Linux’s diversity is often regarded as one of its greatest strengths. That diversity — as great as it is — also translates to inconsistency, which many regard as one of the operating system’s greatest weaknesses. The following osViews editorial contribution is the fourth piece in a multipart series, ( [1] | [2] | [3] ) which outlines the framework for a consistent Linux desktop platform that would help grow the operating system’s desktop install-base among new users and Windows converts.
GNU/Linux Home Desktop Kit PC Project Part 4: Proposed Core Specs
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Richard Stallman was recently interviewed for the 20th anniversary of the FreeSoftwareMovement. He basically said Linux/Gnu and the basic platform is great, but he’s seeing a lot of “support” for linux by NVIDIA and others that is closed-source. While this “support” benifits the platform, it takes away our freedom to see the source. If other commercial developers see that NVIDIA can get away with it, they too will not release the source.
Perhaps gnu/Linux should strive to be the most free operating system instead of begging the likes of Adobe, VALVe, Macromedia, etc to port their software to linux. It seems like this article wants linux to be the premiere operating system, but doesn’t give a crap about freedom to see the source or the freedom to redistribute.
IMHO the Windows desktop experience is a nasty cumbersome one. Linux should try to be more like Mac OS X. I don’t mean that KDE should use those horrible Aqua themes, but distros and DE’s should try and follow Mac’s GUI guidelines so that the Linux Desktop experience is unique yet intuitive.
Hi,
Stop talking about themes. Apt-get. Other linux crap.
This idea is simple, uses best practices, and it actually marketable. Its easy to make things hard. Its hard to make things easy.
I’m all for this idea – and one last thought – the windows experience is by far a friendly and flexible one. That’s what won the war last time.. you don’t have to be just like windows, as it has its downfalls, but building a consistent, enjoyable, friendly experience is better than teaching each linux newbie a tonne of information just to do a simple install.
– Microsoft fan
“the windows experience is by far a friendly and flexible one. That’s what won the war last time”
Yes, it won (or is currently winning) the war bit not because of its friedliness or flexibility.
Clever marketing and illegal business practices are what made this company an 800 pound gorilla.
Put any cd in. Run setup. Click icon on desk.
Seems pretty flex so far. Try that with a bazillion applications in any linux distro and see what happens. I might even consider that friendly. “Machine operates as expected”.
If marketing was the entire reason microsoft was successful, they would have been Apple corporation.Mac has clever marketing, too, and 4% market share.
Microsoft Rules!
– Microsoft Fan
if Windows won out because of it was so apt for the desktop, how do you explain BeOS?
Let’s see, which is easier?
MS Windows: Insert CD. Start installer. Accept EULA. Click “next.” Enter license key. Click “next.” Choose install options. Click “next.” Choose install directory. Click “next.” Choose shortcut folder. Click “next.” Wait. Click “finish.”
Linux: Start Synaptic. Find application. Double-click application. Close Synaptic.
Let’s talk about upgrading.
MS Windows: For *each* application: Insert CD. Start installer. Accept EULA. Click “next.” Enter license key. Click “next.” Choose install options. Click “next.” Choose install directory. Click “next.” Choose shortcut folder. Click “next.” Wait. Click “finish.”
Linux: Start Synaptic. Click “Update.” Click “Upgrade.” Close Synaptic.
The Windows UI is a mess. The Linux UI is better in ways, and worse in ways. Neither makes the computer “work as expected.” I did IT support for a summer once, and Windows is constantly confusing users.
The MacOS UI is much better, for most users. Its more predictible and more logical. Both Linux and MacOS (X) have one characteristic that is incredibly important, especially for corporate desktops. They don’t just suddenly develop weird behaviors. Something either works, or doesn’t work. Once its working, it stays working. I can’t count the number of times somebody has come to me saying “my [Windows] machine is acting wierd…”
[ok, not GUI, but it’s as easy as…]
Slack
To upgrade
swaret –upgrade
u might even add it to the start up…
to install a pkg
installpkg *.tgz [and without 100 setups, 1000 clicks and 10000 eaten up minutes, U have all the apps installed]
Also, after clicking and upgrading whole system. IMPLEMENT FREELY WHERE NEEDED,USEFUL,OR FUN. Why merely seek the desktop when Linux’s development culture is capable of providing an integrated and elegant system, where the desktop is one of its’ important COMPONENTS. The desktop lives in larger communication and workflow contexts that linux is capable of addressing. It comes with non-restricted access to the knowledges and skills that may arise from someone’s commitment and invlovement….. Did I mention the friendly folks?
I woudn’t call it a mess. It’s pretty consistent (yes, there are many apps that LOOK different, but they behave mostly the same predictable way). Copy/paste and drag-n-drop work as expected. Key shortcuts are mostly standard. Context menus are more or less reasonable. I agree that there are some questionable aspects (for instance, Turn Off in the Start menu). But other than that, it’s pretty useable.
So if Windows has disadvantages, the UI isn’t a major one. The stability (at least of Win9x) is an issue, though, and this is where Linux shines for me.
As for Synaptic, at least now it’s not very user friendly. It looks like the author simply wanted to create graphical shortcuts to apt-get functions, which is wrong. He/she should have tried to think like a newbie, in terms of tasks, and not the apt-specific terminology. For a newcomer it may be confusing, and for an advanced user it doesn’t basically offer any advantages over CLI.
You make a most interesting point about the community and the holistic level of interaction and, dare I say, integration in all levels of Linux. Using Linux never feels like like hopping between tiny islands of functionality connected by expensive toll-bridges. IMHO – [puts on anti troll armor . . .]
I agree about Synaptic. Red Carpet 2 is an improvement – too bad RCD sucks CUP and memory like nothing else. As much as some like to put down Lindows its click-and-run web based interface is the smartest thing as far as user friendly installation of applications go. Something like this but open could be done with any of the major package and repository systems.
Exactly. An ugly one too.
Isn’t the MAC with latest O/S based on UNIX already?