNOME apps run great in KDE. If you buy Red Hat you get GNOME if you buy SuSE you get KDE.
….but, thought i would post here as there won’t be 1000 messages by the end of the day
The problem with these authors is that they don’t *get* open source, linux, etc…
Linux is NOT trying to be a replacement for Windows at the corporate level. Linux, is a choice that millions of people around the world have made because it meets their needs.
Using Linux for the sake of using Linux is stupid. There are circumstances where Windows *IS* actually needed. I’ve learned this in the last few years doing contract work. I used to be a huge pusher of Linux into the enterprise, then, I realized, that time is money and if a Microsoft (or Windows based) alternative can be installed in less time, need less maintenance, etc… it will cost less to the company thus that is often (not always) the best solution.
There ARE however, situtations where Linux CAN replace Windows, and save time AND money. In this case, Linux should be used.
What it comes down to, is make sure you are using the right tool for the job. If the right tool is Linux, deploy it, if it’s Windows, use that, if it’s Solaris, use that…. and so on.
A lot of Linux pushers need to get that idea into their head. The people who write these articles have to get that into their heads. They have to understand that “Linux” isn’t a product that is going to “wage war” on Microsoft. The companies that are trying to do that are Redhat, Suse, etc.
I would love to be able to deploy Linux workstations where I work. We use Win2K terminal servers… and there IS a terminal client for Linux… but it isn’t as robust as the MS one… so, for now, we use Windows.
Again, what it comes down to is using the correct tool for the job. The one that will save money, and headache.
Just my $.02
Thanks. Didn’t know that. That does help quiet my fears.
So true, cept you seem to be missing the basics of how the open source world works: If you want it done, do it yourself, if your not a fool, others will help. Simple as that, nothing gets done because people bitch about it, it gets done because someone DID it!
Just to scare a few more people, The canopy group which owns SCO, also has signicant interest in TrollTech. I don’t have a minute to look up exact numbers but it is there.
“Should Troll Tech ever discontinue the Qt Free Edition”
Actually, that doesn’t help. It doesn’t guarantee that the non-free edition will be available for a reasonable cost. TrollTech could decide to halt the non-GPL version while continueing the GPL edition or they could 10x the licensing cost of the non-GPL edition.
The following line may fix that though (not sure since I’m not a lawyer):
“Furthermore, whenever unanimously decided by the Board, the Foundation shall have the same non-exclusive, irrevocable right to grant a license based on the BSD license.”
The actual agreement: http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/images/kdefreeqt1.png
For example, in every Windows program I’ve used (except those coded in TCL, I can use CTRT+X/C/V for CUT/COPY/PASTE, ALT+F4 closes the program,
> As far as I know, this is also true in both KDE and GNOME.
This is true for any resonable X program, especially those following the recommendation of freedesktop.org about clipboard handling.
There are still some bugs in implementations even on toolkit level (Qt) but bugs are to be fixed, there is no standards problem.
.. dedicated to people who have never used Linux before.
Say:
Managers
potential switchers (socalled “IT-professionals”)
average homeusers
Mr. Jones’s article is smart and thus dangerous.
Wy? Because that “have to choose” is simply not the truth.
And that’s how people are getting misleaded:
> Choice, to most users, is the ability to choose any
> program
> they wish, and have it install and run seamlessly, without
> affecting any other application already installed; without
> requiring them to know which GUI they’re running (or even
> that they’re running a GUI);
Yep.
It’s funny how much Linux zealots hate Microsoft and yet when it comes time to compete with them they are too disorganized and narrowminded to come to a concensus. It’s a lot like the Marijuana legalization movement.
My impression of the article was not that the author wanted to see one GUI, necessarily, but that there should be standards so that applications are portable across GUIs.
Even something so simple as xsnow or xearth runs ‘out of the box’ on fvwm but does nothing on kde (without a great deal of work). Let alone some of the more complicated programs / office suites.
This is a major frustration, even for an experienced user. I applaud the call for more standards AND a variety of GUIs that meet those standards.
Xsnow and alike are a strange example.
XSnow writes to the “Root” window. While it can function just fine with ANY Window Manager, some DEs like to cover up the root Window with desktop icons/backdrops.
If you remove the KDE Backdrop (im not sure how), it would reveal that xsnow is running right behind it.
Philosophies and actions are often very dangerous when taken to extremes.
In the 70s and 80s (at least when I was hot-rodding) many car manufacturers standardized there wheel, engine and transmission mount locations and bolt hole patterns so that they (and customizers) could swap (within reason) components. This made a lot of sense for the car manufacturers, and the aftermarket and customizers (like myself) loved it. However, the general “commodity buyer” could care less… All they wanted was a inexpensive, reliable, easy to use and nice looking car. Catering to the needs of the whole market place is very important for a product to be successful. To be a huge success, Linux (and it’s current community) needs to keep the “commodity buyer” in mind and not focus to much attention on the hot-rodders/customizers. Hot-rodders are often a small part of the total market. More big name applications will come to Linux as more “commodity buyers” come to Linux. Granted the hot-rodders are the one’s doing most of the work so they deserve their due.
I think Linux will do fine as long as:
1) The core components, core structures, and hardware interface layers (e.g. kernel, root directory structures, file sub-systems interfaces, video/display sub-system interfaces) are standardized so that driver writers and GUI sub-system developers have predictability.
2) The users (both customizer and commodity) can swap components without loosing to many applications or functionality in other parts of their systems (i.e. like swapping a motor or transmission in a 1981 Camaro.. the car still runs… just faster/slower, etc…)
I’ve only just started to play with various Linux distros and I am amazed that I can run GNOME and KDE apps side by side. That’s a kudo but the fact that the clipboards are incompatible indicates a place for standardization.
Some things require standards for the good of all and other things are best left more flexible (provided they don’t cause chaos!). The primary purpose of standards is to allow communications. They are necessary in many (but not all) situations. Languages (e.g. English), protocols (e.g. APIs), and technical things (e.g. Diagrams) need standards while creative writing/drawing needs much less.
It’s a shame that many people hear the term “standard” and think its a bad thing (i.e. equal to “inflexible”, “no choice”, or “no innovation”). Look at XML… it’s a “flexible standard” which, as a developer, I’m glad to have.
Michael.
“Should Troll Tech ever discontinue the Qt Free Edition”
Actually, that doesn’t help. It doesn’t guarantee that the non-free edition will be available for a reasonable cost. TrollTech could decide to halt the non-GPL version while continueing the GPL edition or they could 10x the licensing cost of the non-GPL edition.
I don´t think that it is gonna be a problem because TrollTech needs to make some profit over the non-Free version somehow. They wouldn´t cut their main incoming source, I guess. 🙂
Consider, if you were going to standardize the Linux desktop, which desktop would become standard? KDE or GNOME? They are two very different environments, with different ways of doing things. If the standard was GNOME (or like GNOME), most of the current KDE users wouldn’t use it. If the standard was like KDE, most of the current GNOME users wouldn’t use it. Both the GNOME and KDE projects would continue on developing their projects (you can’t very well make them stop!) and most users would ignore the standard. Heck, RPM is standard in theory, but a large percentage of Linux users don’t care at all for RPM, and don’t use it.
This “make a standard” crap usually doesn’t come from Linux users. It comes from pundits and people who have only played around with it. Linux *users* by and large, do not want a standard. To most of them, a standard desktop would be non-sensical, like a standard programming language, or a standard car. Instead, they’re interested in interoperability (all cars run on the same roads), which is exactly what developer projects like freedesktop.org are concentrating on.
“” I understand these are just opinions, but I am so tired of reporters professing that less choice is better. “”
This is waaaaaaaaaay off-topic, but here:
http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/release6-3-02.htm
The medical community is actually starting to produce mildly real sounding evidence that excessive amount of choice is in fact bad for you, increasing stress amongst other things.
The usual complaint when this topic comes around is that most people never change the DE what came with their computer. Personally I’m starting to think there’s a very good reason for that. I think it has got nothing to do with being unadventurous, or used to the system, or anything like that. Instead I’m thinking it’s just a normal reaction when faced with being forced into making yet another decision, in an area the person might not have knowledge of and doesn’t wish to spend their limited free time researching.
I’m not saying choice is a bad thing, but given the nature of the OSS environment the availability of choices isn’t going anywhere in a hurry, in fact the choices are already there for those who wish to tweak every last bit in their box. What isn’t there is a standard whereby those who are happy with vanilla can let someone else pick out the basics for them and have everything else just work. I think the OSS community needs to recognise both groups have differing needs. Standards (And more importantly compliance to those standards by the major distros/apps) can only help uptake by vanilla users.
<BUGS BUNNY>
What a maroon…..
</BUGS BUNNY>
Jeez – this load of FUD/CRAP/MORONSOFT PROPOGANDA has been debunked so many times its sickening.
Choice of GUI/Desktop/EyeCandy/Toolset is what seperates and differentiates Linux from the monopolized homogenous tedium know as Windows. I cringe everytime I have to so anything on a Microsoft rats nest of overhyped crap.
As has been witnessed over the past week – standardization on a _SINGLE_ anything on the desktop is asking for trouble as one flaw – however seemingly insignificant – can cause enormous damage.
Another reason why choice is desirable is that people are left to make their own decisions on their personal desktop or in a business environment. Mr. Ball (of Ernie Ball) made a compelling arguement that his company doesn’t put web browsers on systems where the users have no reason to use the web. That MAKES business sense. Microsoft will illegally weld a browser into their product just to monopolize a market – so _everyone_ has a browser – wether they need one to conduct business or not. (and don’t forget that they testified in open Federal court to the fact that they couldn’t remove the browser……)
“I don´t think that it is gonna be a problem because TrollTech needs to make some profit over the non-Free version somehow. They wouldn´t cut their main incoming source, I guess. :-)”
True, the bigger worry is that they may decide to increase their licensing fees. However, as the whole Caldera debocle shows, one-time allies can quickly become enemies.
While it wasn’t as bad as I first thought (the KDE Free Qt Foundation agreement certainly improves the situation), I’m still uncomfortable with one company being “in charge” of a core piece of Linux. There is certainly nothing wrong with distributions using KDE/Qt, but I’m wary of standardizing on it.
I think forcing standardization of the environment is silly anyway. The competition between Gnome and KDE is healthy. Both environments are improving and many of the differences are based on personal preference (not necessarily better or worse). Also, given the proper attention, I think freedesktop.org can address most of the interoperability issues between Gnome and KDE (and XFce and …).
I believe I’ve read this article before but I will say it is true on what he talks about. I want a standard gui for linux. I want it to seem like linux is one piece of software instead of multiple pieces of software. For example, I say build on KDE for the standard gui, have an advanced option for people that want to change their gui. But get a standard. Second for linux to get huge adoption, a company has to provide support in the names of patches without requiring the user to go to a cli. That’s the way it is right now and it’s too bad. For those that are bad mouthing the author, I don’t care what you say. Name calling only makes u look like a 2 year old. And the reason why linux hasn’t gotten their yet.
As someone slowly trying to come to grips with unix i have a few comments.
A standard gui is not needed but more config tools operated from the gui are. Leave the command line in by all means but increase the number of gui config tools. Having to learn command line instructions for basic config chores is a real impediment to adopting linux. As someone above said with a gui you can allways pick beteen a few options, with the cli you get it wrong and you’re stuffed.
I’ve recently been tacking redhat 9. A beautiful interface but from the default install I can’t see my ntfs partitions, I don’t have access to the floppy drive, and my usb memory drive isn’t mounted. The floppy is a most basic requirement of home computing and now I have to do a day’s research to find out how to access it. And this is after I did the “personal computer” install. This stuff should be turned on so people can get up and running as swiftly as possible and having a pleasant experience.
They both suck, but I’m stuck with them it seems.
Linux is based on architecture/concepts that will forever prevent it from becoming a tool you can put in front of your grandmother and ask her to figure it out.
Windows is easier but it is quite bloated and to commercial. You can’t easily find free software that rivals the performance for Windows that you can in Linux.
I guess that is why OSNEWS interests me so much. It is about alernatives to the Windows/Linux world.
Every new disto and ver. of Linux even 2.6 Kernel all suffer in video performance. Moving windows, resizing and perceived performance are always slow on many different video cards and very fast systems with lots of ram. Windows is liquid smooth compared.
I don’t care about standards but I do care about performance. Linux is fast but does not look fast.
Ultimately, GNOME and KDE are mostly the same anyways. Click on the “start” button on the panel to get a menu. Right click on things to get options. I know that’s superficial, but I work with _applications_. The desktop environment is there to help me with that – it’s not something totally different for me to play with. Frankly, KDE and GNOME are pretty much equal in ways for me to browse a Samba share or start an app.
Neither DE is going to emerge “the victor”, either. KDE do something really new and interesting? The source code is right there to read, and that makes it a lot simpler to put it into GNOME. And, obviously, KDE has the same option with GNOME code.
Just about the only thing I can see changing the balance of power would be integration of Mono into GNOME, and then seeing a ton of Mono apps released. But, again, that’s nothing KDE couldn’t cope with, either, unless they got infected with a case of “Not Made Here” syndrome (gconf2 rejection being a good example, but I digress).
Frankly, this is a GOOD THING! It keeps innovation flowing when your “competition” can catch up to you quickly. The balance is “develop new cool stuff and compelling features”, and if the tradeoff is some choice and a bit of roughness around the edges, I’ll take it in a second.
-Erwos
Put yourself in the shoes of the commercial application development company (say Adobe). I am sitting here with money to spend on say Adobe Premere but there is no version for linux. I am not surprised that these commercial vendors shy from developing for linux.
Should we use qt, gtk, motif?
Which version?
Which distro?
The current linux core installation does not guarantee that our product will run.
I want these questions to go away, as nobody asks these when developing for windows.
OS X is linux done right, it is based on unix core, easy to use, looks great. It is proof that all this can be done.
Why can’t we emulate that?
As the subject says, in no particular order:
– CLI;
– Unlimited system configuration;
– /proc;
– Mount points vs Drive letters;
– Fluxbox – particularly The Slit;
– KDE;
– WindowMaker;
– Dockable CD Player (see Fluxbox);
– Dockable Audio Controls;
– Dockable “Matrix” (wmMatrix);
– KMail (auto-check of what kind of authentication the POP3 server supports);
– Gnumeric (a fantastic piece of software – just try it);
– gFtp;
– JPilot vs terribly slow Palm Desktop;
– X Server’s network transparency (Try to compare rlogin, DISPLAY=172.20.3.34:0.0 with Hummingbird Exceed when it comes to proper presentation of slide bars!!!);
– Error logs are full with stuff that actually means something to me (compared to An error occured, bla, bla…);
– e.t.c.
Debian’s “world’s most advanced” package management, distro upgrade system.
>>Should we use qt, gtk, motif?
See what suites you best and use it.
>>Which version?
Whatever is current
>>Which distro?
It doesn’t matter, release the source and the distros will do the rest.
>>The current linux core installation does
>>not guarantee that our product will run.
Not your problem. Tell what packages are required and leave it up to the user/distro to make sure it works.
These “problems” are no different than problems in Win/Mac world. There are plenty of linux software packages out there that deal with these “problems” just fine.
And besides, Adobe and similar companies will never release their software (thank GOD) for Linux anyway, and if for some reason they did it would not be free, beer or speech.
//
Should we use qt, gtk, motif?
//
Most of Adobe’s products use the Commercial version of QT.
Name ONE program that can ONLY be run on Redhat(or Suse,etc).
These “incompatabilities” are bull. I can run RH7.0 binaries on my up to the minute installation of Arch Linux.
99% of the time, there’s no distro incompatabilities.
Just look at Unreal Tournament 2003. They have an official version, and Ive installed in on 5 distros with no trouble.
UI is about consistency.
There is a general misunderstanding that UI = pretty icons or graphics. A set of buttons, icons, wallpaper or themes does make
a user interface. Skinning KDE or gnome widgets do not make the
interface simpler nor does it make it come close to the commercial OSes.
UI is about consistency and user interaction.
For example, GIMP, OpenOffice, gEdit, mozilla all use seperate fonts. They’re not centralized.
On the commercia OSes, they all use the same font repository. Furthermore, installing fonts on Windows or Mac OS is just a matter of drag-n-drop to a fonts folder.
The file open/save dialogs are inconsistent. The fial dialog in gEdit is text based. Mozilla uses its own icons, kde (kate or quanta) has a win98 like interface w/ the desktop and home folder, Open Office looks like it uses Windows 3.11 file dialogs.
Copy-n-Paste is problematic as well. You can’t really copy and paste objects. E.G. a webpage with its inline graphics into a OSS wordprocessor (if so, I can’t find them). The middle (3 button mouse )button doesn’t always work. In Mozilla, it prompts you that the link is invalid when it should copy into its clipboard.
You can’t drag file from the filesystem like images from Nautilus into an image app like GIMP or a Word Processor like OOFice.
Package management is a night-mare. FreeBSD ports are much better. I personally perfer OS X drag-n-drop folder packages .app files.
When people argue about standards, they’re not talking about themes, skins or even the window manager. The window manager has to be consistent with the applications themselves. Nautilus or Konqueror drag-n-drop should work with apps like OpenOffice or Gimp. KDE comes close but you have to use all their apps. If you introduce a GTK app, it breaks the consistency.
I think OS X is the best example of a useable Unix-posix like OS. It is transparent yet configureable. Just look at how KDE or Gnome handles launchers,icons and menu items. It is a joke. An application icon should stick regardless of whether you switch from FMVW, Fluxbox, KDE or gnome.
SGI Magic Desktop 4DWM is more elegant than any open source , flashy, glossy Window Manager because it is consistent.
Besides UI, plug-n-play should work..
Can’t I even plug in a firewire device like a video camera or harddisk w/out compiling the kernel or running through hoops.
Also, what about a media API like Quicktime that handles media content across applictions.
You are right on a few things, and wrong on others.
//
For example, GIMP, OpenOffice, gEdit, mozilla all use seperate fonts. They’re not centralized.
On the commercia OSes, they all use the same font repository. Furthermore, installing fonts on Windows or Mac OS is just a matter of drag-n-drop to a fonts folder.
//
They all use /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/ . Fonts are centralized, its part of XFree86, not the programs (though they can use other fonts in addition to that standard location).
It is just drag and drop. All you have to do is drop them in that folder. Then you can run fc-cache or restart.
//
You can’t drag file from the filesystem like images from Nautilus into an image app like GIMP or a Word Processor like OOFice.
//
Funny, I have no problem doing this. I just dragged an image from XFFM (XFCEs File Manager) to Gimp 1.3 . Its not perfect, but in Many (most) situations, it works fine.
//
When people argue about standards, they’re not talking about themes, skins or even the window manager. The window manager has to be consistent with the applications themselves. Nautilus or Konqueror drag-n-drop should work with apps like OpenOffice or Gimp. KDE comes close but you have to use all their apps. If you introduce a GTK app, it breaks the consistency.
//
People seem to be misinformed about what a WINDOW MANAGER does. All a Window Manager does is draw borders around the Windows. XFree86 and whatever toolkit is used (along with the Toolkits “helper” apps) is what handles compatability.
//
Also, what about a media API like Quicktime that handles media content across applictions.
//
Its called GStreamer.
>>
Besides UI, plug-n-play should work..
Can’t I even plug in a firewire device like a video camera or harddisk w/out compiling the kernel or running through hoops.
<<
To have kernel modules load when you plug something in you need to use the usb-pci-hotplug. I have all kinds of devices that “just work” when I plug them in. Flashdrives, Palm Pilot, camera etc. BTW: Kernel 2.6 is fully plug-n-play.
I have to say this:
“It’s extremely important for the open source community to be responsive not only to users’ freedom to choose, but also to users’ freedom not to have to choose.”
I have to completely agree with that..
Ok recent experience had a mate in holland who was so fed up with the msblaster worm and other crap that I said to him on irc hey i run linux no need to worry about that shit with this..
Right first off.. He managed to install linux (redhat 9) just fine.. Infact initially he loved it..
But please for the love of god some one tell redhat and all other rpm distros to drop rpms.. They are the biggest piece of shit known to man.. The guy then goes onto install rar which took half an hour of explaining.. Couldnt find the damn console cos redhat in their utmost of wise decisions decide to remove it from the task bar… basically hes back to windows now..
It has to be said.. I love oss.. but somethings really need a rethink..
I dont understand the point of rpms.. absolutely pointless piece of shit pms out their debian apt-get / dpkg is years ahead.. why the fuck is that not employed ? there is even apt-get for rpms.. why isnt it used ? why are so many big user friendly distros sticking to such an archaic piece of shit.. Sorry had to vent there..
You see from an experienced linux user i got to see a beginner really struggle reminded me of when i first stuck in that redhat cd years ago.. But i was damn enquisitive i destroyed redhat completely.. i would reinstall still under the old embedded windows menatlity until i learnt to forget all i had gotten taught and then learnt from debian.. once you have a debian box up and running and all things running smooth u just dont really wanna screw with it too much and when things go wrong you do everything to fix it and even with kernel panics when ive compiled and done something wrong ive managed to recover it.
Here is the fact its all true most of us who use linux really get gripped by the ideal and how it works.. it fascinates us we wanna learn more were willing to learn more..
But for windows users.. let me put it as polite as possible most seem to be as thick as shit.. its not their fault they are just scared.. They compare windows to linux oh i just do this in windows i just click and it installs.. or i do that.. but when you have to install a specific app on linux then they dont know wtf they are doing..
Putting things blutently its fine for us to draw a deaf ear to the linux n00bs.. hell i have in the past.. but dont be expecting to compete with MS.. Yes its probably one of the worst god damn os’es known to man and yes linux leaves it for dead.. but fuck em if they dont want to learn a new system leave them with windows..
Put it this way i had no one preaching to me the benifits of linux.. I was completely fed up with windows and wanted to learn linux at any cost while learning i fell in love with it. And completely dropped windows..
Well to be honest i had my bro tell me to try it out.. when i first saw it it looked so backward i had to cuss it.. it took me a while to get used to.. waited months for the then new windows 2000 to be released at the time i had a dual 350 and 98 only recognises one cpu so i had redhat and win98.. but when i installed win2k everything ran like dog shit after a few installs/uninstalls and at that time was at a cross roads.. I either go linux only and be forced to learn things i didnt know how to do (which im glad i chose) or keep on dual booting till i gathered the balls to drop windows im glad i did decide to drop windows then.. and i aint looked back..
But here is what is most important thing i gotta say.. Linux underlying os / kernel is damned awesome.. Windows really is a pile of shit compared to it..
But X is a pile of shit.. where as windows on the gui side is good.
Come on face facts all of us who have used linux over a long time know X is absolute shite.. even the developers know hence the fork i hope xouvert is succesful.
The fact is in the running kernel we can remove modules add modules etc etc.. u cant get X to do the simplest thing without a damn reboot of X.. thats all good if you arent gui dependant but its a pain in the ass if you are..
Other things to point out i love kde and gnome and appreciate the developers hard work in getting the guis to where they are i cant really fault either its such a damn shame they sit on X.. Whats the point of fake transparancy when the underlying X server doesnt support it its such a damn performance hit its not worth it.. These hacks they come up with are all well and good but they aint addressing the real problem.. And they aint nothing other than for posing to say ahh we can do it.. when we cant really
At the end of the day if we linux users/developers want more windows desktop share we really need to look at windows users not from our high perches.. Take it at face value.. Windows users wont be able to run linux in its current form
1. Command line.. the comment i got from this guy is oh i had to use a command line.. and the syntax blah blah.. obviously he could just use the kark proggie.. i use it all the time dont really use the console unless its sshing in.. and unfortunately theres no easy way for me to explain how to get it.. esp if they are running gnome.. but that doesnt mean getting rid of the console damn the console is awesome have had mac friends who have used osx and couldnt live without the console.. once you learn how to use it its truly awesome.. but its a case of if your willing to learn to use it.
2. Forcing companies like ati to make better linux drivers for their hardware.. i wish ati would take their finger out their ass and give proper support like nvidia does.. But then if Xfree86 gets better maybe that would make it easier for them
3. Proper documentation.. and gui methods for getting things done some of the howtos are ancient they are good but they are old they need serious updating.. and i think most of us users out there could help with this. explaining in laymans terms how to get things done.. The distros all have gone through rapid advancements but documentations are usually very far behind.
Ok lemme actually clarify what i was saying i dont mean they cant run it i mean they wont run it.. If they dont get what oss is all about what we are trying to do then they wont give a rats ass about the fact its free or whatever.. they want things to just work like it does with winders.. Its the damn stupid mentality.. even down to wanting virus checkers from lindows.. which is pretty funny.
There are 3 kinds of windows users those more than capable of running linux but wont cos they feel unsafe of other oses as they have learnt and used windows for so long (generally people one way or another attached to the great os.. which they know is a pile of shite.. but aint willing to take their head out of their ass and trust something different).. and then there are those that are more than capable are willing to switch but wont switch because they dont have the software support they have on windows.. esp things like yahoo chat with voice and webcam.. these we cant do nothing about until software firms take their finger out their ass and do proper ports. and finally those that know fuck all and just use it for the basics they dont care anything about underlying os.. They would be the most easy to switch but to switch them u need to install it for them and show them how to access their email etc..
thats my 2 pence worth.. It had to be said.. feel free to jump down my throat and cuss me and flame me or whatever but its the way i see it.. I tell ya this much tho if things keep progressing the way they are then pretty soon linux will be a major desktop share holder.
excuse errors/typos and stuff 7am here now and i aint slept yet
…leave it up to the user/distro to make sure it works.
Which is exactly the problem with Linux. Most users don’t have the ability or want to screw with learning how or even attempting to “make sure it works.”
Windows runs out of the box.
OS X runs out of the box.
Linux – go configure it and make sure it works.
If Linux would adopt a universal package manager/program installer it would cut a lot off hastle out for users as well as developers. Windows has *.exe…Macs you can just drag things to the “Applications” folder. Linux…you are either forced to compile, get an RPM…then try and recall which packages are really needed. From a development standpoint, it seems like a pain in the ass to have to create different RPMS, MDKs, DEBs, and other installers and compiler info for each distro…hence why there is a lack of commercial (note I do not say commercail quality) software. It is also why end users who are not computing gurus shy away from Linux and keep Microsoft in business.
Streamline development and ease installs of apps for customers…standardize to a single package manager and directory structure.
The GUI thing…bah…I guess it could be useful to have a generic window manager called “Linux Standard Desktop” and then have every distro offer options for others…but KDE and Gnome are so nice (Gnome particularly) that it seems as though both serve equally well. Perhaps Linux installers could start building preview modes of DEs so that users can decide if they even want certain DEs on their systems.
Ultimately, there should be freedom of choice in the software run, including the interface, but standardizing the installers for applications to a universal standard would be a great asset.
To: anonymous (IP: —.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
I agree with you 100%
Linux is coming long nicely but has a long way to go towards UI consistency.
I am no OSS fanboy, however, I would like to make these things clear:
1) The *NIX world has two defacto toolkits. For C++ there is Qt and for C there is GTK.
2) Distros have all basically adopted the Null idea, aka, unfied theme.
3) A unified HIG needs to be finalised and forced upon all QT and GTK applications. If one were a “true” programmer, one would follow the GUI guidelines and put most of those “creative juices” into the guts of the applications. I would assume the guts of the application as the sexy part not the interface.
4) Distros have basically chosen a desktop. KDE for SuSE, GNOME for Redhat and Mandrake, well, they haven’t clear indentified what camp they’re in. Sure, each of the distros including other desktops, however, they’re there if one wishes to install them, however, they aren’t installed by default.
5) I am sure, if a person came out tomorrow and offered a complete, end to end replacement for X, everyone would jump on board, however, every move so far has either died a terrible slow death or simply gets started and never completed. Lets look at Fresco (previously called Berlin) for example. What has happened? it is completely dead stuck at Milestone 2. What on earth is happening? will we EVER see a complete “product”?
Forgive me if i am rehashing a point that was said earlier, but I can not take reading any more of these “shut up and deal” posts claiming the article as rubbish. I have not read the article, but the title concurs precicely with what I have been thinking for a long time. And from what I see here it seems that most people simply don’t see the point the author is trying to make.
Regardless of what the author said, here is the point. Windows has over 90% of the desktop market, Something like 250 million users worldwide. If you are developing software for money, the first platform you choose will be Windows, because more people can use your software. Now let’s look at the Linux market. Linux desktops take up what, 5% of the market? Now, I decide that I have had enough with microsoft, and I decide to develop for linux, but what environment. If I code with GTK+, KDE users will get a funny looking app, and most likely won’t use it, and vice versa. If I make a package for red hat, I have to make one Suse, Mandrake, Debian… and also maintain them all. Where I once thought I could sell to 5% of the desktop market, now I find I have to manage and distribute for 5-10 segments of this fractured space.
Now, what do you think I say to myself as a developer? I say forget it, I am going back to windows.
Standardization can only help the adoption of linux. If you are against this, then you want linux to stay in the shadows and get installed on rackservers where no one will have to see them.
In my utopia, standardization does not have to mean loss of choice. There will be a way to code to a certian protocol, or API, and all the distros will be binary comptible, and yet can have distinct features and and immediately, windows will have to cower in fear from the OSS juggernaut.
Or I guess more appropriately why compete with Windows? There is room for both and sacrificing choice just to “compete” with Windows would be a mistake.
The advantage to having many different window managers, word processors, DBs, etc… is that it instills more innovation in the long run. By there being different systems with different priorities we can see what things work and what does not. Variation and experimentation is not generally encouraged in hemogonous (sp?)systems. Taking Windows as an example, each major version has been more of a rewrite from scratch than an evolution. Also, unlike MS, the open source community does not really have the structure or resources to do user case study, research, and prototyping necessary to innovate without competition. It is hard enough to keep a team on a open source project at all, more or less long enough to experiment on an idea that may never come to fruition.
Forgive me if i am rehashing a point that was said earlier, but I can not take reading any more of these “shut up and deal” posts claiming the article as rubbish. I have not read the article, but the title concurs precicely with what I have been thinking for a long time. And from what I see here it seems that most people simply don’t see the point the author is trying to make.
Regardless of what the author said, here is the point. Windows has over 90% of the desktop market, Something like 250 million users worldwide. If you are developing software for money, the first platform you choose will be Windows, because more people can use your software. Now let’s look at the Linux market. Linux desktops take up what, 5% of the market? Now, I decide that I have had enough with microsoft, and I decide to develop for linux, but what environment. If I code with GTK+, KDE users will get a funny looking app, and most likely won’t use it, and vice versa. If I make a package for red hat, I have to make one Suse, Mandrake, Debian… and also maintain them all. Where I once thought I could sell to 5% of the desktop market, now I find I have to manage and distribute for 5-10 segments of this fractured space.
Now, what do you think I say to myself as a developer? I say forget it, I am going back to windows.
Standardization can only help the adoption of linux. If you are against this, then you want linux to stay in the shadows and get installed on rackservers where no one will have to see them.
In my utopia, standardization does not have to mean loss of choice. There will be a way to code to a certian protocol, or API, and all the distros will be binary comptible, yet have their own distinct features and interfaces. Immediately, windows will have to cower in fear from the OSS juggernaut, as suddenly the combined market share is 10%, united.
– i think we only need standart libs for linux that came out of box in every distro, i guess that would really alter the dependency problem at the first side. I don’t really care for which DE / GUI at all, but at least with standart libs(ex: xlib+gcc+…)
i just want to install a software without worrying what are the dependencies, what i need more, for God sake would anyone explain me why i would mind having that much pain just for installing a piece of software, i use PC to help myself, not to have pain.
– i think i do understand the software developers and why do only care for servers etc, but all i say is someone shall care for the desktop enviroment as well. There are zillions of distros, all most offering the same. They just add their tool or tools, compile it and make it avaible for download, nothing more. Even popular Lindows,Gentoo, Xandros is the same. Xandros only offers a new file manage, Lindows recompiles known software to make it Click N Run, and Gentoo offers an easier(maybe more sophisticated) system update tool, Suse has YAST, well these are just tools, nothing more.(and honestly the tools comes with KDE or the ones from GNU(the raw ones) are much better and reliable than the ones comes with those distros.)
-Its a free world, and everyone is free to choose what to use, or work on but there is always few roads to the right way. Almost everyone wrote about the same problems, and considered similiar solutions, and i’m sure everyone knows what is missing. But no new distro yet noticed those,dunno what to say.. ironic or tragic:)
-Everyone that used Xfree+KDE or Gnome is well aware of the downgrade performance of X windows, and the speed issue on Linux for years&years. Any solution to it? Nooo not yet. Linux is the most popular son of GNU. And will be like that, but the tools&DE’s etc written are still generic, and has to be recompiled to fit linux, i think its time maybe a bit late to develop softare and tools just to fit for linux(just like in FreeBSD.)’better one has to survive’ thats the rule of mother nature.
go to bed, you paperboy!
When MS Blaster made its appearance on the Net, lots of corporations were wondering how they would duke it out. Microsoft (among these) had to choose between Windows and Linux if they didn’t want to get blasted from the scene (no pun intended). Showing common sense for the first time in their history, they made a wise decision : Tux would be their hero… just kidding 🙂
I saw this snippet on ZDNet UK :
A Microsoft spokesman told ZDNet UK: “Our many connection service providers’ infrastructures are diverse; our main concern is doing whatever it takes to help ensure our customers can get to the patch to protect their computers.”
So, if Microsoft needs Linux to serve their customers, why do people keep paying for Windows ?
If you wanted to develop for all platforms to enlarge your target audience, develop using QT as it allows you to have one code base and it will run on MacOS/Linux and Windows (obviously needs compiling on the target platform). If you avoid the daft idea of using Registry based configurations and directory based installs, your install program can be simple. For example, OpenOffice has a fine installer that does not seem to care about being distribution specific.
That alleged missing 5% is a rather large number of people, ingore it at your leisure. I am sure the percentages of OS users are pretty inaccurate these days as due the ability of being able to install Linux as many times as you like. I guess figures for MacOS would be the most accurate in terms of numbers sold (not percentages)