Linux vs. Windows: Choice vs. Usability

ThaReetLad writes "In this article at DevX, Executive Editor A. Russell Jones makes the case for a standardised GUI for Linux. He argues that the promotion of choice of GUI as a positive feature of using Linux is detrimental to its chances of attacking Microsoft's home user monopoly. From the article: '...the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.' In particular he argues that the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on, and that they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any applications they might want to use."

Comments

Good idea

[mao che minh]

The advancement of KDE and Gnome can occur beneficially without the standardization of either. Despite this, it would be much to the benefit of all Linux companies if they all worked together on one standard desktop, instead of leaving it up to the community. The Open Source community will continue to make new GUIs and make the existing ones better, but Linux companies should be interested in making the best possible operating system for both the server and the work station (what sells).

The server side of things is coming along nicely. The work station side is severely behind the competition, and the reason is directly linked to the failure of all parties to strategically target the GUI togther, instead of independantly using different GUIs that are never really that much better than another on any given Sunday.

If I had to choose, I would vote for KDE.

Re:Good idea

[Lodragandraoidh]

I have tried KDE and GNOME (as well as a plethora of other non-contenders), and I have come to the conclusion that GNOME is the best.

Initially, I was a bit put-off by the interface. However, I soon found that I could do some interesting things that were not available under KDE. I also found GNOME faster than KDE given the same tasks.

I am much more efficient with GNOME than I ever was with KDE. Perhaps that is just personal taste - but that is how I see it.

Unfortunately, to create 'mass market' appeal for Linux, I agree you will need a 'standardized' interface. The development of this interface should not close the door on innovation in interface design; there should always be choice where Linux is concerned.

Re:Good idea

[Ro'que]

Maybe I'm missing the "big picture" here (freedom of choice?), but I don't know why they can't just work together. Isn't that what Linux is all about? I don't see how working on a standardized desktop would do anything but help Linux in the long run...Sure some of us prefer KDE over Gnome, and vica versa, but the bottom line is they could all get a lot further together than they could seperate.

Re:Good idea

[bigman2003]

The post above (and the one above that) are an excellent example of what needs to happen before Linux becomes a bigger desktop force.

Concessions need to be made.

But that almost goes against the 'choice' that everyone wants.

Unfortunately, if Group A wants KDE and Group B wants Gnome- somewhere along the line someone needs to decide which to use. Some people will be unhappy, but it is necessary.

Windows GUI is not perfect, and it never will be. Some features are in there for new users, and some for more experienced users. It can't be all things, to all people. Unfortunately, they don't have an interface that tailors itself to your individual needs.

So, having a single GUI will help the development- but it will lessen the choices.

It's a dilemma...

Re:Good idea

[Chymaera]

No! Gnome is better, you insensitive clod! Seriously, why not just work on making applications compatible between desktop environments? That would solve one major problem. And it's not too hard to go from one GUI to the next; it's not all that much different from going from "windows classic" to the new interface in Windows XP.

Re:Good idea

[DrXym]

It would be beneficial to both KDE & GNOME if they got together and sorted out a single standard things that both have in common.

• A theme engine for rendering widgets, scrollbars etc. XP & OS X have this and it's
• Icons for toolbars
• Metrics
• Usability guidelines
• Menus and icon properties

At the end of the day, most people don't give a toss what the name of the thing running their desktop is, or why KDE is better than GNOME or vice versa. They just want a consistent desktop and a consistent set of apps running on top of it.

Of the distributions so far, Red Hat has clearly gotten the message. The RH9 desktop with bluecurve theme throughout is a wonderfully put together desktop. It's only when you contrast it with the slapdash Mandrake desktop for example that you appreciate the difference that consistency makes.

Re:Good idea

[sketerpot]

I've tried a number of GUI toolkits (including KDE and GNOME), and I haven't really liked any of them very well. They're generally nice, though, and I don't have any strong opinions on the matter except one: if you can make toolkits compatible with one another, you don't need to have them standardized. I mean, what if people standardized on something I didn't like? I wouldn't like that!

Make sure that drag and drop, copy and paste, and similar things work. Make a widget theme that makes all widgets look and feel the same. That makes it easy for people aiming at the Average User to present something that looks like a unified GUI, and the rest of us can go on using our plethora of GUI toolkits, window managers (I can't decide which I like best!), and whatever else we please. Then everybody can be happy.

Re:Good idea

[Mournblade]

Isn't this sort of where RedHat is going with the Bluecurve desktop?

Re:Good idea

[DrXym]

Ooops, "XP & OS X have this and it's"... why even apps like Mozilla can render themselves with a native look and feel despite not using native widgets.

Re:Good idea

[bigjocker]

This WorkStation thing is a big problem that can (and currently is) hold back more adoption of Linux in the desktop.

We have reached a state where almost every WorkStation job can be performed efficiently on Linux, with a great selection of apps and tools that compare and in a lot of cases surpases their Win/Mac counterparts, but (unfortunately) the users have been taught to rely a lot more in the OS/Desktop than it should be, instead on the applications that implement the functionality.

If you ask Joe User "what is windows?" he will start talking about the task bar, the Start Menu and a lot of images that user has fixed in his mind. If you try to push linux on them, you must have a familiar look that they can be used to, even when they sit in a different computer. I'm not talking about us geeks but the everyday users that ultimately stack up to give Windows the 95% (or so) in the Desktop market.

I have said it before and will continue to say it, Linux has been ready for a long time for the Desktop, the applications are ready and even a lot of users are ready to use it, but the main goal of Linux is also holding it back: choice.

It's a complicated issue, the freedom of choice is what got us to use Linux, and I love to use gFTP and Evolution on KDE, but that freedom of choice is also scaring potential users away.

My vote goes to KDE too ;)

Re:Good idea

[anthonyrcalgary]

I would vote for KDE too.

I think the article is stupid, but Apple has won a LOT of support through standardization. Not only of what they look like, but how they're laid out. They've got very, very specific GUI guidelines, and that's a Very Good Thing. They're purely voluntary, but they create a consistancy between software included with the OS and 3rd party software that is unmatched elsewhere.

If KDE (or whoever) were to come out with similar guidelines and most people were to follow them, Linux would benefit. Every non-OS X UNIX would benefit.

Re:Good idea

[jedrek]

No, it's not. (link to own post from previous discussion)

Re:Good idea

[R.Caley]

The work station side is severely behind the competition, and the reason is directly linked to the failure of all parties to strategically target the GUI togther,

Ah, yes, I remember CDE.

Re:Good idea

[joestar]

Maybe you should try Mandrake 9.1.

Re:Good idea

[stormcoder]

So we should compromise our freedoms to get a bunch of ignorant users? What would make Linux any different than windows then? We don't need new users at that cost. All the community would get out of that deal is a tech support nightmare. If the users don't understand the trade offs then they should stay where they are. People get to focused on attracting new users and become willing to sacrifice everyone elses rights for them instead of trying to educate the people on what the trade offs are. I fix up old computers for people who can't afford to buy a new one. I won't put Windows on any of those and am willing to sit down with people and explain why. They get a little education and a free computer.

Re:Good idea

[AntiOrganic]

KDE has Human Interface Guidelines already, and they're really completely nondescript and aren't very cohesive at all. Gnome 2's are really much better and even match Apple's fairly well, in my opinion.

Re:Good idea

[jedidiah]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

Applications written against different API's should not be made to look indistinguishable. This eliminates any visual cues that the user might use to determine that differing aps from differing API's have different interface standards and capabilities.

An Xt app should NOT look like a GNOME app. The user needs to be clued in when they are moving between distinct environments. Otherwise they will simply be frustrated by the lack of any ability to predict what set of apps will do what.

Re:Good idea

[13Echo]

If you create a standardized desktop, then someone will just write something else.

UnitedLinux stuff already uses KDE in favor of Gnome. RedHat uses Gnome in favor of KDE. Both projects have different goals. Both projects have pros and cons.

There is nothing wrong with having different desktops. Do Java apps look like Windows apps when they run on the Windows platform? No. Does a GTK app look like a Windows app when running on the Windows platform? No.

There are legitimate reasons to use QT instead of GTK. Some people use QT for ease of porting to multiple platforms. On the other side of things, GTK apps have a less restrictive license for commercial software. There are benefits to each.

The primary dektops on Linux are based on these two toolkits. You don't have to be running either dektop to use any of the programs. Shoot, you can open a terminal in X (by itself) without a desktop manager, and the programs will still work.

The only reason that it might be useful to have a uniform desktop is for usabililty across platforms. However, so many variations of these desktops come from all of the different distributions. You'd essentially have to "clone" every Linux distribution to have it standardized.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla does use native widgets, but it skins the top of it... Much like the way Winamp does it.

Re:Good idea

[madhippy]

QT's licencing is a big no-no as far as I am concerned ...

There are millions of bespoke apps businesses rely on out there, it's these apps that will be crucial for most companies when deciding to go Win -> Lin.

The os/server software/office suite (i.e. the infrastructure) etc. is all fine when licenced under GPL (or similar) but when it comes to these bespoke apps they 'have' to be closed source - they encapsulate business processes and business decisions etc. - of course framework code could be LGPL and CRM systems like Compiere are potentially useful frontends to these bespoke systems ... but for the most part these sort of systems are best closed source and probably would be of little benefit being open source since they solve a very specific problem domain ...

The QT commercial licence is pretty expensive - comparable to the whole MSDN Universal IIRC (of course most of the other tools are free...)

KDE is a good 'major version' ahead of Gnome - I still use Gnome at home and plan on moving towards bespoke app development with Gnome.

Re:Good idea

[Lodragandraoidh]

I Don't think its a 'dilemma' because the open source / free software developers will never standardize the GUI interfaces - precisely because people have come to like particulars of their given environment, or want the flexibility to change.

Commercial Linux packaging companies might decide to create a 'standard' GUI - but that will not slow down current and future interfaces from continuing to be developed.

Re:Good idea

[DrXym]

I have Mandrake 9.1 running on my laptop and RH9 on my desktop. Mandrake 9.1 is a dogs breakfast by comparison. I appreciate it for other reasons, but Red Hat beats it to death for general polish and then some.

The issue is that they seem content to slap together a generic KDE with a bunch of homegrown tools and think that's enough. Consequently, you have a confusing clutter of apps in the menus with names that are Kompletely Kryptic and Konfusing, a "Mandrake Control Center" vs a "Control Center" (wtf?), duplicate apps that seem to do the same thing (e.g. two floppy disk formatters, multiple RPM management apps), a help system which offers help on KDE but not Mandrake, "Drak" tools that ask you if you want to apply the changes when you haven't done anything, and numerous other silly and slapdash faults.

By comparison, RH9 is a beautiful and simple desktop. BTW I'm not comparing the underlying KDE & GNOME here, I'm comparing the amount of effort that has gone in afterwards to clean and polish things up.

Re:Good idea

[CaptnMArk]

I am the author of icewm, one of the choices :)

For one choice only, I would choose mozilla ie. the XUL toolkit.

Why? Because XUL is XML and not directly dependant on C or C++ bindings.

Because I simply don't see the problem of C vs C++ toolkit choice resolving itself any time soon. And there are other choices too, like Java Swing, and whatever mess they will do with C#/WinForms/Wine.

What we really need is a more abstracted core desktop, more document oriented (and more like www.nakedobjects.org but based on XML interfaces) and less app centric. This will allow more decoupling between GUI and actual applications.

Re:Good idea

[leifm]

In the past I would have agreed with the article's point. However as I see it now I think Linux on the desktop, for most people, will be controlled by one entity. My guess would be Redhat or SuSe. Whatever they choose will become the 'standard', geeks will continue to use whatever they please, non-geeks will have their unified Redhat/SuSe desktop experience (and never know they could alter it if so inclined), everyone will be happy.

Re:Good idea

[Haeleth]

"Do Java apps look like Windows apps when they run on the Windows platform? No. Does a GTK app look like a Windows app when running on the Windows platform? No."

Do the majority of Windows users run Java or GTK applications? No. Is one of the reasons that Java and GTK applications "look weird"? In my experience, yes - given a choice, most users will take an inferior program that has the familiar look and feel over a superior, but alien, option.

Re:Good idea

[arivanov]

Blah, blah, blah, blah using different GUIs blah, blah, blah.

Well, a Windows user is capable of making a choice. Do not consider a windows user to be a moron by definition as he/she aint.

I have several ex-windows users around me which are by all means linux users now. When I say by all means they are using it. They are not administering it, configuring it, tweaking it or in any other way wasting their time. They actually use the machine for work.

And guess what they use - good ole Windowmaker with the standard brushsteel Debian theme (yes they have tried Gnome, Kde, XFCe, whateverE and they hated every moment of it). After all, people severely understimate the extent to which people like their machine being fast (even when it is a PIV at 2.4) with half a gig of RAM.

Re:Good idea

[NaugaHunter]

but (unfortunately) the users have been taught to rely a lot more in the OS/Desktop than it should be, instead on the applications that implement the functionality.

The human interface is far more important that the implementation behind it, and this is universal across all technology. Think of cars. If the steering wheel, radio, pedals, etc. are all in accessible places, how many people really care how they work the car? Or the phone - how many different keypads are there? Have you ever seen a light switch on a wall that went left-right and not up-down? There are a number of 'better' keyboard layouts - has anyone not included QWERTY and survived?

The human brain functions on pattern recognition. A consistant interface allows the brain to function at a 'higher' level. Let me explain - you don't think about how to walk, chew, or scratch an itch, right? You just think "I want to go there" or "Mmmm" or, usually, nothing - I sometimes don't even really I have an itch as the brain as already recognized that it should be scratched and done so before the message reached my conciousness. A consistant GUI allows a user to think "Close this window." An inconsistant GUI forces the user to think "To close this window, I need to find the X. It was on the right last time, but that's a Circle. Oh, there it is on the left. Click."

Having to think about every single action is very frustrating, whether it's a new GUI, a new video game, or even a new VCR or Microwave. And this is exactly what people have to deal with in switching to Linux - learning a new set of patterns, which requires think about them at the beginning. It's been my experience that average people barely understand the computers they currently use - they were taught 'Click here, then here, then here'. It's virtually impossible to teach them a new interface if they never knew why they were clicking in the old one.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Humm... maybe it's not for the end user but developers can't develop to different Windowing Toolkits all that easily. It would be best for GUI projects to standardize on one either GNOME or KDE. I'd choose GNOME because you can write commercial apps for GTK w/o a license....

Or maybe KDE if they'd modify the license a little. Then we just need linux developers to develop software packages to replace all those niche VB applications that small-medium business count on day in and day out...

That would turn the market to linux. Applications not features....

Re:Good idea

[DrXym]

No it doesn't. It uses native windows for frames, but all the widgets within the frame and buttons are 'soft' - there is no native window behind them. It's much like JFC in that it regard. It uses CSS to render widgets and there are special rules that a theme can employ to to tell Moz to render an area using the native theme engine.

I have no idea what it does on Linux (it probably has various graphics to simulate the default GTK L&F), but on XP & OS X the theme engine is tied directly to the system specific implementations. This works very well on XP and OS X and means Mozilla still looks native even if you change the system theme.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Linux still has no OLE and drag-n-drop standard. Although KDE and GNOME have their own versions of these.

If there was a standard then one would implement a library that would allow KDE and GNOME apps to run on any window manager as long as this OLE/dnd library is running.

But, then I guess nor the KDE kfolks nor their GNOME gcounterparts want this. Take away their standards and use a minimalistic wm.

BTW. the apple OSA (open sourcing architecture) mentionet yesterday could also be part of the GUI.

Re:Good idea

[ichimunki]

Well, there's no reason that distribution vendors can't do as Red Hat has done and essentially do their best to merge the two major desktops in terms of look/feel and default appliations. Personally I don't give a rat's hindquarters what will get Linux a bigger "share" of the desktop. This is the flawed thinking of the open source movement, that somehow things like "market share" are measures of success.

Not true. Absolute freedom in the software is what's important. As long as we have that, any GNU/Linux vendor in the world is free to cooperate with other vendors and standardize or not standardize as they see fit. A properly functioning economy (both in terms of money and ideas) requires lots of small companies (suppliers) all competing for the dollars/yen/euros/attention of the consumer.

At this time, however, the majority of GNU/Linux users (fortunately) value freedom and choice. Any move to "dumb down" the GUI or make it more rigid without providing a big red button that says "click here if you want to take back complete control of your system" will simply alienate the current user base (that would be those of us who contribute dollars, time, or money to groups like the FSF, Debian, KDE, or even SUSE or RedHat in the form of buying the box sets).

Personally I feel like users expect too little from their systems, and too little from themselves as well. Computers are complicated machines that require a certain level of know-how. If the user wants simple, I don't see how they can go wrong with existing distributions like Red Hat.

The idea that we should "start with a standard GUI" (to quote the article) is nonsense. What we need is to demonstrate value to users, both in terms of the value of freedom (which is pooh-poohed in this article, I think) and in terms of the excess funds spent on proprietary software that users are only using minimally (you know they hit the main 10% of the features, but the other 90% they paid for go to waste). Plus, the real need here is to get preinstalled systems out there at affordable prices and offer some decent support and training options. If people can't walk into Circuit City, Fry's, or Best Buy and pick up a GNU/Linux system, forget it. Look how well Apple does against that, and they have extremely polished, monolithic systems with some of the best ad campaigns known to man on their side.

Re:Good idea

[pyros]

The user needs to be clued in when they are moving between distinct environments. Otherwise they will simply be frustrated by the lack of any ability to predict what set of apps will do what.

The post you are replying to stated, and I agree, that if you make interoperable toolkits (copy/paste, drag & drop work between apps built in the different toolkits) then the user doesn't need to predict the ability. In fact, the whole tone of the article is that non-power users (the kind who don't go, "that looks like the keramic theme, so it's probably a Qt/KDE app, but it could just be a gtk or gtk2 app with a keramic theme") shouldn't be forced to look at 7 apps that look different. I think using the widgets to determine how well an app can interact with the UI is a silly thing to expect. I am a programmer/network admin, so I can handle it, but I think it's a waste of my time to do so. meh.

Re:Good idea

[13Echo]

This is true. However, in the same respects, every program that I use (daily) on my Linux desktop is largely GTK based.

I used Evolution of Sylpheed for mail.
I use MozillaFirebird for web browsing.
I use XChat for IRC.
I use Pan for newsgroups.
I use Nautilus for file management.
I use XMMS for music.
I use MPlayer for video.
I use GIMP for image editing.

And every single app is GTK based. Granted, two of these still use older GTK libraries, but everything is still uniform on my machine. I dn't mind KDE, but I have no need for QT based apps because everything that I use is GTK based. These are pretty standard (and very funtional) tools that are found by default on most Linux desktop installs.

A uniform look is important, but in most respects, each of the two standard desktops has a large selection of tools that do the job quite well, and look good while doing it.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen brother...I give you a 5.

Re:Good idea

[bursch-X]

This is exactly why Mozilla look like shit on OS X even with the Pinstripe theme and why I prefer Camino to Mozilla in every way.

Re:Good idea

[Skeezix]

If I had to choose, I would vote for KDE.

And I would vote for GNOME. You see, that's the problem. Neither project is going to give up their work. Neither platform is going away. I know for a fact the GNOME developers are very proud of their work and are convinced that GNOME is the desktop of the future, but I'm sure the KDE developers feel the same way.

Re:Good idea

[jtev]

Damned straight, we don't need to bow to the pressure to use a sandardised anything, we need to improve our marketing and SELL CHOICE. I don't care if the unwashed masses are put off by choice, give them a good default, make choises easy to find, but also easy to avoid. I personaly love GNOME, but KDE has good points to, do I think any less of a freind of mine who likes KDE? No, but I do love GNOME. I also loved Enlightenment 0.16, and when the E folks come out with their next version I'll be rather willing to try it out. Think of it this way, in everything but computers consumers love choice they like to choose their cars, their airlines, their greasy burgers, after all shouldn't we just standardise on one fast foot resturaunt, then you could get McDonald's fries, Wendy's frosties, Burger King's hamburgers, and Sonic's limeade all at one place, but that doesn't happen, you get 4 different resturaunts that you can choose which food element is most important to you, and go to and get passable choises for the rest of the items consumers understand choice, and they aren't afraid of it. They simply need to be educated about the choices out there.

Re:Good idea

[DrXym]

No, Mozilla if 'looks like shit' it has nothing to do with its rendering since it is using the native engine. That's not to say it doesn't conform to OS X specs in other ways, but in general I like it just fine (I'm using it right now on OS X).

Re:Good idea

[arth1]

The only reason that it might be useful to have a uniform desktop is for usabililty across platforms.

I wish this was true. However, which desktop you run directly limits which applications you can run.
IMO, the bind between applications and desktop environment is seriously hurting Linux as a serious desktop platform.
There WAS freedom in the old Unix world. If you ran CDE or 4Dwm, the exact same applications would still run. That's what Unix is all about -- the toolbox approach lets you choose just which tools you want, without binding tool A to also using tool B. If I want to run Konqueror without running KDE, I should be able to. If I want to run Motif and lesstif apps at the same time, I should be able to. If I want to run with remote X to a non-XFree86 X server, I should be able to without getting tonnes of errors.

These kiddie programmers need to look up the word "interoperability". I know it's a big word, but right now the incompatibilities are more than just frustrating -- they show a complete lack of understanding on the part of the programmers. They seem to think that as long as it works on THEIR machine with THEIR preferred setup, it's all well.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Good idea

[pmz]

The work station side is severely behind the competition, and the reason is directly linked to the failure of all parties to strategically target the GUI togther, instead of independantly using different GUIs that are never really that much better than another on any given Sunday.

Also, the UNIX market has really changed dramatically in the last fifteen years. A long time ago, Motif was all the rage and was actually targeting exactly the consistency and usability that was lacking before it. On $40,000 workstations, Motif licensing really wasn't an issue.

However, in the Free Software world Motif really was a big problem, thus TK, GTK, Qt, Lesstif, and others I can't remember.

Now, things are beginning to come back together again. We just have to have a little patience.

In the meantime, I'll enjoy opening Xt, OpenLook, Motif, GTK, and Qt apps in my CDE desktop and wondering if it was one click or two...

Re:Good idea

[jtev]

Um, whenever I've used a GTK for windows app it
looks a hell of a lot like a windows app. same
command buttons, same borders, etc. the design
Menus are slightly different, but other than that,
it's fairly transparent to the end user.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit. You presume to much when you say "Any move to dumb down the GUI" when everyone else is saying "standardize the GUI". Your choices can all be pulled into a well-designed system that allows people to use as much of their machine as possible. The concept that "people expect too little from their systems, and too little from themselves as well" is bullshit as well. Could I learn it? Sure. Do I want to? No. Why? I don't have any inherently valuable reason to do so. I use my computer. I don't wrap myself around it. I'm not going to spend hours upon hours learning how to use yet another half-baked application written by someone too lazy to design it so I don't have to read manpages in order to find any utility. I have a life. So do most people. I'm not going to spend valuable time compensating for the lack of design skill on the part of a development team.

Strangly enough, you get the idea that people will need to SEE these things working in stores before they will consider buying one, and yet you don't see the value of marketshare.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

tools that ask you if you want to apply the changes when you haven't done anything, and numerous other silly and slapdash faults.

Windows Allversions does this too in case you've forgotten.

Re:Good idea

[__past__]

Because it is not possible to write an app that integrates equally well in both desktops. And this is not just about themes, but about lots of little things like button order, placement of menu items, instant-apply versus explicit-apply in preferences dialogs. Such things can drive users mad if inconsistent, and you cannot be consistent with both Gnome and KDE.

Re:Good idea

[Quarters]

Apple's guidelines were born of a lot of time, R&D effort, and sheer determination. The were an excellent source for Apple developers up through MacOS 9.x. With OSX Apple themselves seem to be turning their back on the HIG and doing things in a haphazard, way with no thought towards re-use of GUI ideas or code or following any sort of standard UI practice. Apple's HIG documents are quickly becoming useless dinosaurs----by no one's fault but Apple's.

Re:Good idea

[EastCoastSurfer]

I agree with you on the new Redhat 9 setup. The consistent desktop that just seems to work is something redhat has about gotten right in 9.0.

I don't need or want 20 different programs to do one thing. Let the distro I choose make the initial choice for me and if I don't like I can change it after the fact. If the distro does make a choice though they can test a single app much more than they can test 20, which leads to a a easier desktop experience.

Re:Good idea

[lowvato]

I think this is also a very american discussion. While we argue about how much the users in the first-world countries can take in terms of change and brain power to use new and "more interesting" interfaces other areas of the world are readily adopting linux (look)
Of course this may be more evangelism from the preachers but could it be that first worlders eventually fall behind as other people adopt and use cheaper, virus free (for now), possibly better tools?
Another issue is that we all know that what really sells stuff to people is not quality or versatility but marketing. Linux has no centralized organization (that I know of) to market desktop use. I do not see RedHat or SuSe putting the cash up to do this effectively.

Re:Good idea

[jtev]

Wow, that's a realy great Idea, Unfortunatly I don't have the money to buy computers, even old obsolete ones to do that with, but that's still a great idea. With how cheaply old computers can be had that'll give us anothe prong in the battle against MicroSoft. We've attacked them from above, and from below, now let's slide into another market unfortunatly the market we're sliding into doesn't have the money to command comercial software, but they would be an army worth of beta testers, and usability testers. This could go a long way.

Re:Good idea

[stevey]

If you ask Joe User "what is windows?" he will start talking about the task bar, the Start Menu

I use Debian as my desktop at home and at work and have done for the past few years.

I love having a "start" menu, and a task bar.

Because I can't run KDE/GNOME I've tried lots of lightweight window managers - and have settled upon IceWM for the past year or so, precisely because it has a start menu and a task bar.

You'd be amazed at how many window manages don't give you these things; which I won't use. Ion I loved; but it just doesn't have the same features.

Maybe I've been spoilt by windows but I'd never use a WM that didn't give me a task bar again...

Re:Good idea

[kmsigel]

Have you ever seen a light switch on a wall that went left-right and not up-down?

Yes, it's not uncommon. (At least in the U.S.)

Re:Good idea

[Coneasfast]

For one choice only, I would choose mozilla ie. the XUL toolkit.

Yes I use icewm too :)

But XUL is a terrible choice, it has very high latency on slower processors, eg, celeron II 700. You may have Athlon XP or P4 so the difference is negligible, but not for me. I will never use mozilla until they fix this. There is a delay when opening up windows or popping down menus that you can actually see the widgets being created.

Re:Good idea

[ILEoo]

There's this thing called freedesktop that defines common standarts on Drag and Drop etc. Gnome & Kde are starting to follow it. and even xfce 4 is compatible,so it's even easier to cross use things

Re:Good idea

[arkane1234]

The human brain functions on pattern recognition. A consistant interface allows the brain to function at a 'higher' level.

That's not higher level thinking, that's the cerebellum picking up motor functions to do a certain task. Much like knowing to move your arm a certain amount of distance to reach your gear shifter in your car. Go into another car, and it's an automatic, you just need to do it for a while and then the cerebellum picks up the new activity and "reprograms" itself accordingly.

That's not understanding computers, that's learning to move to do the right task. A monkey can do that, and does do it on a daily basis.

Re:Good idea

[Zeriel]

I never have problems running GTK apps on KDE. You just gotta make sure you have the GTK library installed.

Most good installers and package managers will handle that for you. =)

Re:Good idea

[gilesjuk]

Indeed, the Linux desktop is mature enough now for many different types of users. Beginners will be daunted by any desktop, regardless of what it is.

The article mentions making a choice between different desktops and how even an experienced user will be able to choose. However all these projects are free, you just install them and give them a try. You'll soon find which one is your favourite.

I personally think choosing the distro is the hardest task, not the desktop as there's only two major desktops. Even choosing KDE doesn't mean you can run loads of Gnome apps.

Re:Good idea

[BrokenHalo]

The whole point of the issue is that we do not want a "standard" rammed down our throats.

Microsoft has had years' worth of value in promoting their products as so-called "standards", and many of us have had enough.

If "someone" were to decide that the "one true" interface was going to be KDE or Gnome or whatever, many happy users of open source software would object, and rightly so.

If that means that Linux will not overtake Windows on the desktop market, then so be it. Let's face it, most Windows users will not even consider switching anyway.

The whole point of the open-source initiatives is to allow the user to make choices. Most (or at least many) users want to be told what to do, not to make choices as to how to do it.

Re:Good idea

[stormcoder]

The systems are from my company. If they're no longer useful to the company, I just ask if I can have it to give to someone needy and usually they go for it.

Re:Good idea

[moexu]

I think he's also comparing Windows installations, which generally come pre-installed with a new machine, to installing Linux on a machine that's never had it before, where you have to choose your desktop somewhere during the installation process. If an average user bought a machine with Linux preinstalled and configured with a GUI the distro came with, they wouldn't have to think about configuration issues either.

Re:Good idea

[JanneM]

Not only will people be unhappy - all those people not using whatever is "chosen" will merrily ignore that choice and continue to push their preferred desktop, writing apps, and so on.

You would accomplish exactly nothing, except polarize the community even further over this issue. All those areas where we do have a standard (and they are a lot of them by now), have been accomplished by everybody involved in the development coming to a consensus - no a majority decision - before establishing the standard.

And I do not see anybody coming to a consensus over the desktop as a whole now or ever.

Re:Good idea

[BrokenHalo]

Fair enough. That's why (though I am a confirmed Gnome fan) I usually try to get people to play with WindowMaker on a new installation, just to get away from all those Windows-ish expectations.

Re:Good idea

[Phillup]

Well... in one way they have standardized.

They run on X.

So... perhaps the answer is to rework X.

I personally think that I should be able to use which ever interface I want... but, there is certainly some core functionality that could be abstracted out to a common layer, IMHO.

Perhaps this would be a good way to start? Standardize some of the functionality that is common... and perhaps provide a "Common Interface" API for programmers.

I personally think of Gnome and KDE as toolkits for application development... and not as a Desktop GUI, mainly because I can run Gnome apps on my KDE desktop... and vice versa.

Re:Good idea

[Minna Kirai]

A corrolary to your statement might be "Applications written against the same API should not be made to look different."

That is, changable skins should not be allowed, because they remove clues that an app shares the same abilities as others.

However, I don't think that the current crop of Qt & Gtk apps have sufficiently standardized feature sets, even amoung a single API, to make their unified-presentation into something worth protecting. There are some freaky Qt programs, I'll tell you. Ksirc is one bad, example, but not the worst.

Re:Good idea

[qtp]

"To close this window, I need to find the X. It was on the right last time, but that's a Circle. Oh, there it is on the left. Click."

But in my expirience, users will choose a window manager that suits them and then stay with that. Your argument would be valid if you were not talking about a feature that is consistant throughout a given windowing environment, but is reduiculous if you are claiming that the choice of windowmanager makes using Linux (more accurately, X11) more difficult.

If you had used the example of menus in applications, then perhaps you would have a valid argument, but only if MacIntosh were your standard. Among Microsoft applications (AFAIK, the most widely used apps) there ios little GUI standardization between different programs and different versions of the same program. Similar features are in different menus depending upon if you are using Publisher, Word, or Frontpage (yes, I know that these programs are for different purposes, but the argument still holds). Upgrading to a new vesion of Word leaves users searching for the new locations of commonly used functions and configurations.

Different software publishers are successful on the windows platform even though thier interfaces differ from Microsoft's (example: Adobe).

The argument that Linux needs some kind of standardization on this front flies in the face of the history of the software business and has no real grounding in reason.

Pick a reasonable default, let the users customize thier environments, choose thier WM, and allow them their choice of apps (as long as the file formats are transparently compatible) and let the Linux programmers program as they see fit.

Re:Good idea

[BigBlockMopar]

I Don't think its a 'dilemma' because the open source / free software developers will never standardize the GUI interfaces - precisely because people have come to like particulars of their given environment, or want the flexibility to change.

In a sense, precisely the flexibility and diversity of console applications and daemons which makes *nix ideally suited to server duty, is exactly what makes its mass-adoption on the desktop difficult.

On one hand, it's great that there might be 50 different ways to implement cut-and-paste functionality, but the end user doesn't care as long as he can cut something from one application (say, OpenOffice) and paste it into another (say, Gnumeric). On my Linux workstation, that's tough.

Never mind the lack of OLE support. Stuff that Windows users take for granted - Windows Media Player embedding in a PowerPoint presentation - has been around since Office 95, and yet I've never been able to get xine or mplayer to launch from an Impress presentation.

These are the hurdles which will need actual in-stone standards to overcome, and some of them will probably require work right down to the very architecture of the window manager in order to implement.

And we have to overcome them, in order to make Linux a viable alternative operating system for any casual user who does more than read e-mail.

I have a rant on the subject. It's a bit dated now, but trying to work as a "regular" user in Linux - without writing shell scripts or firing up gcc - I can't get done what I need to get done. We don't need more eye candy or stuff like that. We need decent apps that don't feel like the works in progress they admittedly are and don't silently close if you run out of disk space. We need volunteer UI designers to walk into offices and seniors homes to find out how we can make a more user-friendly and consistent UI without alienating the power user.

And we need to support at least every UI feature of Windows 2000 and its central apps. Let's think about it - in a field which moves as fast as IT, I'm suggesting we should use the OLE capabilities and consistency of a three-year-old product as a role model. Why? Because there are still things which Windows 95 users can do in three mouseclicks that would require firing up gcc.

Like it or not, every end user is going to compare KDE/Gnome/whatever to their experience with Windows. They don't care that the Linux kernel never crashes if the KDE crash handler is popping up every 5 minutes or if applications lack features they require.

Think of the end user with every single line of code that you write. Take a picture of a technically inept parent or aunt and stick it on the side of your monitor to remind yourself.

Re:Good idea

[Minna Kirai]

I wish this was true. However, which desktop you run directly limits which applications you can run.

How?? I've never seen a problem running Qt on Gnome, or Gtk on KDE, or any other combination.

I've got a Redhat 9 box right now. You can run KDE or Gnome, accessing the same applications in each, and it can be very challenging for an average user to even tell which particular desktop environment he happens to be running.

Re:Good idea

[nutshell42]

They're mostly copied from Apple that's all =)

I don't like that fanboyish "all worship the mighty Apple HIGs" because Apple breaks and changes them just as they like (*cough* brushed metal style *cough* which is rather cool but from a usability point much worse than the standard style).

end rant.

Re:Good idea

[qtp]

If I had to choose, I would vote for KDE.

And I would vote for GNOME.

And I would vote for neither, but I would still be capable of the same work and the same output as either of you.

The Integrated Desktop Environment is a red herring as far as Linux adoption is concerned (at least in the way that KDE and Gnome are pursuing it), even if it is a popular criticism from the peanut gallery of reviewers. What is needed is a good UC&P (universal cut and paste) for xwindows and at least two windowmanagers that make it easy for users to migrate from other platforms (one for Win, the other for Mac).

Re:Good idea

[Darth Hubris]

The whole point is the interface is not for YOU, and not for "the Community at large". It's for an average user who's been using MS software all their lives. I think a spruced up IceWM would be just right, but that's my opinion. It's small, fast, fairly uncomplicated, and looks like the interface they are used to.

Re:Good idea

[Zooka]

Good call and excellent points.

The ignorant masses don't need a dumbed-down interface, they need a uniform and familiar package. Standards do not inherently limit power or features. They ensure a commonality that is necessary to be successful on a large scale.

IMO there seems to be an unfortunately large portion of the Linux "community" that would rather see Linux remain as the hip alternative to the mainstream, than actually dominate over Microsoft.

Re:Good idea

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

Can you explain to me how having icons for common task located in a standard spot has to do with a programmer's "freedom"?

"Absolute freedom in the software is what's important." ... is absolute freedome in industrial design also important? You want to find that 30% of the cars made have the ignition on the left of the steering wheel, 30% on the right and the others have the ignition switch wherever the hell the assembly team felt like putting them on that day?

Re:Good idea

[tumbaumba]

after all shouldn't we just standardise on one fast foot resturaunt, then

Often when I go to a restaurant I want to see a single line in a menu, which says that they serve 'food' and the price. Even reading menus involves brain activity and we (simple people) don't like it. Many people would consider standardization of fast foot restaurants to be a Good Thing.

Re:Good idea

[Darth Hubris]

"I don't care if the unwashed masses ..."

This is your opinion of them, and a lot of others I've seen on this overgrown Usenet alt.chatroom. This is why they hate us. This is why Microsoft will win.

Re:Good idea

[hitmark]

hmm, haystack (search /. as its been up here a inet agae ago)...

basicly its a mit project for a task based interface. i find it quite interesting...

Re:Good idea

[hitmark]

nailed it:)

and for that you have freedesktop.org (i think that was the place)...

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

i've worked tech support, and i have asked joe user daily what operating system they use.

my personal favorate answers where:

excel 98
windows 98 (ends up it was MacOS8)
office 97
'i don't know'
'whats an operating system'
mac 2000

granted only 10% of the callers answered like this.

Re:Good idea

[AntiOrganic]

That's one thing that did confuse me for certain -- the brushed metal look was supposed to only be used for applications which emulate the functionality of physical devices, i.e. Quicktime. Now we see Finder and Safari with it? What the hell is that? It's ugly on big windows, stop.

Re:Good idea

[bluepinstripe]

The promotion of choice of GUI as a positive feature of using Linux is detrimental to its chances of attacking Microsoft's home user monopoly. From the article: '...the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.'

I have always been confused by this argument: Why are we attacking Microsoft? Don't get me wrong, I am no M$ lover -- not by a long shot -- and I understand why companies that profit off of open source want to attack Microsoft individually or collectively. But open source is much, much bigger than just these companies. M$ is a choice. It may not be a choice I understand or would make, but it is a choice. If open source sacrifices "choice", as the article says, to attack Microsoft, then we are left with a different solution, but a solution that may offer no more choice than M$. (Obviously, I am ignoring the fact that you get the source with open source for right now.)

I don't see why such a large portion of open source has to standardize on something -- in particular the issue at hand -- to appeal to the average user. Assuming the average user should even be using Linux. M$ offer many products, some of which are intended for the average user. Would it not be appropriate -- is it not the job -- for open source companies to package products that, when appropriate, offer no choice for the average user rather than punishing the entire open source community in search of "attacking Microsoft" and acquiring the average user?

I know the author says open source companies, but what open source companies do has an effect on open source community members and vice-versa. It seems to me that some people want to see the open source community function like a corporation which I think is counter to the whole idea of the community.

Re:Good idea

[bigredmed]

I am a new Linux user and have been happily surprised with the version of KDE that comes with Knoppix. I would suggest that KDE and Gnome could be shipped in Live CD distributions so that new people could play with each before buying the Linux version to hard install. I don't think that the choice of KDE versus Gnome or some other desktop would stop me from changing to Linux. The price difference between the commercial versions of Linux and WinXP Pro is just too great to ignore. As long as there is some way to check both out and pick the desktop GUI that a user likes best, it should be no big deal.

Re:Good idea

[Darth Hubris]

"The ignorant masses don't need a dumbed-down interface, they need a uniform and familiar package"

This is good; exactly. However, we have to be careful not to hang the sign on the Linux clubhouse that says "Girls and the ignorant masses stay out". They won't take kindly to being insulted.

Re:Good idea

[Zro Point Two]

My post may be redundant, and I fully support your view of freedom of choice, but (there's always a but) I think that if linux can get more of a desktop market, then more people will be exposed to it (and I'm mainly talking about the kids here). Expose them more as they are learning computers and they'll realize the value of linux over windows. Then, they'll start looking into how to customize their linux install to how they want it. Look at how many applications are coming out that are skinnable...because everyone wants things to be their own way, have thier own style.

So, if that means creating a standard base from which to start, I say go for it. There's nothing stopping other people from writing other desktops/apps/whatever, but that base would be there for creating the usability that most people desire.

If you look at Apple, then you can easily see that a lot of people who use Apples as their first computer become Apple lovers. They can't stand windows, but quite a few of the ones that I know (more so since OSX) can at least sit down and work with my linux install. They like the way Gnome works 100 times better than how windows works...sure they complain that it's not OSX, but they will grin and bear it.

So, IMHO, dumbing down and creating a base for linux will help the initial exposure, and as those people use it more and more, they'll become more comfortable with it, and more accustomed to it that it will become thier OS of choice...Maybe the base GUI will not be their chosen GUI, but the core OS will be linux.

Flying in a bit of another direction, of those who are exposed to linux more as they are learning computers, some of them will become developers, and instead of writing some small collection of programs to catalogue their MP3's, they'll start work on a new GUI to take advantage of things they feel are missing, and leave out some of the things that are not used. It could end up being that there is a base for those who just want to log on and surf, and then a wide open variety of specialized programs that have no added features except the specific ones that you are looking for. Example: Take any new spreadsheet application and stip away all the things that 75% of the people don't use. What you are left with would probably resemble Lotus 123 (except in a GUI form). It would be lean and fast, and I would love it.

So, in summary, keep choice (there will always be choice) but make a standard base that someone can turn on, log into and do some surfing and email. Trim the distro's down, but get more people to work together on one application instead of six for that base install. And get more people exposed to it as an initial computer experience. I think all of this will help choice, and desktop penetration.

But that's just my $0.014 CDN worth

Re:Good idea

[dotwaffle]

Put simply, Mac users are going to naturally prefer Gnome due to its styling, and Windows users are going to prefer KDE due to it's Redmond styling. New users are going to be at a loose end, but in this day and age, that doesn't really matter, especially when I outline my point - it doesn't matter if we have 5 different desktop environments/window managers. Why not have an interface that shows a "preview" of the WM's, just a screenshot, and a few bulletpoints outlining the pro's and con's of each interface. You can do it in KDE with the styles, why not with WM's themselves? Then when you first login, not only due you input information about name, location etc, but you quickly browse through which WM you want, and are reminded that you can change at any point by double clicking something like "Change WM" on the desktop. Does that sound ridiculous or sensible? I go for the latter.

Re:Good idea

[NaugaHunter]

The argument that Linux needs some kind of standardization on this front flies in the face of the history of the software business and has no real grounding in reason.

Not really. Early versions of Microsoft Word ported to the Mac were essentially direct ports, depending on control and Function keys rather than Menus and Command key standards (-S save, -F find, -V paste, etc.). They sold very poorly and allowed the competition to get quite a bit ahead. (I know that's flimsy on details, but I can't remember where I read it and I don't have good terms for a google search. I'm willing to admit it may have been WordPerfect or something else entirely, but there was a major application that was ported without following Apple's GUI guidelines and was flatly rejected.)

In other words, if there is no standard then in order to compete with existing products you must either copy how they function or hope that your marketing can convince people that it is so great that the learning curve to relearn simple things like cut, paste, save, etc. is worth the end result. If someone came along with a clock that was never wrong but could only run counter-clockwise, it would probably not do very well. I can't remember which car maker, but someone was designed an new electric car that uses sticks instead of steering wheel or pedals - it may be very good, but too different to sell.

As for your other examples, they prove my point. Every Word upgrade that move things is met with resistance - the only way they 'succeed' is that the file layouts change, so if you work with others who have upgraded you must also. Adobe is a specialist provider for graphics areas - if you needed it, you learned it. It took longer than would have been necessary if they'd followed a Windows standard, though I daresay it is likely that they early interfaces matched their Mac versions where the print/graphics industry started. They may have been aiming at professionals moving from the one platform to the other, so it would have been more beneficial to emulate their other product than to conform to the Windows standards, which probably weren't that well defined at the time anyway.

In my search I found an interesting discussion here, which mentions the problem includes an example with simple OK/Cancel dialogue boxes - the tendency to get creative and use symbols, which only serve to confuse people if you rearrange things as well.

But in my experience, users will choose a window manager that suits them and then stay with that.

Really? Do you mean with Linux users? In my experience, users who aren't computer professionals will learn as much of whatever system is put in front of them as they need to do their job, and nothing more. The same with any tool - how many people have phones in their office capable of all kinds of neat things, but never actually set them up? How many people fully use anything? Watches, PDAs, cell phones - all have features most people ignore. Hell, how many people who aren't in technology-based industries bother cross-programming their TV/VCR remotes? Most remotes are capable of managing either in a matter of minutes with their included charts. But most people would rather just have multiple remotes around than even consider doing it.

Re:Good idea

[Arandir]

Let's not stop there! Besides mandating only one single GUI toolkit, let's mandate one single programming lanaguage! Make everyone use Ruby (my choice, since it's my turn to be dictator today). Ban Java. Forbid C. Persecute users of C++. Arrest Lisp and Haskell programmers. Tar and feather Perl and Python perverts.

The multitude of incompatible programming languages is holding Linux back from its rightful place as the New Monopoly Operating System!

Re:Good idea

[Arandir]

I know for a fact the GNOME developers are very proud of their work and are convinced that GNOME is the desktop of the future, but I'm sure the KDE developers feel the same way.

So you're saying that this whole problem of coercing the poor newbie into making a dreadful choice is because of ego! I say send the GUI Police in to bust some skulls...

Re:Good idea

[blibbleblobble]

a) we do have a standard GUI, dammit.

b) Non-technical users don't have to make the choice of window manager. KDE is selected by default, and they'd have to look hard to even realise they could change it.

c) Non-technical users shouldn't have to install an operating system anyway, it's just as crappily annoying and difficult whether it's Windows or Suse. That's why home computers come pre-installed with your choice of OS, and corporate computers have it installed by the tech support department. Need to change it? Find somebody who's done it before to sit with you.

Re:Good idea

[line72]

Does MS Office 2000 look the same as Visual Studio.NET or the same as Windows Media Player?

Re:Good idea

[jtev]

No, once they are baptised by the water of open source and choice they will open their eyes. They don't hate us, they are ignorant and need to be educated that we even exist. They need to see the light of freedom, and choice, and power. We offer them salvation, a spirutal and etical cleansing, power to take back their computers, to understand their world, and they do not know, they do not choose to wallow in the muck, they do not know another way.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

To fucking bad X is only a network transparent graphics system.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

May I point out that cars are standardised to a high degree the stearing weel is not in the middle, the break is to the left of the gas, the gages are layed out in a fairly standard way, there is a rearview mirror in roughly the same relitive place on both the Geo and the Sab. as for fast food there is a curious homogony there as well that can't be denied.

Re:Good idea

[buysse]

No, that's not the point. The interface I use *is* for ME. If a given distribution decided to "standardize" on a single environment, good for them. I may or may not choose to use it. In fact, RH seems to be going that way. That's fine. I still have choice -- I can use Debian. Or, I can use a KDE application inside Gnome. Would it be the default app, since it won't "match"? No. But I would still have the choice for myself.

You will pry the xterm and bash from my cold, dead fingers. And WindowMaker had better still be around too.

Re:Good idea

[Goldberg's Pants]

This is a stupid article. The whole point is CHOICE! You try them and see what you like. Of course the average consumer isn't used to being given a choice.

Re:Good idea

[babbage]

Damned straight, we don't need to bow to the pressure to use a sandardised anything, we need to improve our marketing and SELL CHOICE.

In other words, "Don't bother FIXING IT you damned slobs, SELL IT!"

Choice is nice and all, but as Perl well demonstrates, just because there's more than one way to do it doesn't mean that 90% of those ways aren't wrong. "Choice" and "correctness" have very little to do with each other, as anyone even moderately well read in UI research could tell you.

The really great thing about OSX's Aqua interface is that it restricts choice. At first this can feel constricting, but once you give in & go with the flow, you realize that the defaults are actually pretty efficient, and more importantly you're not wasting your time fiddling around with all the settings: we've all got more important things to do than hand-craft the bestest wickedest GUI theme evahhh!??!?!

Sadly, many Linux (esp Enlightenment) users don't seem to agree with that. That's their choice... :-)

Re:Good idea

[Namaseit]

WTF do they win? Wow they win holding customers hostage to their software and forcing them to upgrade at will. GNU/Linux still wins for opening the world of computing to millions of people. Without restricting freedom. To me, that is the prize.

Re:Good idea

[Wavicle]

This is the flawed thinking of the open source movement, that somehow things like "market share" are measures of success.

[...]

As long as we have that, any GNU/Linux vendor in the world is free to cooperate with other vendors and standardize or not standardize as they see fit. A properly functioning economy (both in terms of money and ideas) requires lots of small companies (suppliers) all competing for the dollars/yen/euros/attention of the consumer.

Competing for dollars/yen/euros is the same thing as competing for market share. That's how "market share" is a measure of success. How many companies spent millions of dollars on Linux development because it had server market share? How much better is Linux today because of that? Market share is a very real measure of success.

Absolute freedom in the software is what's important.

That may be what is important to you... To the average person what is important is: ease of use, compatibility with existing software, ease of obtaining new software, and cost of ownership. If we want to remove Linux's barriers to the desktop, those are issues we need to wrestle with.

Personally I feel like users expect too little from their systems, and too little from themselves as well.

This is the sort of reasoning among Linux users that creates a barrier to acceptance of Linux on the desktop. Should automobile designers assume that users should select their own gear ratios and rebuild their transmission themselves? Users don't care about how their system works, they just care that it works. It's nice that you are comfortable being a mechanic, not everyone has the least interest in being one.

Computers are complicated machines that require a certain level of know-how.

No, that is fundamentally wrong, and apple has shown this in spades. "You need a certain level of know-how" is a poor excuse for a system that isn't designed with the average person in mind. If a person has little trouble learning to use windows, but does have trouble with linux, the problem is with the software, stop blaming the user.

Re:Good idea

[bob65]

I think he meant "higher level" as an analogy to abstraction in software.

Re:Good idea

[RancidBeef]

Well RedHat decided what they thought was best by morphing KDE and Gnome into each other. This is exactly why I stopped using RedHat.

I think choice is great. With Windows you have no choice. (Well, you can set some preferences -- and I change almost all of them from the default).

Re:Good idea

[Grishnakh]

Yep, I know I sure can't tell the difference between a McDonald's Big Mac, a Taco Bell burrito, or a Pizza Hut pizza. They all seem exactly the same to me...

Re:Good idea

[bob65]

Oops. That should read he/she.

Re:Good idea

[fault0]

.. and pretty much all apps I use are Qt based..

Konqueror, kopete, juk, kmail/knode/korganizer, k3b come to mind.

The only gtk app that I used to use since switching from gnome 1.x to kde is xmms, but I recently switched to juk.

I also use a fair deal of non-Qt and non-Gtk apps, like irssi, OOo, etc..

Re:Good idea

[ichimunki]

The freedom in free software is not there for the programmers. It's there for the users.

Personally I don't disagree that having cooperation and a common base is a good thing. But so what? The most important thing about GNU/Linux is the freedom. If I didn't care about that why would I even bother with GNU/Linux.

So here's your chance. Sell me on GNU/Linux. Pretend I'm a normal user and I've been thinking about buying a Mac. Why is that a bad idea? Why is GNU/Linux a better option for me? I don't mind spending a little more money on Apple stuff because I know it's extremely well-designed and "just works" for pretty much everything I'll want to do. Tell me why I should try this OS you can't buy preinstalled in any major computer store (except for those Lindows machines at Wal-Mart).

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE has Human Interface Guidelines already, and they're really completely nondescript and aren't very cohesive at all. Gnome 2's are really much better and even match Apple's fairly well, in my opinion.

I suppose you haven't seen the Gnome open file dialog.

Re:Good idea

[meme_police]

That's why the food analogy is pathetic. At a basic level everyone knows how to eat. Just throw a burrito or burger down the pie hole. A car or a computer should have recognizable basic controls so Joe Blow can ask his favorite uncle how to do something. If all cars were different you would have to look for a specialist in your car to learn how to drive. Waste of time.

Re:Good idea

[Enrico Pulatzo]

I think the brushed metal idea is morphing to be user-centric apps vs. document centric apps. I say this from the Stevenote about Panther being more user oriented with the finder, and it's the only possible explanation for what they're doing other than "we think brushed metal looks cool".

A bigger UI sin from apple is not consistently using it's own widgets--there are how many search boxes now and how many burn buttons?

Re:Good idea

[tsa]

Maybe someone has said this already (I certainly have, long ago): not the _desktop_ must be standardized but the _configuration files_ and the way they are read by the window managers. In that way everybody can be happy in theory (and in practice I hope).

Re:Good idea

[ichimunki]

1) If people don't value their own freedom, then that's their problem. I value mine. I know I learned to value freedom in software because of problems I had with non-free software (especially Mac OS 8.*).

2) I never said the level of "know-how" required was up to where users should be able to compile a kernel or whatever. In fact, I specifically pointed out that Red Hat has already done the hard work in the UI arena to achieve a "standard" desktop and set of applications. If someone is competent in either Mac or Windows, I would expect relatively little pain for them in switching to that.

My point was that this discussion is useless and that instead we should be thinking of ways to get preinstalled systems into the hands of users. I don't think potential GNU/Linux users are turned off by the range of choice available. I think they're turned off by the utter lack of any retail options for purchasing a system that is already up and running when they take it home. Please reread my point about Apple who arguably make much better systems than the Wintel crowd crank out and what it means to be shut out of the mainstream retail environment. What regular user wants to go buy a new computer, paying a premium to have XP installed and all that, only to take it home and install some freebie OS off the internet on it instead of all the good stuff that came with the machine?

Re:Good idea

[Skeezix]

well, ego is a big part of it, but not the whole story. The point is the GNOME developers are very proud of their work as well they should be. Likewise, the KDE developers feel the same way. There's a lot of blood, sweat, and tears that have gone into both projects. How could anyone realistically expect one of the projects to be abandoned?

Re:Good idea

[DrXym]

Please read through again and point out where I said a single GUI toolkit.

For your benefit, I will clarify by saying KDE & GNOME should standardize around a theme engine binary interface. In other words, a dynamic lib with certain call points that render the graphical buttons, scroll bars etc. If they want to implement their own theme engines above that level then fine but a compatible API means a they can be made to share the same engine. And not only QT/GTK apps, but Java, Mozilla, and just about any other toolkit and all benefit from a consistent, unified appearance.

Re:Good idea

[DunbarTheInept]

The human interface is far more important that the implementation behind it, and this is universal across all technology. Think of cars. If the steering wheel, radio, pedals, etc. are all in accessible places, how many people really care how they work the car?

False. The implementation is more important, because if that messes up, the car doesn't go at all, and all those nice comfortable interface widgets don't amount to a hill of beans.

When designing a technology, it *always* comes in two stages:
stage 1 - make it possibile in the first place.
stage 2 - make it easy for the common man.
Stage 2 cannot come before stage 1. When you try, you end up with crap.

Re:Good idea

[DunbarTheInept]

An inconsistant GUI forces the user to think "To close this window, I need to find the X. It was on the right last time, but that's a Circle. Oh, there it is on the left. Click."

True, but consistency is not the same as familiarity. Pick a window manager, set it the way you want, and it consistently stays that way.

Have you ever seen a light switch on a wall that went left-right and not up-down?

Have you seen the ones where it's inconsistent as to whether up is on or up is off? That happens because there are two switches in the circuit, to allow you to access the same light from two different switches, and the switches are wired so that you can always toggle the light from one of the two switches. I think this example illustrates quite well how people are willing to tolerate a somewhat more complex interface if doing so gives them better functionality.

Re:Good idea

[jtev]

I had a rant about this elsewhere but you are truyly deserving of the flamage. CARS ARE NOT STANDARDIZED BEYOND BASIC FUNCIONALITY THAT IS TIME CRITICAL. You've said all the things that are standard, and not even the gages are that standard, some cars have Tacheometers, some don't, some have oil pressure gauges, some just have idiot lights, The idiot lights are aranged differently, the cup holders are in different places the switch for the headlight varries hugely.

Re:Good idea

[elrond1111]

You must consider that Mandrake has managed to partailly unify the desktop without completly destroying the work of the developers. When I began to look for a distro to use I tried RH9 and found it to be a poor hack of others' work. Just because Mandrake has more than one tool to do the job does not mean that it is a poorly constructed distro. I am given the choice of which program I want to use for the job. I do not have to worry about stupid things like Galeon comming up to open webpages by default even when I am in KDE. You must not really understand what the normal linux user wants if you assume that 'polish' as you call it is more important than choice. Its easy to insult the work of somebody else. Why don't you try to just say what you would like instead of ripping on what others have decided upon.

Re:Good idea

[runderwo]

GTK at least, is not tied to X at all. GDK, the underlying drawing and windowing system, is designed to be portable and has already been ported to Win32, to console, to DirectFB, etc.

Re:Good idea

[hackstraw]

If you ask Joe User "what is windows?" he will start talking about the task bar, the Start Menu and a lot of images that user has fixed in his mind. If you try to push linux on them, you must have a familiar look that they can be used to, even when they sit in a different computer. I'm not talking about us geeks but the everyday users that ultimately stack up to give Windows the 95% (or so) in the Desktop market.

So after you have "pushed" linux on this poor soul, and his "desktop" now looks just like windows, and you ask him "what OS are you using?" what is he going to say?

Anyway, I'm tired of this whole linux on the "Desktop" thing. What the hell does that mean? On top of my desk I have a laptop computer running linux. Outside I have my gas guzzling SUV. My car does not have reigns, nor is it a ripoff of another car.

Huh? you ask. What did he say about reigns?

Cars used to be called "horseless carriges", and yes people thought this metaphor thing was such a good way to introduce that some early cars actually had reigns to steer them so that ppl could pick up the new technology quickly.

Driving a car by reigns was and still is a poor way to drive a car. But a hundred years later we are are still trying to use silly metaphors that have nothing to do with the task at hand.

For example, why do scroll bars stop at the top and bottom? Because its more like a page metaphor I guess. I believe that all scrollbars should cycle through, this would work especially well with those wheel mice that people use (I would even get one then). That would sure make a long treaded discussin in slasdot more readable. The other common metaphor breaking things still apply as well. Like enabling comments in a word processor file or other things that will break the WYSIWYG page metaphor.

Another larger example. Look at palmtop (love that metaphor) computing. What OS is dominant here? PalmOS. Does it look like windows? No. Is their a windows like palmtop OS? Yes, Windows CE. Why don't people use it? Because its a "Desktop" os lightened up to work on a small display and input device, not an OS for a small display and input device.

Look at what Linux is good at. Being a server and developemnt platform. What metaphors are used there? Not sure.

Why can't the GUI ppl (I'm not a gui person myself, I'm fine with Linux now) look at the tasks at hand that need to be performed on a "desktop" machine and fix them.

I'll start a list.

1) centralized cut and paste
2) drag and drop (direct manupulation, gotta love it)
3) a file browser
4) a mime type/extension hook to do common tasks on common file formats. For example, a context menu (love them, direct manupulation, no metaphor points either) that has common things that are done with files like edit, view, etc and possibly a list of common programs to do these tasks with your most commonly used one on the top of the list
5) hardware configuration

etc

I hate these "desktop" discussions where ppl just want to copy windows. If I liked windows that much, I would use them (is it plural?).

I think the talent and desire is there, but noone has any good direction towards making a good GUI.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it this way, in everything but computers consumers love choice they like to choose their cars, their airlines, their greasy burgers

Yes we all want cars that have stering wheels with proper orientation and engines that move them forward, gears are pretty neccessary and reverse might be nice. And when it comes to airlines I expect them all to fly from the city I start in to the city on the ticket. As for greasy burgers we've pretty much standardised that they will be made with meat and bread, the store will contain french fries and a dark caffinated soda, a clear soda most likely citrus and a root beer. As well as other standard commidities.

Choice is the single most important aspect of OSS and nobody is suggesting we throw that away, but is it too much to ask that we agree that some things are good and some are bad and some features are neccessary for universal usability? No one is saying lets make a closed source desktop that you can't touch anymore cause your too stupid. What is being said is that we need to build a desktop that works, really works out of the box that I can run any app on that is reasonably well written and expect it to work without worrying that I'm not using the right Desktop environment.

What we end up with the is what appears to the muggles as 2 or 3 or more different operating systems, none of which work quite right. Seriously, as far as I know DOS or its decendent still runs under XP but nobody in the end user universe cares about that. What matters is that they can copy from one program and paste to the next.

Choice is a beautiful thing. But choice doesn't get you anywher until you make a decision. I say its past time to quit harping about choice and decide to make a GUI that at least does the basics reliably.

Re:Good idea

[chef_raekwon]

The whole point of the issue is that we do not want a "standard" rammed down our throats.

i agree. who actually gives a damn if LInux takes Windows on the Desktop? I for one could really give a hoot, cause I use Linux everyday, and besides the odd quirk here and there, I am able to do exactly what I want with it.

it may sound a bit "selfish", but I don't give a damn about converting the world. It makes me (and obviously all of you) very happy that it is open, relatively easy to use, and just plain geeky.

for what it is worth, just my 2 cents.

Re:Good idea

[NaugaHunter]

If you don't do 'Stage 2', or don't do it well, you end up with technology that sits on a shelf. Mr. Garrison's invention may get 4,000 mpg but I'd rather walk then have to drive with something shoved up my ass.

Passing your 'Stage 1' only means it works. If it works, and I'm not in charge of fixing it, it really doesn't matter how, or even how long it took to make. Especially if I can't use it. If it doesn't work, then you don't really have anything to discuss, do you?

The Pet Rock was just a Rock - it was the box that sold it.

Re:Good idea

[jtev]

Yes, and OSS has several good choices, in KDE and Gnome, they work the way you expect, several of the other window managers work rather well as well, no matter which choice the user choses they can get their work done. Your rant is an utter non-issue, EACH DESKTOP WORKS, and they work with eachother, so you can buy your frosty at wendy's buy your burger at burger king, buy fries at McDonalds, and buy a limeade at sonic (which by the way doing literaly takes a lot of time in drivethroughs)

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to convert the world. I just want to convert enough of the world that Linux is ALWAYS taken into consideration by hardware manufacturers, standards groups and major closed-source software development companies. Essentially, this all boils down to greed for me too, because it means I will be able to use a wide range of hardware and software.

I'm not the least bit interested in making other people switch OSes if they are satisfied with what they have. That would really be elitist, to be honest. But you have to admit that as more people use Linux, the easier things get for *YOU*.

Frankly I'll be happy once Linux passes Mac on the desktop. That way companies that have already justified Mac ports would be hard-pressed not to justify a Linux port.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

However, we have to be careful not to hang the sign on the Linux clubhouse that says "Girls and the ignorant masses stay out". They won't take kindly to being insulted.

Girls are for blowjobs. Ignorant masses are for paying my bills.

Re:Good idea

[NaugaHunter]

It's not complex. If the light isn't how you want it, you flip the switch the other way from where it is. The point I was going for is that when you reach for a wall switch in a new room you expect it within a certain height range, up/down, and generally within a certain distance of a doorway. You can reach for it without looking, find it, and flip it to the opposite of what it is without thinking too much unless you can't find it. When you walk into a dark room you turn on a light with barely a thought, unless you don't find a switch or the light doesn't come on. If it is a normal switch positioned sideways and you didn't expect it, or even if it's low, high, or oddly shaped, you don't have muscle/brain pathways rememberence for it and you'd have to think about it.

but consistency is not the same as familiarity

But consistancy leads to familiarity. It's hard to get familiar with something that acts differently every time you use it.

Re:Good idea

[Arandir]

If you knew anything at all about programming GUI applications, you would know that what you're suggesting is impossible. The only way to do it WOULD be to mandate just one toolkit.

Re:Good idea

[Arandir]

How could anyone realistically expect one of the projects to be abandoned?

Reading the article in question, and many of the posts herein, I would say a lot of people certainly expect it. They may not be realistic, but they still fervently argue for it.

Re:Good idea

[DunbarTheInept]

If you don't do 'Stage 2', or don't do it well, you end up with technology that sits on a shelf.

Incorrect. There are a plethora of technologies that don't have a user interface designed for ease of use by the masses, yet don't "sit on a shelf". Do most people know how to fly a plane, or even harder, navigate one using the radio instruments. Do most people know how to run a nuclear reactor? Once upon a time, the automobile was the same way. It took specialized training to learn to drive one (today it's easy and the 'training' is about the traffic laws more than the control of the car). Once upon a time the PC was the same way. People had no clue how to use one without a good background in math, and a lot of time with the owner's manual. Some technologies get past stage 1 and into stage 2, like the automobile and the computer. Some do not, like the airplane and the nuclear reactor. That doesn't mean they "sit on a shelf".

Re:Good idea

[DrXym]

If you knew what the fuck you were talking about, you would know that not only is it possible but Windows XP and OS X *already* do it.

Both have a theme engine, both are used by multiple GUI toolkits implemented in multiple languages. Mozilla & Java are examples of apps that use the native theme engine to render widgets in the native style, but doubtless wxWindows and QT could and possibly use them too.

Re:Good idea

[cayenne8]

"Commercial Linux packaging companies might decide to create a 'standard' GUI - but that will not slow down current and future interfaces from continuing to be developed."

Isn't this what Redhat has been trying to do over the past couple releases? They seemed to have gotten raked over the coals for trying to do so too if I recall correctly...

Re:Good idea

[arose]

"Tar and feather"

They should have named gzip feather.

Re:Good idea

[Josh Booth]

So... perhaps the answer is to rework X.

Yeah, it's called PicoGUI. The problem with X (or the flexability with X, depending on how you look at it) is that you can do anything you want. It is the canvas -- what you put there is up to you. Of course, that means absolutely no consistancy. But, if someone does try to standardize the common functionality, it may not be taken too well and may just wind up joining the bazillions of other projects that have tried to do the same thing.

Re:Good idea

[Feztaa]

I think this example illustrates quite well how people are willing to tolerate a somewhat more complex interface if doing so gives them better functionality.

Actually, those stupid things bother me to no end.

If you're going to put two (or more) switches onto one circuit, make sure the switches you're using look the same no matter what state they're in!

What I mean is, use the "button" switches that look the same whether they're "on" or "off", not the "up-down" switches that have two distinct states. That way, you know that all you have to do is hit the button, and the light will be toggled, and you don't have to think "it's up, I want it down" or "it's down, I want it up".

Re:Good idea

[instantnoodles]

Why is the success of Linux measured by market share? Shouldn't freedom and usability be more important?

Linux is a powerful force in servers. Developers like RedHat are needed to take Linux to the desktop. And they can get the standard GUI...

Re:Good idea

[jtev]

By recomending that we fix it you're implying that the current system is broken, I am simply stating that it's NOT BROKEN. Restricting things to much is very broken, not allowing users the flexability to work on the manner that best fits them is broken. Not allowing users to expand past the initial layout is broken. OS X is a very pretty OS, but when I used it I prefered using X apps through X Darwin. I'm not talking about hand crafting a GUI, I'm talking about being able to use a GUI that works with your way of thinking, not all humans think alike, so why try to cram all of them into the same box?

Re:Good idea

[Zooka]

...However, we have to be careful not to hang the sign on the Linux clubhouse that says "Girls and the ignorant masses stay out". They won't take kindly to being insulted.

Point taken. Though I didn't mean to use "ignorant" in an insultive tone. I should have picked a better adjective such as "uninformed", or worded it differently.

Re:Good idea

[DaAdder]

Comparing users and developers now are we? I think you've been on /. for way too long.

I think the real issue is presenting the average user with a consistent UI experience.

Most people do not *want* to choose, they just want things to work. Developers however need to be very picky and choose the right tool for the job.

Huge difference.

Heck I know what I'm doing and *I* don't want to make a choice. I want my computer to work. If I then decide to change some later on I willl. The more choices and options out there the better. But initially this is not the case.

Re:Good idea

[DunbarTheInept]

It's hard to get familiar with something that acts differently every time you use it.

I'm sorry. I was under the false impression you were referring to the UI's in Linux, which by the way, ARE consistent, just not consistent with OTHER systems. Apparently you have something entirely different in mind.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if they could get together on a convention for "how things work" (TM). Then if this could be abstracted, one could concievably toggle an option and intiate a download for the support of such conventions.

So if someone wanted a particular mouse-gesture system (let's say) they could be running either KDE, Gnome, or maybe eventually windows, flip a switch on some dialog which they would find in a similar place with similar information, and get a package install it, and it would behave almost identially whatever the enviroment.

Re:Good idea

[DrXym]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that polish and choice are mutually exclusive.

Red Hat doesn't restrict choice. If you want to use KNotes, or Gedit, or Emacs, or XEmacs, or JOE, or Vim to pick editors as an example, then they're all there as RPMs. What it does do however is pick one or at most two of the best programs of any type to install by default. The rest are still available on the CD.

This makes the desktop cleaner and free of clutter. If you specifically want some tool then pick it during installation, but the majority people will be satisfied by what gets installed by default. You might like two or three of everything installed even if you'll only ever use one of them, but I doubt many others would. Personally I couldn't care what floppy formatter the system wished to use as long as it worked, the same for goes for other system tools.

That might not be the case if Red Hat sucked, but it doesn't. In fact, it's probably the slickest and most professional Linux around. It has faults that I don't like such as wireless configuration, but the UI is still a world apart from Mandrake's. And it's lost nothing for it.

Re:Good idea

[babbage]

By recomending that we fix it you're implying that the current system is broken, I am simply stating that it's NOT BROKEN.

In other words, "I would not know anything about good human factors UI design if it bit me on the nose. And why are you gesturing at my nose like that? Cut it out!"

A properly restricted UI will not restrict what the user is capable of doing with the system. Quit the contrary: it will lock in best practices that encourage efficient habits in the user, while allowing enough flexibilty to approach a task in different ways if they choose.

I'm not saying that OSX is the perfect GUI -- far from it. Nor am I saying that there is one right way to define an interface -- there isn't.

But there is a proper balance to be struck between what an interface allows and what it restricts. An interface is not better just because you have absolute control over how widgets are displayed -- in fact, this is often an invitation to greatly de-optimize the quality of the interface, even while superficially "empowering" the user.

Don't argue with me though, I just dabble in this stuff. Pick up a good introductory user interface / human factors textbook, skim over the first few chapters, and then think carefully about what you're sticking up for here. While you're right that not all humans use things the same way, you also miss that there are some approaches that are simply wrong for almost everyone, and a good interface will protect the user from making such misconfigurations.

Put another way, if freeform, user selected UI is such a great thing, then how come we see it in no other industry? Granted, software is more configurable than.... well just about anything. But still, if there were a market for people that wanted, say, their car's steering wheel in the trunk -- because that would be more 'leet -- then the auto manufacturers would have found a way to oblige. No, they allow some mild degree of customization -- all the damn souped up Hondas with the obnoxious growling mufflers & stereo systems -- but they draw the line at changes that would actually impair the user's ability to operate the vehicle: the steering wheel is never in the trunk, no matter how "k3w1" that would be.

This is a good thing. As are computer UIs witih a similar sense of restraint.

Re:Good idea

[Slashdot Junky]

This is a great rant, because it is very true. Linux will never be more than a geek's OS unless it becomes less of one. This is perfectly fine if the community wants for the OS to never enter the Joe Home User install base.

Users are not going to adapt to Linux, because Windows does what they want in a familiar and easy way. Linux must adapt to them. It must become very consistent on so many levels, easy and familiar. This is reality.

IMHO, the community seems to be waiting for Joe Home User to adapt to what is different when do so is painful.

-Slashdot Junky
.

Re:Good idea

[ponxx]

> Think of the end user with every single line of code that you write. Take a picture of a
> technically inept parent or aunt and stick it on the side of your monitor to remind yourself.

Why would any open source developer want to do this? Unless someone thinks there is money to be made from developing open source software (ie someone wanting to sell linux computers at Wallmart) that is suitable for technically inept parents, I can't see many developers going to great lengths so that it becomes fool-proof.

Re:Good idea

[jtev]

Ok, I think we agree on some basic premesies but we disagree on others. Mostly the degree of customisation that is usefull for Computer User Interfaces, Honestly nearly any interface is usable, and some are better than others. While the esentials in a car are standardised, except for the placement of the gear shift, there are many features that are totaly differently placed, the main example I used in several other posts is the headlights, but the windsheild wipers are another example. Also the "H" of a manual gearshift can vary greatly from one make of car to another, for example german cars have one "H" American and Japaneese cars have a different one, Fords, Chevys and Dodges all have sligtly differnt widths on their "H", and dozens of other little things, these the driver doesn't even get a choice on other than take or leave all at once. I'll admit that my study of Human Interface is fairly shallow, as in non-existant, however I do know what works for me, and what works for people I know.

Re:Good idea

[nightsweat]

People don't want the flexibility to change their environment completely. People aren't even married to the particulars of their environment.

People want to write notes and papers, manage their finances, watch a movie or video, play a game online, and listen to some music.

Computer geeks want granular control, resizing sliders, left hand whump widgets, whatever. Unfortunately, the geeks are controlling this debate right now and ensuring that people will not get to use Linux in the numbers they should be.

Re:Good idea

[Arandir]

.NET applications under WindowsXP do not look like classic MFC applications under MFC. Many Java applications look like neither. I haven't used OSX, but I do keep hearing about this disparity between the Aquafresh and Brushed Aluminum styles.

I was talking about the toolkits, and you seem to talking about the applications. Mozilla uses the native Windows toolkit because it was programmed to. Java (if the programmer allows it) does the same thing.

You way would work, but it would still require mandating one single toolkit. Mozilla and newer Java uses GTK+ because they were designed to use GTK+. Opera uses Qt because it was designed to use Qt. In order to have one guaranteed consistant look you need to restrict the programmers to one toolkit.

wxWindows get's away with it because it is not a widget toolkit, but an API wrapper for various other toolkits. Should the desktop dictators ever decide that Qt is the mandatory toolkit, then wxWindows will have to be significantly modified to come into compliance.

Making GTK+ and Qt use the exact same API is impossible without rewriting one or the other completely from scratch. It cannot be done any other way. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "impossible". It certainly is possible. But it's completely pointless. When you look at themes like Bluecurve and Keramik/Geramik, you aren't looking at themes using the same API, you're looking at two themes attempting the same look through distinct APIs.

Re:Good idea

[jtev]

Assuming I watned to sell you on Linux over a Mac I'd do something like this:

I'll sell you a computer for 1/3 the price of the Mac that will do e-mail, have a word processor, and browse the internet fine if you don't mind trying out Linux. If you don't like it I'll buy the computer back from you, and help you pick out your Mac, On top of the fact that it's a fraction of the cost you also get greatly increased customisability and flexability.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I love KDE, but I think GNOME is going in a good direction in regards to cleaning up their desktop and making it consistent. I run Mandrake, and there are some serious problems with the KDE desktop that just need a bit of time and effort to clean up:

-Konqueror:
-Konqueror File Manager and Web browser share too many common things, e.g. the main toolbar and menu's. 'Home' means ~ in both file manager and web browser (!). The Tools menu has "Run Command", "Find File", etc in Web Browser mode - how are those things related to web browsing? Stating this problem more clearly: "Toolbars, Menu's, and Right Click Menu's in Konqueror should only have options that are useful for the view mode that konqueror is in. E.g. Web Browsing should only have things related to Web Browsing, File Management should only have things related to file management, and the "Configure Konqueror" Option should be "Configure File Manager" or "Configure Web Browser" depending on what mode you're in and should only display options relevant to that mode".

-Also the right-click menu has waaay too much stuff in it, and most of it is not needed, or is rarely needed. The right-click menu should have only the things you need quickly.
-File associations are totally b0rked. In Konqueror Web Browser, if I right-click on a page it has a service menu entry "Create Data CD with k3b"(!). Also, I have set up .t64 and .d64 file types to be associated with VICE, and now it thinks everything (most things) is a VICE application, even in apps like Kmail! It should treat unknown types as unknown types, not try to guess what they are.

- The KDE Control Centre and KDE Menu editor need to be gotten rid of and replaced with Konqueror. Right-click on K and choosing "Menu Editor" should bring up a Konqueror window with your menu icons represented as files and directories. The Menu should be able to be edited within the menu like in win98 and above (I never use the menu editor in windows).
- the Control centre should behave similarly, with a bunch of files representing launchers for the various control panels. Companies like Mandrake could stick their own icons in here to launch their own tools, thus the user sees only 1 control centre. With the current KDE Control centre, I believe that in order to exist in there, and application must be an embeddable KDE app, which is restrictive: the control centre should be able to launch anything.

Final Note: I really hope the major desktops and freedesktop.org come through with the goods in terms of standardization of things like menu entries, control centre launchers, mime type database, themes (not widget themes because they're toolkit specific, but colours and what not), font configuration (e.g. choosing tahoma size 8 in KDE should mean that GNOME apps use tahoma size 8 too, and vice-versa), etc...

We'll get there eventually, I'm sure of it.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a stupid article. The whole point is CHOICE! You try them and see what you like. Of course the average consumer isn't used to being given a choice.

You're right. Every couple weeks they gotta have their KDE vs GNOME flamewar articles, with no new content.

Congratulations, you got modded a troll for speaking the truth. I agree with you 100 percent.

Re:Good idea

[Foolhardy]

Still, you can have SOME standardization, as mentioned in the grandparent, but still leave room for uniqueness and customization.
Taking this back to KDE vs GNOME, they could become more standardized as window managers, ie supporting the same features, and become more of an interchangable set of applications.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

To fucking bad X is only a network transparent graphics system.

Whaddya mean, ONLY?

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, as far as I know DOS or its decendent still runs under XP

Er... no XP is Windows NT 5.1, and it is an entirely different codebase than DOS, Win9x or *NIX use.

Re:Good idea

[Goldberg's Pants]

To prior poster: GNOME, KDE, Enlightenment, Ice... It's all good.

To moderator: BRING IT ON!

Re:Good idea

[Dekortage]

...you get 4 different resturaunts that you can choose which food element is most important to you, and go to and get passable choises for the rest of the items consumers understand choice, and they aren't afraid of it. They simply need to be educated about the choices out there.

Unfortunately that cannot work. People do not really want choice (except perhaps in California elections...?). Maybe they have 4 restaurants to choose from but in reality they will go to the same one over and over. The average person is a creature of habit, and once in that comfort zone, they will not leave.

This is particularly true in software. You and I are perfectly comfortable exploring new programs, UIs, operating systems, etc. We'll even intentionally do things that would be considered risky. It's a form of research for us, research into efficiency and enjoyment of our time. This is by far a minority behavior: most people can not or will not change for this. To them, the computer is a machine (interface and OS and all else be damned) and machines do not change.

While we're at it, let's complain about the keyboard layout that computers come with. There are other choices besides the standard QWERTY (some of which may be much more efficient), so how many of us use them? Oh wait, maybe it's too hard to change...

Re:Good idea

[omynous]

An inconsistant GUI forces the user to think "To close this window, I need to find the X. It was on the right last time, but that's a Circle. Oh, there it is on the left. Click."

I was recently thrown on Windows XP for the first time. I was surprised at the idiosyncratic differences between it and previous versions of windows.

Linux isn't the only one to suffer from CHI issues, although consistency WITHIN a framework is still a critical issue on Linux.

Shannon Mann

Re:Good idea

[BrokenHalo]

who actually gives a damn if LInux takes Windows on the Desktop?

Linux has been on my own desktop machines for the last seven years, and never once have I missed Windows.

The only real quirks I have come across have been when some clueless fool has insisted on sending me MS Publisher attachments.

But in those cases, most people with MS Publisher can't read them either, given the MS policy of breaking compatibility with every release.

Re:Good idea

[BigBlockMopar]

Why would any open source developer want to do this? Unless someone thinks there is money to be made from developing open source software (ie someone wanting to sell linux computers at Wallmart) that is suitable for technically inept parents, I can't see many developers going to great lengths so that it becomes fool-proof.

If the open-source developer in question would like to see an end to the Windows monopoly on the desktops of the proles, then he or she will have to do it.

Admittedly, this doesn't make for the fun or cool programming challenges which fuel most open-source developers; it's the boring housekeeping.

But I see reason for hope. Knoppix in particular is as close to a foolproof Linux distribution as I've seen so far, and with luck others will take that lead and build on it. Of course, the applications and KDE itself still need work...

Re:Good idea

[BigBlockMopar]

This is a great rant, because it is very true. Linux will never be more than a geek's OS unless it becomes less of one. This is perfectly fine if the community wants for the OS to never enter the Joe Home User install base.

Hey, can I add your reply to my www.glowingplate.com/dissent page?

Thanks.

Re:Good idea

[jtev]

Even if people go to the same resturaunt over and over again, not all people choose the same resturaunt. I'm not saying force people to leave their comfort zone, I'm saying allow them to find it. I don't know about where you are, but here in the midwest Trico (formerly Pepsico, before Pepsi spun it off) has reasturaunts that contain Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell, A family can go there, and everyone have what they want, each going to their own favorite reasturaunt.

People do not work well when they dislike their environment, I'm not saying this from the grounds of an expert, because Lord knows I'm not one, I'm saying this from the grounds of my experiance, As a programer, as a facotry worker, as a phone monkey, as an admin, and as a hobbyist. I made a comment elsewhere in here about unwashed masses, however when I was working in a facotry (after having run out of money to complete my degreee) I found that the LESS educated people are far more clever and adaptable than the dubmasses I programed for when I was an MIS intern. Consistancy is important, however the beauty of Linux/Unix is that individuals have consistancy, however still customise their interface, the beauty of *ix is that EACH user can have an interface that suits them without interfering with other users.

Re:Good idea

[AntiOrganic]

I do believe the issue of the open file dialog is already being addressed by the GTK development team.

Re:Good idea

[MrResistor]

People want to write notes and papers, manage their finances, watch a movie or video, play a game online, and listen to some music.

Computer geeks want granular control, resizing sliders, left hand whump widgets, whatever. Unfortunately, the geeks are controlling this debate right now and ensuring that people will not get to use Linux in the numbers they should be.

I'm a computer geek, and I don't give a rat's ass about any of those things you think I want granular control over. I want to do all that other stuff that "normal" people want to do.

What I want also is the ability for my wife (who is not technically inclined in any sense) and I to each be able to choose the environment that works best for us. I like WindowMaker, my wife likes KDE. Those are the environments that WE feel fit the way we think and the way we prefer to work best. Indeed, both of us ARE able to do all those things in our chosen environments.

To not leverage the fact that a modern computer allows that kind of flexibility is stupid. To say that it must be the same for everyone is stupid, and ignores the basic fact that everyone is not the same. I think the people who keep suggesting this need to wake up and realize that there's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all intuitive interface, that there is in fact no such thing as a truely intuitive interface at all. That guy who said that the nipple is the only intuitive interface was wrong: breastfeeding is learned, by both mother and infant (go ahead and ask someone who's actually done it about those first few days).

What this all means is that everyone has different experiences and different personalities, and therefor different things will seem intuitive to them and different environments will be more comfortable. Many people love the Mac GUI and consider it the apex of GUI design; I find it irritating, backwards, and unweildly. OTOH, I find assembly language fairly intuitive, and I think we all know how most people feel about that.

Re:Good idea

[Slashdot Junky]

I read through your descent page, and your right on. So, yes you may add my post to it.

-Slashdot Junky

Re:Good idea

[lostinchicago]

OS X makes everything look like shit

Re:Good idea

[nightsweat]

Intuitive is not the be all end all I agree. But consistent is.

If an interface is not consistent, a user gets frustrated with the amount of time it takes to figure out how to just get their damn work done.

Multiple GUIs make consistency impossible and Linux suffers as a result.

Re:Good idea

[arkane1234]

I think he meant "higher level" as an analogy to abstraction in software.

With a sentence that says "A consistant interface allows the brain to function at a 'higher' level."?

That's definately referring to the brain :)

Re:Good idea

[bursch-X]

I don't say that Mozilla's rendering looks like shit, it's actually fine, but the interface and all the widgets are ugly as sin.

Even a form field within a web page doesn't use native widgets. Butt-ugly grey square boxes as buttons on OS X. WTF??

Re:Good idea

[MrResistor]

You've completely ignored my entire arguement. It is the people laboring under a "consistent" must-be-the-same-for-everyone interface that are suffering, not the people who have discovered the freedom to choose an environment that fits them.

The most crucial point that you seem to be missing, though, is that there will NEVER be a single GUI for Linux. To do that would require a fundamental change in the way Linux and Open Source in general operate, and it would be a resounding failure. Any attempt to do something like that would result in the death of Linux as the OSS developers that make it the powerhouse it is left the community in droves to work on something that's still Free.

Re:Good idea

[nightsweat]

I haven't ignored your argument, but I'm on the edge of dismissing it out of hand. Here's the problem - if a worker at Linux-using company A can't be hired at Linux-using company B because it would require retraining while a worker from Company MS1, running Windows, can be hired at Company MS2, also running Windows, and the company doesn't have to retrain them on the computer interface which has NOTHING to do with their job, Linux has a disadvantage in the largest market which is the business market.

The home market, you say? People use what they know. Why, as a normal user would anyone want to learn a whole different way of doing things at home than they use at the office?

To claim that the OS community could never support a single interface as the dominant one borders on hysterical and ignores the inroads made by OpenOffice/StarOffice as the dominant native productivity suite. If an interface is chosen as the "best compromise", the OSS developers can stop wasting their time on things like how big the scroll sliders should be and start working on making people more productive.

Re:Good idea

[MrResistor]

I haven't ignored your argument, but I'm on the edge of dismissing it out of hand.

Right back at ya!

Here's the problem - if a worker at Linux-using company A can't be hired at Linux-using company B because it would require retraining...

What a load of crap! Have you ever actually USED Linux? You seem to be implying that it's impossible to make more than one environment available to ones employees on Linux, which is simply not true, in fact it's quite simple to do so. Related to that, you're suggesting that applications written for one environment can't be used in another environment, which is also simply not true. ...while a worker from Company MS1, running Windows, can be hired at Company MS2, also running Windows, and the company doesn't have to retrain them on the computer interface which has NOTHING to do with their job...

Now you're trying to claim that the Windows environment is static, which is, again, simply not true.

The home market, you say? People use what they know. Why, as a normal user would anyone want to learn a whole different way of doing things at home than they use at the office?

One of my wife's friends came over this weekend and wanted to show us something she'd run across on the internet; she had the browser launched and the page loaded before it even occured to her that she wasn't using Windows (Konqueror in KDE), and she is certainly not a technical person.

My point is that these huge roadblock differences which are the key to your argument don't exist exist.

To claim that the OS community could never support a single interface as the dominant one borders on hysterical and ignores the inroads made by OpenOffice/StarOffice as the dominant native productivity suite. If an interface is chosen as the "best compromise", the OSS developers can stop wasting their time on things like how big the scroll sliders should be and start working on making people more productive.

I'm sure that you could get the agreement of every single window manager and toolkit hacker... right up to the point where you tell them they have to give up their project and work on a different one, and at that point it will likely become abundantly clear that you have no way to make them. THAT is why it will never happen.

To point to OpenOffice as an example of an area where this has happened only further shows your apparent ignorance if the realities of the Linux world.

First of all, OO doesn't have (and has never had) real competition. When Sun started it WordPerfect had already pretty much fallen off the map, and the Koffice apps were still (and still are, IMHO) in their infancy. That is far from the case in the desktop environment space.

Second, the presence of OO hasn't stopped, or even significantly slowed, the developement of competing apps. The KDE folks are still plugging away at their apps, Abiword seems to be doing fine, and I haven't yet heard the death of gnumeric announced.

Re:Good idea

[nightsweat]

Tell you what - call me when KDE and Gnome are battling it out for 40% of the market while Windows is shrinking.

It's clear you've never managed IT for an enterprise. I suppose my 18 years of IT experience doesn't help me understand the market.

You're right obviously and everyone will join hands together and sing as Linux GUIs fragment and fragment.

Talking head moron

[BiteMeFanboy]

Choice IS NOT incompatible with usability. I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing this bullshit from idiot usability "experts".

Let me cluse you in assholes. You can have a standard desktop that everyone uses by default, but it completely customizable/replaceable for those who have the desire and ability.

Re:Talking head moron

[Epistax]

We have a standard desktop? Not with linux you sure as hell don't. Is KDE the standard desktop? (flamewar insues) is CDE? (flamewar insues). What are the advantages of emacs and vi? (flamewar insues).

If you can't tell from this why someone who doesn't like geeky things (aka average computer user) is put off by linux...

On a side note I think would be rather nice of distros of *nix and gui's and etc. would specify what they think they should be used for. A given windows distro explicitly states what it is for: Small business, server, home use, hand held, etc. On linux? You've get twenty distros all trying to do everything. Give these people something to grasp!

Re:Talking head moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't agre more.

Besides, there is no point just making another windows. Linux developers should aim at a different market, people that WANT choice and play around, technology people.

People just wanting windows will continue to use windows, not much point in wasting time on challenging that.

Re:Talking head moron

[Overly Critical Guy]

So where is it?

Re:Talking head moron

[Anonymous Coward]

I have just installed XP and Mandrake 9.1 and despite being a linux type, I find the baffling array of things in the start menu, a great deal of which do the same thing anyway confusing (I don't want six email clients, just one good one). To just get stuff done, XP with cygwin and eudora is simple and functional.

Re:Talking head moron

[BiteMeFanboy]

Who said we had a standard desktop? No one. At no point did I question the need for a standard desktop. What we don't need is to excise choice from the equation.

Re:Talking head moron

[CmdrWass]

I agree with the parent. I can see the point of having a standard user interface, but I don't agree that all others should fall by the wayside.

In any case, I think we are already seeing this. Every mainstream distributions that I'm aware of use KDE or Gnome as the default.

Hmm, I wonder if Microsoft funded this article as a way to create dissent in the Linux community.

Re:Talking head moron

[jilles]

One of the most important aspects of usability is consistency. The main problem with unix/linux is that everything is consistently inconsistent with everything else. Unix proponents call that choice, usability experts call that poor usability. Whatever it is, it seems that end users are quite capable of making their own choices and are mostly ignoring/ignorant of the linux desktop.

Re:Talking head moron

[Fred IV]

Besides, there is no point just making another windows. Linux developers should aim at a different market, people that WANT choice and play around, technology people.

People who enjoy using computers want choice. Cubicle monkeys typically want a standardized and easy to use interface.

Want to topple Windows? Target the cubicle monkeys. Want to promote some philosophical ideal? Don't target anyone.

I think this is both the draw of Linux and the issue that prevents it from mass adoption. Very few people want to use Windows in the sense that they are excited about the brand and feel a deep sense of loyalty towards it. They just want a solution that they don't have to think about.

Re:Talking head moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you are obviously not a "linux type".

Re:Talking head moron

[sketerpot]

On a side note I think would be rather nice of distros of *nix and gui's and etc. would specify what they think they should be used for. A given windows distro explicitly states what it is for: Small business, server, home use, hand held, etc. On linux? You've get twenty distros all trying to do everything. Give these people something to grasp!

In almost all cases, I agree with you on that. If you want someone to be able to use Linux for some specific purpose, it would be really nice if there were optimized distros. About the only thing you have to go by now is reading distro comparisons and getting the impression that Mandrake is for desktop, Debian is for servers---or was it desktop?, Redhat is for... um... well, whatever it's for. I will make an exception for Gentoo, my favorite (and most completely, maddeningly, difficult to use) linux distribution. It is for everything and nothing; it starts out with a bare minimum and lets you add and configure other stuff. If that's your cup of tea, great. It's certainly fun for those who aren't up to making linux from scratch. There are always exceptions.

Re:Talking head moron

[BiteMeFanboy]

My point was that you don't have to sacrifice chioce in order to get consistency. I agree with you, we don't have consitency now, it's a good thing, but choice and usability are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Talking head moron

[C Roth]

I entirely agree. SuSE chooses to use KDE by default. Redhat uses Gnome by default. It's up to the individual projects to make thier interface consistent within their own environment, but to force everyone to use the same environment in the name of some 'Standardization' buzzword is just ridiculous. I personally use Windowmaker, but I'm not about to force it upon everyone. When I set up a system for a newbie, I set up KDE by default, tell them they have a choice to change it if they want to, and let them to it. It's really less of a problem for most people then it's made out to be.

Re:Talking head moron

[LWATCDR]

Who should say what the Linux type is?
I tend to agree. I do not need the standard install of Linux to install 6 editors, 9 email programs, 6 browsers, and 25 card games.
I tend to go throught and uninstall a lot of stuff from my linux box I set it up. The problem is not every one likes the same stuff.
I am a big fan of Mozilla Firebird/Thunderbird for my browsing/email needs.
For a text editor I like joe. For a programming editor I like kate. I have not made the investment in time to learn emacs yet. I wish that the installs would "ask" what Browser, email program, office suit you want to install.
Just set it up so that you can hit enter to take a default.

Re:Talking head moron

[timeOday]

KDE and Gnome are essentially a standard desktop, the same one as Windows. They're so similar it doesn't make any difference for basic tasks. Start menu, task bar, system tray... check, check, check.

*Functionality*, such as .doc compatibility, is way more important than trivial UI issues.

Re:Talking head moron

[The Spie]

And all of your efforts in getting that functionality don't mean jack shit if the user looks at the application and 1) can't figure out how to use it or 2) is so put off by its look and feel that they don't want to learn how.

KDE and Gnome are essentially a standard desktop...then pick one of the two, develop for it specifically, and ditch the other. That's what "standardization" means: one option for the window manager with applications having a consistent look and feel.

Why is it so difficult for crunchies to understand that we users WANT a standardized windows manager, and that UI is NOT trivial to performing our daily tasks?

Re:Talking head moron

[druske]

KDE and Gnome might look similar enough to seem like a standard desktop to the user, but they sure aren't the same thing to a developer trying to port GUI apps to Linux. The expense of developing support for multiple GUIs makes Linux a much harder sell to companies that produce business applications for Windows. Those apps, in turn, both cement Microsoft's position in the enterprise and give them a foot in the door for displacing Linux. Sure, users can install both KDE and Gnome libraries and run KDE apps from within Gnome or vice-versa, but as a developer I'd want to be sure that (1) apps look and behave identically in both environments, and conform to behavior the user expects from other "standard" apps; (2) apps can interoperate as expected with first-class cut-and-paste and drag-and-drop support; and (3) there is a minimal chance that my app would fail to run on any given Linux installation. If Linux is there, then it's been too long since I last looked into it and I need to download a current distro; if not, I think the article's author makes some valid points.

Re:Talking head moron

[smallpaul]

If you can't tell from this why someone who doesn't like geeky things (aka average computer user) is put off by linux...

The problem is marketing. The average computer user should not care about Linux. Linux is a kernel. The average user should care about Red Hat or Lindows. Their choice of distro will narrow the options down into a coherent set. "Linux" is hardly a relevant concept at the end-user level.

Re:Talking head moron

[Anonymous Coward]

``Why is it so difficult for crunchies to understand that we users WANT a standardized windows manager, and that UI is NOT trivial to performing our daily tasks?''

Ooh! ``crunchies''! A Forbes reader!

No. It seems that you need a standardized window manager. I must have missed the press release announcing your promotion to the position of the spokeperson charged with the task of telling the OSS community what I want. And need. People change user interfaces several times throughout the day where I work. And nobody bitches and moans about it like you must.

What's next? Are you going to mandate the placement of all the icons on the desktop? After all, it just so confusing having to look for the correct icon to click. Just get off this ``consistent look and feel'' kick, will ya. You'll make everyone that has to live around you much happier.

Re:Talking head moron

[pmz]

What are the advantages of emacs and vi?

Emacs sucks but can handle longer lines than vi. I'm so conflicted.

Re:Talking head moron

[westlake]

Cubicle Monkeys

In two words, Linux elitism in it's purist form.

Re:Talking head moron

[kni52]

This is true; however, I think it's good for Linux (and Open Source) to remain in the public eye and the public consciousness. Almost everyone I know, even non computer users and not so technically savvy people, has at least heard of Linux, even if they don't know what it is. They haven't heard of Ret Hat, or Mandrake, or even Lindows. Any intelligent marketing campaign for any of the distros would use this to their advantage. i.e. "Red Hat; powered by Linux" Just look at how successful this type of marketing has worked in the past. "Intel Inside" has helped sell many no-name computers. Destroying or obscuring what has be come the Linux brand would only hurt Linux and Open Source in general. Another reason it would only be a bad thing for Linux and Open Source to obscure Linux from the masses. If there were one dominant Linux distro, wouldn't many other distros be tempted to emulate what that distro is doing? This would be just as bad as distros trying to look and act like Windows. Just a thought.

Re:Talking head moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Use ed(1) it will solve all of your problems:

The ed utility is the standard text editor. If
file is specified, ed simulates an e command
(see below) on the named file; that is to say, the
file is read into ed's buffer so that it can be
edited.

Re:Talking head moron

[jtev]

I call bullshit. KDE and Gnome now interoperate on a drag and drop level, also you only need to support your app, not the surrounding cruft, You state that you need foo or higher version of GTK, or QT and you only worry about it if a new version breaks backward compatiablity. if you're realy worried you STATICALY LINK the damned Tool Kit into your app Support is no worse than between versoins of windows, in fact it's usualy less of an issue, because Libraries are LESS dependant on exact versions of eachother.

Re:Talking head moron

[smallpaul]

Well you're demonstrating the problem perfectly. The Linux world wants to be unified as long as unification does not in any way reduce the number of equally valid choices. I don't see how this is going to happen. If the "Linux world" does decide that it really wants to standardize and unify, it shouldn't do so by eliminating choice about what desktop should run on the Linux kernel. It should do so by marketing the unified desktop _as the brand_ that the customer cares about. Then the Linux kernel can continue to be a general purpose "component inside" like the Intel CPU.

To make this VERY concrete. When a user downloads a version of "UnifiedOpenSourceDesktop" they should be confident about what apps will run on it, as they are (relatively) with Windows XP versus Windows 98 (some apps are certified for one, some for the other, some for both). But if we rally around "Linux 3.0" and try to build that level of application compatibility then we must ALL use the same versions of everything from the kernel to the compiler to the LibC to the desktop because any variation will cause incompatibility problems. Better to rally around the topmost abstraction layer: the desktop/GUI.

Re:Talking head moron

[druske]

Sorry, my friend, didn't mean to upset you. As I said, it's been a while (about a year) since I last fooled with a Red Hat distribution and found that cut-and-paste was hit-and-miss, and consistency between apps was, well, lacking, to put it kindly. Glad to hear things have improved for the penguin. Maybe I'll give GTK or QT another look after I grow bored with Cocoa.

Re:Talking head moron

[jtev]

don't worry about it, I'm being overly emotional. I didn't realise you hadn't used GTK+ or QT in a few years. Anyway, the Gnome people and the KDE people fixed that now. Try finking them. You can run Gnome and KDE rootless with X darwin.

Re:Talking head moron

[zod1025]

And just what's wrong with a little elitism, eh? Linux is better. In countless ways. Am I using the 'other OS' just to be different and elitist, or could it possibly be that Linux really IS better?

Seriously - I can't think of a reason why you would be annoyed that folks who use Linux actually think it's better than Windows. They use it because they've found that to be true, and if they seem "elitist" to cubicle monkeys still fiddling with the latest security patch on their crippled Windows boxen, so what?

Maybe you should try and discover what all the fuss is about, then you can be elitist too.

Re:Talking head moron

[VeloRider]

I don't have the desire to spend time completely customizing my desktop. This brings me to my point. Mandrake, RedHat, Suse and all the other distros do have the time. That's what they do, most linux users don't create a linux based system. They go get a distro, and they choose that distro based of there preferences. That's why I look for a distro, amongst otherthings, that focuses on providing a KDE centric desktop. I hope there are people out there who like xxxDesktop and look for xxxDesktop centric distro.

The think its nonsense to have to say we need a standardized desktop top to compete with Windows. Choose a distro, the poorly configure desktop distro will disappear and the better ones will grow, it's called evolution. Eventually, there will be three or four big distro chooses. I think we are getting close. And when we do, you'll see migration into the cooperate desktop environment.

People use Windows because it's what they use at work. When companies move toward linux for the desktop the users will start buying Linux machines for home. Cooperate environments aren't going to give their users a choice between GNONE, KDE, etc. They going to choose a distro, perhaps customize it a little and give the user one desktop environment, one email client, one office package, one xxxapp. Then average users going to go home a purchase the same distro for home.

History repeats itself!

Re:Talking head moron

[Fred IV]

Actually, I am a self-admitted cubicle monkey at my day job. The most exotic thing I do on my work PC is run SQL queries against a database server. I spend most of my time working in Excel. The only reason I know anything about Linux is because I've used it at home.

Some of my fellow cubicle monkeys struggle enough with Windows, and they've been using it for years. If Linux distros want to compete with Windows and sell to cubicle monkeys, they need to cater to that audience. If they don't care about competing, it doesn't really matter what they do.

That was the point of my original post. Sorry if the shiny penny of "Cubicle Monkey" rolling across the floor was so distracting to you. Hope I did not offend (cubicle monkey, cubicle monkey, cubicle monkey, cubicle monkey, cubicle monkey).

Re:Talking head moron

[westlake]

If joining the elite means adopting the language and attitude of a Dilbert caricature, I'll pass, thank you.

So what's the story here?

[Tyler Eaves]

Most of the newb friendly distros through one of KDE/Gnome in as the default choice, which works fine for someone who doesn't know any better.

Re:So what's the story here?

[randyest]

Well, one, or the other, in this distro, or that one. But no standard one. I think the point is that newbies don't always choose well, and sometimes the problems arising from a bad choice of GUI (which maybe just the default selection) turn people off of Linux, or confuse them because something they want to do seems to be easier in the "other" GUI.

It's a decent point, but I can see compromise in the Middle East coming sooner than a merger of KDE and Gnome. :)

Re:So what's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The story is that Linux should have a unified interface so that a user can jump on any Linux machine and make use of it the same way all of the time.

The real problem is, how often do you run across Linux out in the real world? Other than Solaris, Unices just aren't in the mainstream workstation industry yet. I hope someone can prove this statement false.

Mod me troll, but it's the truth. At least mod me a high troll.

Re:So what's the story here?

[Tyler Eaves]

Linux already has a unified interface. It's called the command line. Besides, it's not like figuring out any of the mainstream WMs is hard.

Re:So what's the story here?

[Rasta Prefect]

Linux already has a unified interface. It's called the command line.

Bourne, Korn, C Shell, zsh, Bash....

Re:So what's the story here?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

This is not a Problem of what the people want.
GNU is not about that.
GNU is about Freedom. To choose for someone else is to take freedom away from him.

I see all this discusion pointless.
We are not a company fighting m$, we are not against them. We Say and Do what we consider correct and ethic. They are companys. They don't move arroud this concepts (and i am not talking about if that good or evil, i am just saying that is part of the nature of Capitalism, whether we like it or not).

So, why don't we stop talking and start coding?

WE are doing the same they do, and becoming that what we are fighting against.

The First Choice someone has to make is the choice to use GNU. Not because it is faster, not because it is more stable, not because there is no need to pay for it, but for an ethical Reason.

because in our way to fight to get more users, we are becoming another company fighting. We have diferent reasons? That sounds like Maquiavelo.

We should have less Vs. here. We are not against them. We just want to live in peace under our ethic; and let the rest of the world do the same. If they are Companys that want to sale software. And there are Coders which which wants to be paid to code Propietary Software. And there are People who wants to buy That software because they think it's better, who are we to say something?. As long as we have the right to produce, give and recive Free Software???

I think the Live Free or Die Think is actually funny, but we should live it behind now and change it for something more like Live and Let others live too.

Re:So what's the story here?

[Tyler Eaves]

But they all operate in the same fundamental way. It's not like the command syntax is different.

Re:So what's the story here?

[Minna Kirai]

It's not like the command syntax is different.

$setenv EXTRA_CFLAGS -g
bash: setenv: command not found
$ make |& tee makelog.txt
bash: syntax error near unexpected token `&'
$ tcsh
% for i in *;do make -C $i clean;done
for: Command not found.
i: Undefined variable.

Re:So what's the story here?

[Arandir]

I think the point is that newbies don't always choose well

Amen! The last thing liberty needs is the ruthless imposition of choice. The newbie will never be free until their ability to make a decision is removed from them.

Re:So what's the story here?

[Arandir]

Funny how you use the word "GNU". When I read this article the first thing I thought was, "I'm so glad I'm using FreeBSD because here we have NO ONE clamoring for a GUI Czar."

Re:So what's the story here?

[randyest]

Nice sarcasm, but you're missing the point. You can have a standard, or at least most popular by a big margin GUI, and still maintain the freedom to install any window manager you want. Just like I can replace Windows explorer with another shell, or replace the Solaris CDE default with Gnome.

Both Windows and Solaris have what most would call a standard GUI, and that's a benefit in that (1) any program made is almost certain to work well and consistently with the standard GUI, (2) user help found on the web or otherwise will make sense to most users because GUI context is the same as what they have on thier desktop, and (3) development of GUI-related tools and apps is focused, usually producing one better implementation as opposed to many not-as-good ones.

No one is suggesting the removal of your choices or the reduction in the number of choices available, rather just creating a more common standard for most people to use, leaving you free to replace it with anything you want if it's important to you.

Re:So what's the story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Score 5: Insightful???

urm. C'mon people...score -1 Hardly Literate.

Re:So what's the story here?

[Arandir]

And you totally blew by my point. You already have the freedom to use whatever desktop you want. Which means if you want GNOME to be the required standard, you can use it. Or if you want KDE to be the mandate, you can use it. No one is going to stop you.

You don't have to wait for someone else to tell you what desktop to use. You can choose for yourself right now. Today.

Re:So what's the story here?

[randyest]

Right, and I could choose to use TVWM for some reason, and then realize that there's little support for it, and that it sucks.

Of course, this would be a particularly bad choice since about 40% of everything out there works best with KDE, about 40% works best with Gnome, and about 20% works best with something else. But, even if I did choose KDE or Gnome, still about 60% of everything I might want to use would work better had I chosen differently. Also, I'd say that development efforts fall along a similar distribution, so 60% of all the fine folks working on OSS projects aren't really particularly interested in supporting my choice. And, 60% of the help/FAQ/HowTO info I cleverly find with google will make no sense to me in context of my GUI, since I chose the "other one".

It's super to provide choices, no doubt. But when none of the choices are all that great, most people would rather see available efforts focused on one choice to make it great before adding another choice.

Re:So what's the story here?

[Arandir]

Well, since there isn't a Desktop Dictator, and unless SCO wins its improbable case, never will be one, then you're stuck with situation. I understand that you're upset with people choosing what you don't want them to choose, but that's life. Get over it.

Re:So what's the story here?

[randyest]

Well gee, thanks Mr. Obvious. No need to get your panties in a wad.

I'm not too worried about being "stuck" with the current situation myself. In fact, I'm not upset at all, much less upset with "people choosing what [I] don't want them to choose". In fact, I never said that I cared what anyone chose in particular, or expressed a preference for one choice or another. So, I really don't know where you're coming from, other an anger and possibly low blood-sugar.

I was just trying to help the first poster undersdtand the point of the article, since he didn't understand and asked for clarification. If you read my posts carefully (or at all, really) you'd note that I neither agreed nor disagreed with the article. I just tried to help someone understand the points presented -- that's neither explicit nor implicit support for said points. I think you're the one with something you need to get over.

Re:So what's the story here?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I used to be at BSD, but my job forced me to move to Linux ... now i am at FreeVSD : [[

P.S Why is funny the way i use the word GNU? (Thought i am not a native english talker, it might be a reason)

Re: every few months...

[tomhudson]

Every few months, someone else comes along and argues that Linux needs ONE desktop interface if it's going to combat windows.

Kind of /funny/stupid/, since M$ changes interfaces every couple of years, and touts this as a usability feature (new, improved interface, blah blah blah).

simple

[feed_me_cereal]

In particular he argues that the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on, and that they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any applications they might want to use."

Easy, they don't have to make a choice. They can just use whatever default GUI their distro installs. What is the problem with that?

Re:simple

[joabj]

The problem comes along when the said user wants to install some new GUI software that may work in Gnome but not in KDE or vice versa (or at least won't work without some considerable tweaking).

joab

Re:simple

[psykocrime]

Easy, they don't have to make a choice. They can just use whatever default GUI their distro installs. What is the problem with that?

EXACTLY!!!! Give this man a cookie!

The "clueless windoze lusers" that he's talking about, WON'T be in a position of having to choose what desktop environment / window manager /whatever, to use... they'll either use whatever their distro defaults too (if they're installing Linux themselves) or whatever their IT people install for them (in a corporate environment).

All this crap about how choice is bad is a load of monkey-shit, IMHO.

Having said that however, it IS important, IMHO, that applications work across GUI environments as seamlessly as possible. For example, you should be ahle, in an ideal world, to cut / copy / paste stuff between apps, regardless of whether they're written for KDE or Gnome... same for drag n' drop of data between apps... and an OLE like mechanism for directly sharing documents between apps would be better if it worked regardless of which environment the app was written for. Of course, all of this may already be in place... I don't use the linux desktop enough to know... Just Mozilla for posting to /. :-)

Re:simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that is that there is no story, in which case "Executive Editor A. Russell Jones" has nothing to write about, and is out of a job.

This bogus article, and the fact that they split it over three pages just to maximise ad revenue is what inspired me to block all their adverts. I don't, generally block lots of adverts. I don't on Slashdot, for example. Only assholes get blocked.

Re:simple

[Luscious868]

I like SuSE's option. If you choose to install GNOME it's availble on their login menu, but is not the default choice when you're presented with the login menu for the first time. So Joe Sixpack will probably start with KDE but eventually wonder what the hell GNOME is and check it out (if he opted to install it otherwise he'd be clueless about GNOME and think KDE was all there is and there wouldn't even be an issue).

I just started using Linux so I speak from newbie experience when I say that it's not like the KDE / GNOME / Windows user interface are so differen't from one another that it's hard to figure them out. You click on menus that lists programs and differen't options (i.e logoff, restart shut down) and you click the programs on those menus to launch the programs. The basic windows functions are the same (the minimize box, restore / maximize box, close box), click the window bar at the top to drag, etc. We're not talking rocket science here and although there are subtle basic differences I don't think the average user would find the UI basics all that much more complex in one over the other. It's the more advanced users that can do more advanced things in Windows that would have more trouble, but if they are intelligent enough to search google, RTF and just click around and check things out they should have no trouble making the transition. I didn't really have any problems learning the ins and outs of KDE and I didn't read anything. I just messed around in KDE until I figured things out.

I haven't used GNOME as much as I would like to yet but in KDE everything is where I would expect it to be. Editing the menu's in KDE is as easy as editing programs in the Start Menu is in Windows. Editing the desktop theme, colors, look, feel, etc. is just as easy as it is under Windows and offers you even more customization options. Which is actually a bad thing considering how horrid the average Windows user's desktop ends up looking after they choose their own "custom" colors and icons and use a picture of their dog for their desktop wallpaper ... I shudder to think of what they would do in KDE.

On a related note, the only real issue with Linux for Joe Sixpack IMHO is installing software. The average user is going to have a bitch of a time downloading and installing software or updating their systems. Yast2 in SuSE makes it easy to update your system but I wasn't very happy with the functionality. Downloading / installing new software and individual updates using RPM is a pain for the average user, even w/ Kpackage, because of dependency hell. I ended up using apt4rpm w/ Synaptic wich works wonderfully but you've got to be able to edit the default sources.list file which would probably be confusing for a newbie who's used to clicking on an exe on a web page and choosing "Run" when IE prompts them and havign the program launch and install itself. Granted you could just use Debain, but SuSE really is a good distro for a newbie. I bought my copy at Best Buy, installed it without any problems (it detected all of my hardware, my broadband internet connection, configuring the firewall was very easy, etc). SuSE should include apt4rpm preconfigured w/ Synaptic and host their own repositiory or at least include a preconfigured sources.list file. Apt w/ Synaptic makes getting new software and updating your existing software easier than it is under Windows!

Windows suffers same problem

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

Windows has the same problem. The Win98 desktop is NOTHING like the XP desktop. Each edition they release is a little different in terms of menu placement, control panels, what's where... The only advantage is that they release one at a time, so there is only one current OS. But to go between Windows machines, you still have to adjust and know what you're doing.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[wiggly-wiggly]

I've got to argue with this. The Windows 98 destktop is EXACTLY the same as the XP desktop.

Regardless of chunky buttons and bright colours, there is still a start button, task bar, recycle bin (although it changed position in XP). The close, minimise and maximise buttons are all in the same positions and still have the same symbols.

There is no real difference at all, because if there was you would be hearing about it from all the Joe ServicePacks and technically incompetant users of the world.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[NetDanzr]

And this is exactly why I got rid of WinXP within days and installed Win98 back on my system. I was willing to sacrifice additional stability for a more user-friendly interface (by "user-friendly" I mean an interface I am already used to). Now if by default Linux came with something similar, I may consider switching.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[dunc78]

I may be incorrect about this because I am kind of new to Linux, but aren't there compatability issues between different desktop environments like Gnome and KDE. Some programs will work on one but not the other correct? If this is not correct ignore the rest of this comment, if it is then this is a significant difference, though the desktop has minor differences in different versions of Windows, applications tend to run equally well on both versions.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Ro'que]

Win2003 and WinXP are fairly, in fact very, similar in design. Windows 98 and Windows XP are the same operating system, just different versions. Windows 98 isn't supported or maintained, updates are no longer released for it. They are the same operating system, just different versions.

And as far as differences in GUI, you can always just set XP to 'classic' with a few, easy clicks and have your basic Win95 inspired setup.

You can't compare KDE and Gnome to Windows98 and WindowsXP. It's like comparing Kernel 2.4 to 2.5.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Nurseman]

" The Win98 desktop is NOTHING like the XP desktop. Each edition they release is a little different in terms of menu placement, control panels, what's where."
While I think the Windows GUI interface changes, the basic way of adding/removing programs remains reasonabley the same. Here is where I think Linux lags. I often see great programs that I would like to try, but I usually am unable to install them after downloading them. Adding a simple plug-in to Mozilla becomes such a task that I find myself simpley booting back into Windows to see the site.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[javatips]

I think that if you spend a couple of days in XP you should have found where to change the look & feel to the good old W2K look & feel. There you would have feel at home.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[dhawton]

You do know that with minimal effort you can set the taskbar and the theme to be "Windows Classic" (or for the taskbar "Classic Start Menu") and it'll look like Windows 2k right?

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Serapth]

Yes, but I think your missing the message on this one. Windows has *one* user interface at a time... Keep in mind, Windows 98 is a five year old ( at least ) OS... comparing it to XP just isnt applicable.

Microsoft has refined ( ok... thats arguable... ;) ) there interface over time. The difference you complain about really isnt anything but an evolutionary change to the UI itself. However, since the Win 9X line of code is now dead... and Microsoft is only working on the XP line... they *have* standardized on one UI. Compare the difference between XP home and pro... and you will see they are oftly friggin close!

Wherease in the Windows world... you have KDE and GNome, and countless other less popular windowing systems. Now only are they different from previous versions ( as you cited MS for doing )... they are massively different then each other.

If you were buying software back in the days of ST/Amiga/800XL/C64... you will rememeber that software for multiple OS's was actually a bit of a pain in the ass! Having to wait a year or more for a port, etc... Having the one dominate OS was a great boon for the average user to be honest... even if you dont like the OS they settled on.

I personally agree that there should only be one desktop environment for linux. Just think how much better it would be if the KDE and GNome teams worked together? Also, there should only be 1 UI component for changing OS settings, not the mishmash of tools we have today. The power user can still work from the commandline... the default install of a Linux GUI, SHOULD NOT have 3 different graphical ways to configure the mouse!!!

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[dhawton]

Actually, WinXP was built off of Win2k. Meaning Win98 was the last good release of that line. Win2k was built off of the NT line, so WinXP is no longer off the Win98 line, but off the NT line. And the "basic Win95 inspired setup" is actually just a modified Win2k look.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[NetDanzr]

That may be so, but I'm not one of the "technically competent Windows users". I'm just the average Joe who does everything the only way he knows how to do (after reading the manual, which, arguably, is grossly defficient in Microsoft's case). The article writes about attracting people like us to Linux, and the only way to do so is to give us a CD, which installs a Linux distribution so that I don't have to lift a finger to see a relatively familiar GUI.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[ClippyHater]

I was willing to sacrifice additional stability for a more user-friendly interface (by "user-friendly" I mean an interface I am already used to).

You never looked at using the classic look-n-feel? I've set-up my XP box so everything's as it was before (just a couple of mouse-clicks to do so). Kind of a shame to go back to something so unstable just for a look-n-feel that can be used under XP.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Dot.Com.CEO]

What the hell are you talking about? Display Properties / Desktop / Themes. Change to classic. Instant Windows 98 interface! If you went back to Windows 98 because of this you really should invest a couple of minutes to learn your operating system.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[cheesybagel]

Windows98 is completely different from WindowsXP. Windows XP is NT kernel based and Windows98 is the old botched up graphical shell on top of MS-DOS.

Windows XP is much superior.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[the_consumer]

The Win98 desktop is NOTHING like the XP desktop.

Except for the parts that are EXACTLY the same. Which is most of them. What, you have a few different bitmaps for the widgets and some smoother animations and all of a sudden it's completely different? Please. Keyboard shortcuts all work the same way. Right-click menuing still works the same way. Opening desktop icons still works the same way. Copy and paste still work the same way and are consistent throughout the OS.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[cK-Gunslinger]

Are you serious? I find it hard to beleive that some people can be fooled by a rounded titlebar and some pastel colors. If I came to your house one night and painted all you walls, would you wake and be so lost you couldn't find your bathroom?

I would say that at least 95% of the interface of all Windows versions since 95 are exactly the same. Maybe if your daily tasks include configuring shared folders and setting up new network connections, then you would be *slightly* confused, as these procedures have evolved somewhat over the versions, but all in all, most of everything is identical. You should be just as (un)productive with Win95, 98, ME, 2K, or XP.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Gherald]

> Windows has the same problem. The Win98 desktop is NOTHING like the XP desktop.

Funny, if the average user took a look at my XP desktop and then took a look at a 98 desktop I doubt they'd be able to point out a significant difference.

It is easy to get XP to look like 98 did. Just change the theme to "Windows Classic", and set your taskbar to "Classic Start Menu".

Anyone who can't figure this out is probably better off with the newfangled XP desktop anyway.

The differences between XP and 98 are extremely insignificant compared to the differences between KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, pekwm, etc.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[mini me]

But Windows can have more than on interface. You can use LiteStep, Blackbox, GNOME, etc., etc. I fail to see how this is any different than Linux.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[sketerpot]

I believe that KDE has a windows 98 theme, although I don't know how closely it resembles Win98. There are some nice screenshots, though.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Mwongozi]

The Win98 desktop is NOTHING like the XP desktop.

You mean apart from the start menu in the bottom left, the quick launch tray, the task bar with running programs as buttons, the clock in the bottom right next to the system tray, the background with right-click menu for display settings...

I could go on. Aside from new colours and slightly flashier graphics, it is indeed identical.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[cK-Gunslinger]

I don't want to sound like a elitist Linux user (I'm not), but if you had to switch from XP to 98 because the interface confused you and you were lost, then *NO* current or near-future version of Linux will be beneficial to you.

Every single time a new KDE or Gnome version is released, a *lot* of things change, especially configuration utilities (Control Panels.)

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[finkployd]

Obviously you have never compared the start menus of 9x and XP.

Finkployd

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[finkployd]

Obviously you have never compared the start menus of 9x and XP

Finkployd

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Pardon me, but if you couldn't be arsed to click through a couple of control panel windows to put Windows back as you like it and instead of heeding the advice of the tens of slashdot users who are pointing you to how to change XP to how you like it you continue to bitch about what a pain it is to find your way around one of the arguably most user friendly out there, might I ask what the hell you are doing reading slashdot? Are you here for the girls? 'Cause there aren't any.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Serapth]

Yes, but the type of user that will change the UI for windows, should be techincal enough that they should understand the differences. However, in linux... say with Mandrake installed... you would INSTANTLY as a new user, have to choice between Gnome and KDE. That and... the pure argument of numbers... 99% of XP users would be using the XP interface... there isnt a single UI on linux that has much over 45%, I would imagine. That difference makes it very hard on new users.

Mind you, I think MS dropped the ball by putting in theme support... skinning is singly the most stupid idea, to give to regular users... now only do you have to learn different OS's quirks... now each tom dick and moron, can create their own gui... uhoh!

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[brotherscrim]

that's a pretty unrealistic standard you have there, don't you think?

"I want a new operating system with new features, but if it isn't EXACTLY like the one I have been using for years, then I don't want it"

I'm not trying to put you down, but why can't you take a little time and learn how to use it, rather than shun it because they dared to make something you're not entirely familiar with?

Do you play/have you ever played video games? Do you demand that your flight simulator and your solitare game have the same interface? Or for that matter, do you insist that your word processor and your photo-editing software have the same interface?

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Anonymous Coward]

But does it matter if you are using KDE or GNOME? A new user probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[NetDanzr]

I just pointed out what I already did, some months ago. I'm thankful for the advice I've been given, and I'd use it had I still WinXP installed. However, being back on Win98 as we speak, I see no reason to spend more money for someone coming and installing WinXP back on my machine.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[brotherscrim]

You sir, should take a gander at Libranet.

One program (adminmenu) allows you to install security updates, recompile the kernel, download Mozilla plugins, configure sound, download and install new programs (via Synaptic)...the list, as they say, goes on.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Look mate, it's easy. Put the cd in. Choose upgrade. Wait. You have XP. I mean, pardon my total exaltation but if you have a licence for XP and you are using 98 you are subjecting yourself to a torture. Unless you are trolling, of course, in which case I salute you.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I have. Yes, it look vastly different at first, then you realize it's exactly the same, only bigger and with more "stuff." Then you put a tic in "Use Classic Start Menu" box and get on with life.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Serapth]

Your right, a new user wouldnt be able to tell the difference ( initially ). Two things though... 1) the first time the need to run an app that requires the other windowing interface... they have a new gui to learn 2) they need to make a decision at install time, which GUI to use... at least with some distro's. It adds a layer of confusion that just doesnt exist in the windows world. Having too many choices ( and for neophytes... having more then one choice ) makes things more complicated!

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Dan Ost]

As long as you have all the libraries installed (which the distro
will probably take care of for you), you can run GNOME apps under
KDE (or any other window manager) and vice versa.

This is a non-issue. I don't know why everyone keeps bringing this
up.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[NetDanzr]

It's pretty much a matter of what I expect from a computer. For me, it's still just a tool, serving the sole purpose of gathering information (the Internet) and processing it (office programs). As such, I don't really want a new operating system. However, I don't really have the choice: every new computer I buy comes with the newest operating system, which I don't need, but which I accept as long as the OS looks and feels like the one I'm used to. If that's not the case, I've got this nifty Win98 CD with a couple of icons, one of which says "format and install", and which takes care of the rest.

Basically, what I'm complaining about is the fact that for me, a PC is about as important as a screw driver. If the manufacturers can keep the screw driver looking and handling the same all the time, why do I have to get accustomed to a new interface on my PC just because the manufacturer is unable to sell me a product that lasts more than five years?

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[TheMidget]

Meaning Win98 was the last good release of that line.

Wasn't Windows ME based on the same line? Oh, I see: you said "the last good release..."

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, you should really invest more time into learning your software. There are plenty of people out there who will help you, too. Check out forums online. Making WinXP desktop look and feel like Win98 takes a few settings to change, and is relatively trivial compared to downgrading back to Win98. I suggest upgrading back to XP and trying it again. XP makes everything so ridiculously easy, why even mess around with 98?

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[NetDanzr]

Yup, I have a nice, shrink-wrapped WinXP CD. I also have another nice CD with the drivers. The only time I installed an OS was when I downgraded to Win98, and completelly messed up with the drivers, and had graphics problems until I called someone who knows more about computers, who told me that I didn't install them in proper order. Since then, I prefer paying those who know more about PCs, while I stick to what I do best. Keeps my PC running, and the economy going ;)

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[the_consumer]

Obviously, you have no business interacting with a windowing gui if the minor cosmetic differences between those 2 start menus are enough to make you consider XP a radically different interface.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Using your screw driver example, the difference between a Win98 interface and a WinXP interface would be equivalent to a change in the color and texture of the handle.

As has been pointed out before, just about everything is in the same place, they just have a different shape and size.

And I've never seen a screw driver that had a setting that let it look like your old screw driver.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Ro'que]

And the "basic Win95 inspired setup" is actually just a modified Win2k look.

And the Win2k look came from Win95, in which the modern-style desktop and Start menu came into play.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[jtev]

Think about it this way, what is there to cause problems? You're using a network transparent display system that doesn't assume there even is a WM or DE, much less that they will do anything for you. The only thing the app knows is that it's got libraries on the client comuter, and it displays on an X server (in many instances on the same computer) The program doesn't care if the X server is running other programs, or even if it's on another computer, it simply runs with the interface it is suposed to.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[finkployd]

The rearranged the entire menu, that does not constitute "cosmetic" changes. Cosmetic changes are what they did to window borders. In the business, we refer to this kind of change as a "functional" change vs a "cosmetic".

It did not bother me, (1) I don't use windows and (2) I constantly switch between OS X, Gnome, and fluxbox so obviously I can deal with change. However many users cannot, and the change in the start menu confused them and caused some problems. Remember who windows is being designed for and marketed towards.

To bring this back on topic, wouldn't you say the differences between the start menus in XP and 9x are greater than the differences between GNOME and KDE's menus?

Finkployd

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[brotherscrim]

offset, electric, and ratcheting screw drivers aside, the reason that the basic srewdriver doesn't change is because the design is a careful balance of several factors that make it the most useful shape most of the time.

That, and screws are deliberately put in places that the intended screwdriver can reach.

Operating systems, however, are niether so mature that no more innovation is needed nor as simple as a bevelled stick with a specifically shaped point.

I submit to you that MS hasn't figured out the perfect GUI yet (boy, was that an understatement). With each new version, they are trying to get a bit closer to that goal, while at the same time updating the code for what's new in the computer world.

I am sure that I can dig up someone that will tell you that DOS was the pinnacle of the man/machine interface. Should MS have stopped at DOS to please him? If they did, would you be grateful that the didn't change to the pesky GUI? At the end of the day, would his opinion of what OS manufacturers should do be any less valid than yours?

Honestly, XP is only mildly different from 98 when it comes to the interface. And at that, most of the changes made were done to simplify the experience. As for computers wearing out in 3 years, I have my doubts. I can still use my 166 machine that was bought in 95, and my girlfriend still pulls out her ~20 yr old Tandy on occasion.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Arandir]

I want to run Quicktime to see the new ROTK trailer. I click on the start button. Up pops a menu with the choices for browsing the web, reading email, and logging out. There's some other task oriented stuff to the right. But Quicktime is nowhere in sight. I'm not expecting it to be a top level menu item, but damn if I can't find it. Then I notice a narrow item with a tiny icon why at the bottom of this huge glorious new menu: "other stuff which we feel is unimportant, but which you installed anyway, this way -->".

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[jtev]

NO APPS REQUIRE A WINDOWING INTERFACE!!!!!

Applications do not know what envoronment they are in, they just know that they interface with a server that displays them. as long as you have the libraries the application works. It's not like windows where you can't run a win 98 app on win 95, as long as you have the libraries you don't need anything else.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, under MS Windows virtually every application has File, Edit, View and Tools menus across the top. Even word processors and photo editors.

Re:Windows suffers same problem

[RedBear]

if you had to switch from XP to 98 because the interface confused you and you were lost, then *NO* current or near-future version of Linux will be beneficial to you

I disagree strongly with this statement. I've been quite comfortable with Win98, BeOS, Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, IceWM and KDE at various times, yet WinXP's default interface makes me queasy. Especially that new start menu, and most of the new control panel interfaces. They must have been smoking crack if they thought they were "simplifying" things there. Ick. So I always change the WinXP interface to the classic Win98 interface. And then I happily return to my Linux/KDE desktop. Thus, I don't think you can make a blanket statement that if you were confused by WinXP's interface you'll be confused by any Linux interface. WinXP is very confusing in many ways.

Down to distribution

[cjcormack]

Surely this is the job of the distributers not the developers.

Re:Down to distribution

[Gherald]

Tomorrow's headline:

Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, Lindows, and Sun Microsystems agree to standardize the KDE desktop for Linux.

Yeah, right.

Re:Down to distribution

[moojuece]

definatly have to agree with this one....i for one could care less if linux has the lead on desktop or not...i use it for what i want to use it for and wouldnt want it any other way....to say that there needs to be a desktop standard is kind of incompatable with the reason many of us use this...just selecting the default of the distro gets this functionality and allows the freedom for those of us who only want fluxbox or xfce or etc.....the average user cannot tell the difference between the windows desktop, kde, or gnome...only some very minor cosmetic differences

Re:Down to distribution

[cjcormack]

The point that I was trying to make was that it is down to the individual distributors to use Linux to make their distribution a competitor to Windows. It should be down to people like Red Hat to have an installer that a windows user can use (ie not very many buttons (or choices), pretty graphics, and installs whatever desktop they (Red hat) want to force upon their customers. Also people like Red Hat should strive to have consistancy between releases (which I think they are now days with bluecurve).

I think that it is important that Linux keeps its variety and choice as thats what a lot of us technology oriented people want.

Re:Down to distribution

[Xoid629]

Exactly. What I always find funny about this sort of article is the implication that open source developers exist to produce free software for non-technical users. That's fine when the users are paying for the product, but OSS projects tend to work because the developers make what they will use themselves -- features get added by whoever will use them or finds them interesting. Since people who aren't developers can't personally modify software for their needs, that job goes to commercial interests, in general distro makers.

The sort of message the article gives is fine for commercial developers, and it's fine as a response to Linux On The Desktop zealots, but it really the point of OSS. There really should be a distinction made between the (unpaid) developer community and people who cater to end users.

Companies in competition

[flend]

Certainly the big Linux companies are in competition. They appreciate the need for a standard desktop, not only from a useability point of view, but from a branding point of view.

The best example is RedHat's bluecurve, which I'm sure they'd like to be seen as `the' Linux desktop for the enterprise.

People just don't get it sometimes.

[thud2000]

How many times have Linus or others said that the goal for Linux is NOT to attack Microsoft's monopoly, but simply to provide a freely usable and stable UNIX-like operating system for anyone who wants it. These analysts can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that "Linux" is not just another company out to rule the desktop.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[v_1matst]

I can't agree with this more. Those of us who want Linux on our desktop have it on our desktop, those who don't... well... don't. I do not understand this mission to have linux as a "valid" desktop operating system. People who use it know it works (quite well in fact) and find that it suits their needs. To Joe Blow user, Windows might very well suit their needs and they find no need to go to some other system just because it isn't a microsoft product. There are people out there who have used Linux/UNIX variants and say "hey, that's great... I'll stick with windows" and I am having trouble finding anything wrong with that.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[KevinIsOwn]

Exactly.

As this guy said the goals of the open source community are " freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications" and if they aren't goals of the average user that's a tough break. If they can't use one of the desktop environments like KDE or Gnome now why would they be able to use a "standardized one?"

Maybe the best solution to the whole "average user" problem is to make a dumbed down KDE/Gnome that are "easier" to use (although I don't think they are really all that hard to use as it is, and things like lindows make linux even more useable)

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[forsetti]

That is true -- Linus/Linux is not out to attack the MS monopoly. But RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, $FAVORITE_DISTRO are. RedHat, for example, has already recognized this issue, and started attacking it with 'BlueCurve'.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[garcia]

Linux might not be but companies embracing Linux just might have that in mind.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Why limit your ambitions because "Linus said this"?

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[darkov]

Whatever, but the point is that those who write the code want it to be used. The more people who use it the better, although not at the cost of doing a poorer job (which is another motivation for programmers - doing it "right" or doing interesting or challenging things). And I think that last bit is the difficult thing. Your average highly opinionated nerd would probably find it hard to compromise on this issue or that. The result is that effort is divided and the user gets a lot of duplication which doesn't really serve any purpose.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[quinine]

Then the onus is on the company doing the embracing to set the standards. This is no different than in a Windows environment, where an organization must choose its applications. Though many businesses are content to standardize on Microsoft entirely, there are many that pick and choose to create a standard work environment.

There's nothing wrong with a company deciding that all Linux desktops will be Red Hat running KDE, but if I go home and install Gentoo with GNOME they can't even try to tell me I can't do that.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[dhawton]

But people, thanks to the GPL license, can modify Linux in any way pretty much to make it attack Microsoft in the Desktop and/or Server markets.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[nEoN nOoDlE]

"Linux" is not just another company out to rule the desktop.

You wouldn't know it from reading Slashdot posts, either.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[wasabii]

Bluecurve is nothing but 3 themes, for GTK2, GTK1, and QT. All of which look a bit similar. They don't however alter the actual UI. KDE's save boxes still look different than Gnomes.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[Zathrus]

Fine.

Then quit bitching when you get no support for hardware, for commercial software, or for anything else along those lines. Why? Because it's a niche market that doesn't have enough users willing to pay money for the goods being delivered.

Frankly, I don't give a flip what Linus's or others' goals are. I'd like to see Linux on the desktop. But it has a long, long way to go to get there still. And until it starts getting a reasonable market share you'll continue to see sporadic hardware support and lackluster software support. Both have certainly gotten better in the last decade (yes, I was running Linux a decade ago), but virtually all of the focus has been on servers. Which is fine. But why limit yourself? Quit being so complacent.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[aallan]

These analysts can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that "Linux" is not just another company out to rule the desktop.

Right, I simply don't care whether Linux becomes a dominant force in the desktop market, and why should I? It does everything I need it to do right now.

I use neither GNOME, nor KDE, prefering to use a much simpler window manager on its own. All I want X windows for is for somewhere to put xterm's and editor windows, and for its network transparency. Click and drool graphics are no concern of mine, I have no idea why people feel the need to try and load down a perfectly good UNIX with all that junk.

Al.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[Gherald]

It is a step in the right direction though.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[Uzik2]

> How many times have Linus or others said that the goal for Linux is NOT to attack Microsoft's monopoly, but simply to provide a freely usable and stable UNIX-like operating system for anyone who wants it. A couple of comments: That's some people's goal. Other people have different goals. They *do* get it, they just aren't going where you, or linus, are. I agree completely with the original author here. My goal is to have a usable and stable operating system. I want to use it to accomplish things. If I can't write an app that will work next week because it's not using the widget du jour it's not stable and not usable.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[psychosquee]

That's one of the reasons I like LInux so much is that it enables a user to choose how they want their desktop to look like. Some can go for the drool and click interface, while others (like myself) will choose the minimalist interface so that I can dedicate my system resources to something more worthwhile...

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[pauly_thumbs]

Sorry but you are msitaken -- having worked for RH i know from first hand experience that their position is to compete with Sun and to deflect the microsoft issue with the statement "Linux is Server Software" PERIOD.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[sonamchauhan]

"LinuxWorld: Linux on desktop soon - Torvalds ...
Linux may be primarily server-bound now, but it soon will be much easier to use on the desktop, and even in handhelds, says its inventor.

Speaking before the largest Linux gathering ever, Linus Torvalds predicted future versions of Linux will compete on both high-end systems and smaller devices - and become a major player on desktop computers.

"It means that in a few years we'll be the biggest OS on the whole planet, and I like that,"

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[13Echo]

Lack of uniformity among desktops isn't stopping companies from writing software, or manufacturers from making drivers for their hardware.

On the contrary... The Linux userbase keeps growing at amazing rates. That alone will gain support from companies that use it *themselves* to develop products for you and the rest of the Windows using world.

You're truly blind if you think that free software has to follow the same model of commercial software, in order to be successful. And if company X doesn't write us a program, or fails to write some drivers for their scanner, we'll hack it ourselves. We've always done it in the past... Hell; commercial drivers typically use backends that the *community wrote*.

There's currently no shortage of a geek-base for programming Linux applications. If a company doesn't wish to jump on the bandwagon, then that's too bad. Eventually, however, they'll have to do something, or risk obsolescense (e.g. SCO).

I'm quite happy with the great number of supported devices that there are right now. Can you name any, off of the top of your head, that actually matter? And if you can, is there not an alternative that is well supported? I certainly can't think of many.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[forsetti]

I am intrigued by your statement, which makes me wonder:
Then why spend the time trying to create a "pretty" user interface? Are they just trying to "dumb it down" for Windows admins?

*Disclaimer* I am a Windows admin myself, but prefer the comfort of a GNU/Linux or FreeBSD desktop.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[Wolfier]

That is true -- Linus/Linux is not out to attack the MS monopoly. But RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, $FAVORITE_DISTRO are. RedHat, for example, has already recognized this issue, and started attacking it with 'BlueCurve'.

OMG, the drones from FSF are going to get you.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[Dynedain]

Those of us who want Linux on our desktop have it on our desktop, those who don't... well... don't

I want Linux on my desktop, but yet don't have it. Why? Aside from the typical 'applications' cry which will eventually be resolved (hopefully) - it's because it doesn't work. I like the thought of having an OS that I can tweak and control every aspect of. I like the idea of *NIX instead of NT. But I am not a programmer; I am not a CS grad. I am not a 13 year old with too much time on their hands. I'm a working proffessional with a lot of geek skills (used both as a hobbieist and on the job) but I dont have the time to figure out all the nuances and get Linux working on my desktop. I have tried installing Linux many times over the last 4-5 years (Mandrake, Redhat, Corel, etc) and every time I end up eventually wiping the computer back to Windows because I need to get something done with it and I still don't have it working properly. From spending forever trying to figure out why a particular app wont compile, to fighting my way through dependencies, to trying to get my etc/hosts file to work right with a DHCP setup, to getting the right video drivers working, to ripping my hair out over samba not working, to trying to recompile my kernel, to KDE running incredibly slow, to trying to get sound, to trying to get my extra mouse buttons remapped, etc.....and thats not even dealing with applications. I don't even have the time to mess with applications and try to switch over my general computer usages because any spare time I do have is spent just trying to figure the basics out. A user shouldn't have to be experienced with Linux just to get it up and running. I've used all the 'easy-install' distros. I don't have wierd obscure hardware, and I have yet to have an installation where everything worked.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[forsetti]

Erm -- I'm talking about just the kernel -- ... yeah, that's it ...

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[Minna Kirai]

It's more than 3 themes. They didn't only theme the popular toolkits, but also some specific applications like XMMS and Mozilla.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[Minna Kirai]

In 1997, Linus's .plan said "World Domination. Fast."

So he really doesn't limit ambitions at all.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[v_1matst]

First off, realize that you can either A) buy another HDD and use that for linux OR B) set up a seperate partition on your existing disk and install linux there OR C) download a distribution like KNOPPIX and run the whole damn thing off of a CD.

I agree with your statement and this is why I don't run linux at home... I use MacOS X. I realize that we may be talking about apples and oranges, however I find that after working on a linux platform all day (and Solaris...) when I get home I don't want to have to be an admin there as well. I know there are people that will tell you otherwise, but OS X just works. It has all the functionality of a linux box (ie. stable, secure, command shell, blah blah blah), actually has a *BSD variant running underneath and a nice user interface and applications to boot. To me, OS X gives me the freedom to tinker and the ability to get things done (at home). However there is -no- way that I would run anything else on my desktop at work. They would have to fire me before I went to windows.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[Joe Tie.]

If you don't have unsupported hardware, why are you trying to recompile the kernel? Reading over your list of problems, unsupported, or just barley working hardware is what immediatly sprang to mind. Except for the extra mouse buttons. I've never seen a distro that properly sets one of those up.

You also shouldn't be having to deal with compiling applications in the first place. Any of the most popular distros should have almost everything available and tailored for your distro by the community around the distro - if not the distributers of it themselves.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[Joe Tie.]

Maybe the best solution to the whole "average user" problem is to make a dumbed down KDE/Gnome that are "easier" to use

I know what we need...KDE Bob!

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[ShinmaWa]

yeah! Its supposed to be GNU/Linus!

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[miyoo]

We should not try to attract Windows users to Linux/GNU because Microsoft is evil and should be destroyed. Market share itself should not be the goal, as has been pointed out above. We should try to attract Windows users because the larger the user base for Linux, more software development resources would be put towards developing for Linux systems, and the better the platform itself will become.

Think for a minute about the applications that are available for Linux machines. The software development and IT management tools are as good or better than anything on any other platform. Why? Because there is a solid base of Linux users who are software developers and IT personnel. Because there is a large group of people who will be served by such applications, developers (both open source and proprietary -- nobody wants to make software that no one will use) are encouraged to work along those lines. By contrast, basic "end user" apps like web browsers, office software, games, and other more specialized applications are generally either nonexistent on Linux or weak compared to what is available on other platforms. If there were more users who needed these kinds of apps, more effort would be made to create them or improve the existing software, thus making the platform as a whole more attractive for everybody.

I doubt there are many who would argue the author's point that there is a lack of a "standard" or "default" window system, both in terms of API and end-user interface, and that is holding Linux back from appealing to the typical Windows user. Deciding on a standard, say KDE, would not restrict those who want to use GNOME from using GNOME, any more than Windows standards prevent people from using Linux. Therefore, it seems like an obvious choice. The bottom line is that attracting Windows users should be an important goal for Linux because that will lead to improvements in the platform itself.

Deciding on what the standard should be or even who should set the standard is a much more challenging problem.

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[bravenight]

I agree with this 100%. I also agree that pushing for a single 'standard' desktop is pointless, and not in the spirit of Linux or open source. However, there are a few elements of the UI I would really appreciate the developers of the various desktops coming on some agreement for standardization. [not that any third party app developer would have to pay attention, but why wouldn't they by-in-large?]

• cut&paste - Gads would I like this to work properly! It's also the most common complaint I here from people trying to switch from Windows [although highlight middle-click is one of my favorite features]
• drag&drop - As someone else said, why can't I drag the icon in the file manager over to an email I'm writing an have it become an attachment? [interestingly, in Evolution I got the pathname of the file]
• Guidelines for placement and short-cuts for the most common menu features.

That's all. With just those three things (not to say that accomplishing this would necessarily be simple), the user experience would be far more pleasant. I don't care about this in the sense of stealing market-share from M$ (not that I would weep for them either, and a little more market-share potentially means more $ for development support and jobs for 'us'), but mostly for my OWN ease of use in day-to-day work (I develop for *nix on a a SuSE8.2 workstation). Thanks

Re:People just don't get it sometimes.

[AbRASiON]

The problem is some of the linux supports are actually Windows users.
I'm a Windows user who loves his games, likes to browse / email / use icq etc.
I don't want to keep supporting Microsoft, I'd LOVE to use linux, I'd like an OS where I've got some more control, but damn me if all the apps I want to use are on Windows and I find the linux alternatives unsatisfactory or difficult to work with.
I don't want to pay near half a grand for my operating system.

I've been using computers since I was 11 (so 14 years) and went through the dos days and the 3.11 days (personally I refused to use it, I prefered the power of using the command prompt and the responsiveness of the system vs 3.11)
but for the life of me I can't figure out linux, it's just a little too difficult for me and my time is lacking nowadays, time to learn is small.
(yes I realise this is my problem)

Any help that can be had is needed to make it easier and better - because ultimately if the "monopoly" wins, they won't just fuck us people too slack or stupid to learn linux, they will fuck you too when they start to dictate hardware requirements / changes. (DRM please.....)
I love my computers but I really see a bleak future for them the way things are going.

Until linux can do EVERYTHING I want to do with my Windows PC now, I just can't and won't switch - and that's a sad thing. /help me linux people, you are my only hope.

Great one.

[intrinsicchaos]

This is a great article. As an user with minimal knowledge of Linux, I'm mystified by the sheer array of OS's available for me. What does KDE/RedHat/Gnome have over each other?

It's wise to have everyone rally behind one operating system. That makes it more appealing to the masses. Most PCs have Windows, Macs have OS X, and it's worked superb for both areas.

I run OS X on my iBook, and it is great. However, being an advanced user of THAT, I would definitely be open to installing any other OS on it if I was given the choice.

Give the newbies one operating system, and leave it up to the advanced users to install their own choice of operating systems. Much like Old Navy/Gap/Banana Republic run on a scale of price, run RedHat/Gnome/KDe on a scale of usability, learning curve, and availability of advanced options.

Re:Great one.

[Anonymous Coward]

What does KDE/RedHat/Gnome have over each other?

Nothing. Nobody has anything over any other thing. (in fact your list is like asking "what do Ford/nectarines/Dodge have over each other?")

Do your install, and accept the defaults. You don't have to make a choice.

Re:Great one.

[quinine]

so, uh, what's your plan? to choose one standard and assassinate the developers of the others? It's not like there's one set of developers in linux that are churning out multiple products, there's multiple groups of people, and they each do their own thing. if you think all of them are going to stop doing their own thing so that they can work on the other guy's thing, well.. I can't help you.

Re:Great one.

[Hiawatha]

Thanks for restating the transcendently obvious. Difficult as it it is for some Linux partisans to grasp, most people don't want to have to figure out a plethora of GUIs. We want to turn on the bloody machine and get to work. And this can best be achieved by designing the OS so that it delivers a consistent user experience. Linux still isn't there, and many Linux fans are actually proud of the fact, as if incoherence were a good thing. But if Linux is ever to break through to the masses, a simple, intuitive and consistent user interface isn't just a nice idea--it's an absolute necessity.

Re:Great one.

[Anonymous Coward]

You want "to turn on the bloody machien and get it to work"? That's fine, freeloader. Why don't you go out and code it up? Would you like some links to IDEs, compiler instructions, and C programming tutorials, or do you already have all that?

The "Linux partisans" aren't most people. They aren't designing a desktop or an OS especially for you, or even for most computer users. They're designing an OS FOR THEMSELVES. If that's too much to grasp, and Linux as-is is "too hard" for you, then maybe you should go dig out your Win98 system restore disc and shut the fuck up.

Goddamn people complaining all the fucking time. Where do you think GNU/Linux CAME from, anyway?

Re:Great one.

[John Zebedee]

Without meaning to offend intrinsicchaos, this post perfectly illustrates the problem: to many people, the GUI is the OS, the two are inseparable: Linux is seen not as one OS with a variety of pretty faces, but as a variety of intrinsically chaotic OSes. The original article makes a related point: that the GUI has two aspects. One is the eye candy shown to users and the other is the API exposed to programs which use the GUI. The real need for standardisation is on the API side, not particularly the visible one. Regrettably, users and enthusastic advocates focus on the visible and hence the GUI flamewars. Intrinsicchaos is stating the article's point (let there be a standard API) from a user's point of view (let there be a standard appearance).

Re:Great one.

[intrinsicchaos]

I stand corrected; thank you!

Consumers do not want choices...

[Anita Coney]

My father-in-law worked as a travel agent at one time. He said travel agents never give more than three choices to a client. If you gave them more, they'd have to go home and think about it.

People don't like making choices, it takes away time, energy, and they risk being wrong. That's one thing Windows (and Apple) does well, all choices are made for you.

The problem I have with the post is that it does NOT have to be a zero-sum game. If someone wants to make a distro of linux that provides limited choices, what's stopping them? Why does every distro have to be limited in choices. That mentality makes no sense.

Re:Consumers do not want choices...

[christopher240240]

I've got to say that I agree wholeheartedly. I have found that I get the best response from clients when I only give them a proposal with options A, B, and C in ascending cost order. Only after they choose one of the options do we move forward with the "add-ons" and those are done one at a time, so they can truly make a decision rather than flip-flopping.

Re:Consumers do not want choices...

[R.Caley]

My father-in-law worked as a travel agent at one time. He said travel agents never give more than three choices to a client. If you gave them more, they'd have to go home and think about it.

This is only a bad thing from the salesman's point of view. From the consumer's point of view it is rational behaviour. One should thinka while when buying something as expensive as a holliday.

The only common consumer item which has a reasonably standardised interface is the car, and even there there are variations. sales of TVs and mobile phones and so on do not seem to have been harmed by each having an idiosyncratic interface.

Re:Consumers do not want choices...

[AchilleTalon]

Excuse-me, aren't you confusing a little bit the customer and the vendor?

Vendors don't like to let customers make choices, because customers facing choices need to think about it. And vendors don't like to see thinking customers leaving there business place. They interpret this as a lost sale. And, sometimes, it is.

On the other side, customers sometimes are asking for advise, so, they do not expect to deal with 100 possibilities, they asked someone else to skim this confusing situation for them and came back with a short list or a single choice.

So, Linux distros vendors are acting like advisors for the customers. But, the problem is not resolved at all, which distro should I pick?

You may choose a distro which let you make many choices or a distro which will make them for you. Something like: Default, Custom, Expert Install for Windows.

But, anyway, all this has nothing to do with the Open Source movement and rather than with trying to force people to adopt your stuff and buy it.

I still think variety is not a problem nor a issue. After all, cars are coming in a large variety of colors, size, form, performance, etc. And you are even allowed to modify it if you wish and respect legal issues.

Re:Consumers do not want choices...

[Haeleth]

"The problem I have with the post is that it does NOT have to be a zero-sum game. If someone wants to make a distro of linux that provides limited choices, what's stopping them? Why does every distro have to be limited in choices. That mentality makes no sense."

Why? Because, among the many things Windows users do not understand, the concept of "distros" ranks fairly highly. Customers want "Linux", because that's the product they've heard so much about. They don't want to have to spend a week researching different kinds of Linux any more than they want to research different desktops.

The article also makes it quite clear that the object is not complete uniformity or "dumbing down". Just, well, rational defaults. If every distro _defaulted_ to the "standard" desktop, but they all had "advanced" options allowing people who are interested in such things to explore the complete range of current and future choices, would that not satisfy everyone?

Re:Consumers do not want choices...

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't like making choices, it takes away time, energy, and they risk being wrong.

That's rather simplistic. As a computer consultant, I always thought that it was my job, as an expert, to narrow the almost infinite number of choices out there down to a few that would suit the customer's needs. After all, if they could evaluate everything and make their own choice, then why the hell were they talking to me? If I can't narrow the choice down to a few best options, then they shouldn't be talking to me!

I do the same thing when I deal with experts in other fields. The assumption is always that I could do the same thing (given infinite time and patience) but I pay them for their expertise to shorten the process, avoid developing skills that I might use only one time and avoiding mistakes that might cost me more money than I pay them.

So I don't think that people don't like making choices, rather I think they pay to avoid wasting time, energy and, yes, reduce the risk of making a wrong choice that might cost them more than they pay for the services of an expert.

Now, how does this relate to a choice of GUIs for LInux? Well, I think his example of installing and testing various GUIs was rather wide of the mark. No one who wants the level of simplicity he suggests is ever going to do that! Instead, they will either purchase a packaged distro OR they will hire an expert like me to set it up for them. And I have done so.

In fact it has come up often enough lately (about 4 times in the last 3 months) that I am in the process of cutting off my own mini-distro with Debian. I intend to include only a limited choice of software that is similar enough to Windows stuff that minimal retraining is required, organize the "start" menus on it so they make sense and a minimal install script. This will satisfy 90% of the people I deal with. The remaining 10% will require something more custom.

Re:Consumers do not want choices...

[TheMidget]

So, Linux distros vendors are acting like advisors for the customers. But, the problem is not resolved at all, which distro should I pick?

Isn't that actually the same situation as with the travel agent? The travel agent skims the situation and presents the consumer with a short list of three choices... But before it gets to this point, which travel agent should the consumer chose? And I think that this other choice is the reason why travel agents don't like people going home to ponder what choice they are going to make... because while they are at it, they might also question the choice that they've already made ;-)

Re:Consumers do not want choices...

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone wants to make a distro of linux that provides limited choices, what's stopping them? Why does every distro have to be limited in choices. That mentality makes no sense.

ArkLinux

Re:Consumers do not want choices...

[Zork the Almighty]

If every distro _defaulted_ to the "standard" desktop, but they all had "advanced" options allowing people who are interested in such things to explore the complete range of current and future choices, would that not satisfy everyone?

The problem here, and everyone feels it in their gut, is that making a global default interface will kill development for everything else. Suppose we choose KDE, then most new applications will be written for KDE, and anyone using any other window manager will have to load half of KDE to run their apps. Ditto for Gnome (although not as bad).

I think people need to realize that part of the reason Linux is such a strong contender is that there is diversity and competition at almost every level. Improvements in Gnome spur improvements in KDE, and vice versa. Sometimes a program becomes so good as to become a de-facto standard for a while, but because it's open source anybody can take the functionality and write their own competing program. Freedom and competition go hand in hand, and they are even given a boost by the development model. Trying to impose standards will not improve the quality of Linux software at all, and in the long run it will actually limit it.

Re:Consumers do not want choices...

[Olathe]

The moving-from-Windows distributions do this. Lycoris and Lindows distributions, for example, don't require many decisions where Linux newbies would be lost due to inexperience. Any "difficult" questions would also be asked when setting up Windows.

Having specialized distributions like these seems to be a good way of handling the situation.

One System

[MikeHunt69]

It does make sense, even simply from the angle of more people working on one system, rather than solving the same problems seperately.

But which to choose?

Re:One System

[Blaine Hilton]

This is also the way I see it. If you have 10,000 developers and they are working on 100 projects then each project has only 100 developers. Now if some of those could be combined then it would allow theoretically at least, faster development.

Faster development would lead to increased market share and all of the other things. Now another way to do this is simply to have more developers. Then everyone is happy. I like the way gnuCash stepped up to the plate and asked for help. Many people do not realize how useful just writing some documentation is for the program, even if a person just writes some content in a text file, they do not have to be programming wizards.

Quick few points

[L-s-L69]

1. I like choice its of of the many reasons im a big linux fan. 2. For most people new to linux KDE or GNOME are both easy enough to pick up and use, as these are the defaults for most large 'desktop' distros either should do the job. 3. The biggest problem with newbies not adapting linux is the 'its not windows' factor. My mom has used mozilla and linux without knowing it. When I told her it was linux she started to lose the plot.

A thought

[rknop]

Whether or not I agree with the conclusions, for the time being let's accept them for the sake of argument.

Suppose that the current goals of the open source community (freedom, choice, etc.) are inconsistent with GNU/Linux taking over the desktop.

Do we then really want to take over the desktop?

If we have to become like Microsoft to defeat Microsoft, then what's the point? *If* we were just another proprietary software company, then, yeah, sure, that's the right thing to do. Since, after all, the ultimate goal of any company is just profit. The open source community is very different. The community isn't going to get rich and retire. They're mostly in it because they like the software and they like the freedoms. Changing the things you like to something you don't like so as to win a competition that may come down to little more than a pissing contets seems counter-productive.

In any event, it's moot. The mere fact that open source has the freedoms it has means that choice will simply not go away. Yeah, KDE and/or Gnome may become the "advertising standard" that we use to draw people away from Windows desktops, but unless legislation makes free software illegal, things like X and FVWM and all the other "oh it's so confusing save me from having to choose" things that we hear whining about simply aren't going to go away, because the people who write them want to write them and won't stop in the name of some corporate strategy.

-Rob

Re:A thought

[rutledjw]

Dude, seriously, who cares? Look, if it takes a Ximian or Red Hat with some proprietary desktop to bump windows, does it really matter?

Both of those guys are based on OSS stuff anyway. Quite frankly I'd say "Kudos" to both for making money from Linux / OSS! I know that money isn't the point, but the (semi-) lack of a business model has somewhat hindered adoption in the past, although more and more, that hinderance is IN the past.

The point is that people would be using a real OS that doesn't have the same security nightmares that a Windows does. We wouldn't be constrained the same way we are now having to write code to a moving API.

The final point is this - the desktop is de-coupled from the X server and OS. So if Joe 6-pack uses a proprietary desktop, turbo-nerds (you and I) can use what we like!

From s selfish standpoint, it's be nice to hang out with my old man drinking a beer rather than clean the viruses (that made it through McAfee) from his machine when I visit...

Re:A thought

[ClippyHater]

Do we then really want to take over the desktop?

I think having a majority of desktops running Linux would be a huge boon! No more searching to see if ALSA supports your latest/greatest sound card, no more searching to see if the latest/greatest graphics card is supported and has full hardware acceleration in 2D and 3D. When you "own" the desktop, suddenly device manufacturers find it prudent to write the drivers for you.

No more Wine/what-have-you to run some of those fantastic commercial apps under Linux (and spottily at best for some). The manufacturers will find it in their best interest to do a straight port to Linux to get to the most users.

So, IMO, yes, we do want to own the desktop

If we have to become like Microsoft to defeat Microsoft, then what's the point?

If by "become like Microsoft" you mean suddenly having questionable business practices, then obviously you don't. If you mean writing easily breakable software, you don't have to do that either. Why would we have to become like Microsoft??

Re:A thought

[dew-genen-ny]

I think you have a valid point. I guess that the obvious response to that viewpoint is that while I agree the main objective of the linux community should not be desktop OS domination, I feel that it happens to be a by-product of a more important goal:

Our goal should be to create a damn fine OS, for ourselves, and for those we know. In my opinion the linux/opensource community really demonstrates the potential that internet-enabled mass cooperation can do for computer using people the world over.

I pray for linux domination on the desktop, because by the time we get there, we're going to have one absolute kick-arse OS. And even if we don't make it - at lease it will force M$ to get their shit together and innovate.

Re:A thought

[Mr_Silver]

Do we then really want to take over the desktop?

Yes we do.

Unless of course you want to spend the rest of your life limiting your hardware purchases to what works with Linux.

Personally I'd rather pick the best specced bit of hardware (say graphics card) for my needs, puchase it and take it home knowing full well that it'll have all the drivers on the CD and be supported if you have to phone up with a problem.

Not something that will happen if Linux remains in the niche market.

Re:A thought

[Arandir]

And then you decide to use a different OS. FreeBSD, MorphOS, Plan 9, whatever. Suddenly you've stumbled into the same age old morass: the hardware vendors don't support you.

Our answer to the Redmond monopoly should NOT be another monopoly. It shouldn't be a game of king-of-the-hill. The "we can only support one OS" mentality needs to be eliminated, not encouraged.

Re:A thought

[bobtheheadless]

I think some of the other reply's missed the point of the parent...
Would it be good to take over the desktop market? Yeah, of course. That's not the point though. The point is that the structure of the open source community is entirely different from that of a proprietary software company. As such, the OS community doesn't have the ability to say "THIS is the one desktop environment, and THIS is the one http server, and THIS is.. etc". Somebody can try, but nobody has to listen. There is no ONE voice for the entire community.

i disagree

[Tennguin]

This may come as a suprise to many people here but some people LIKE the way linux works. Just because Windows has a lions share of the market doesn't mean it has a superior design... I think a certain company's business practices are more likely the reason why.

I for one beleive that that users would eventually become acclimated to which ever desktop they choose, but that choice shouldn't be stripped away; it part of this communities appeal.

KDE and Gnome act fairly predictably now; I'm not a fan of Redhat's bluecurve at all. Why bother packaging two desktop enviornments at all if both are coded to behave identically?

Re:i disagree

[tf23]

Because it's too early for Redhat to be able to pick one or the other as a standard. Doing so now would infuriate a lot of their potential/existing customers and users.

Re:i disagree

[erinacht]

The main apps used on my desktop are either based on the KDE libraries or on the GTK libraries. What Rehat have done is to make running a gnome program on Kde look native and vice versa.

Re:i disagree

[Dynedain]

This may come as a suprise to many people here but some people LIKE the way linux works

Point me to one person that likes the inability to cut-and-paste accross applications. The problem with Linux is not so much in how it works, but where it doesn't.

Re:i disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you been? I've been cutting and pasting between applications for years! Maybe you should update your distro to something newer than Redhat 4.1.

Ya know what?

[BHearsum]

I don't care if we attack Microsoft's monopoly, or takeover the desktop. Since when do I care one bit about 'the average user'? I'm using Linux because it works for me, if Windows works for someone else then let them use it. If you take away the choice, then to me, you're saying that one size fits all, which is completely untrue.

Besides, there's already distros that have 'standardized' certain desktops for their userbase. Most converts I know are happy with that...

Don't take my desktop away.

Re:Ya know what?

[mrkrause]

While you put it a bit more harshly than I would have, you're 100% on. My use/involvement with Linux chiefly about using something like I like to do what I like to do, but, if it happens to stick it to Billy G & co in the process, so much the better.

That said, if SuSE, RedHat, and friends want to sit down and develop a standardized desktop, more power to them. I'd personally rather see a faster/smaller/smarter kernel or some wiz-bang apps first, but to each his own; I'm fine with KDE.

Re:Ya know what?

[rcs1000]

I tend to agree. I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

That said, I have a terrible admission to make: I use Windows as my desktop OS, and Linux on my server.

The reason I haven't changed is not because there isn't a standard desktop UI for Linux, it's because well.. Windows XP works well enough. Truth be told, I'd rather have a couple of PuTTy windows open, than use xterm. And I have yet to come across a text editor to beat TextPad. (Now, there's a program worth paying for!)

Will I move to Linux on the desktop at some point? Probably.

Will it be because the choice has been sucked out? No. It'll be because someone has come up with some must-have, completely new, feature I didn't previously know I needed. Trying to ape Windows is not the answer! Trying to out-innovate it is...

Re:Ya know what?

[MobyDisk]

I love that argument. It is so true of my current situation with Linux. But I still disagree: Why? Because having one single desktop will help ME. I like my apps looking and acting the same. I like not having to remember that drag-and-drop works in one app and not another, and that one app has a completely different cut-and-paste than another, and help system, and button behaviors.

So I agree with your basic point: Forget the newbie, what do we, as Linux users, want? I want a stable, standardized desktop!

Re:Ya know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

So stick with REdhat for the rest of your life.

Re:Oxymoron...

[Anonymous Coward]

no, it isn't.

your "joke" isnt funny.

piss off.

Red Hat..

[Chicane-UK]

Would it be fair to say then, that Red Hat has the right idea trying to make a standardised GUI using the bets bits of (predominantly) GNOME and KDE?

Having used Bluecurve'd GNOME over other versions of GNOME, it really is a superb piece of work.. definately the way forward imho, and a huge improvement over the standard.

Re:Red Hat..

[Jagasian]

I agree that in some ways Bluecurve is a start in the right direction because the user does need a consistant user interface... ...but if you want to give the user a consistant user interface, then why go about it by offering two different interfaces that you tried to hack into looking similar to eachother?

Why not just have some balls and choose 1 window manager, and then customize that 1 window manager for usability? Sounds like a far more tractable solution.

I think that Redhat is doing Bluecurve because they didn't want to flat out drop KDE... so this way they can please both crouds. HOWEVER, you can't please everyone, and the whole point of Bluecurve is to make Linux more consistant in interface. Bluecurve was a brave step for Redhat, but also a cowardly step.

Personally, I don't care which desktop they choose, though I do prefer KDE. I am sure no matter which one they choose, as long as they focus on making their choice as usable as possible... Redhat will succeed.

BlueCurve?

[soren42]

RedHat already implements this concept fairly well with their BlueCurve interface. Relatively standard look and feel whether you use KDE or Gnome. Coupled with the easy RedHat install, it could easily be the distro to target the unwashed masses.

Me, personally, I'm a Gentoo man.

Re:BlueCurve?

[Chuck Bucket]

Me, personally, I'm a Gentoo man.

As am I, but I am interested in the ebuilds that now support Ximian. Think about it, Ximian proves a nice (standardized?) desktop for end users, with usablity all laid out, and all apps within reach and installed. Now it's not my piece of pie, but for 'new' end users, it'll be great; and they'd get the same desktop regardless of if the CIO wanted to run Red Hat/SuSE/Mandrake or Gentoo. Of course admin'ing the that I need to admin these boxen what better way than emerging via SSH to all boxes? Setup a distcc and then you're really moving.

CB

Re:Oxymoron...

[Ceyan]

Despite the editor's lack of insight into Linux GUIs, that comment was uncalled for. It's comments like those that stop Windows users (be they simply home users, or actual tech savvy people) from switching over to Linux, whether you mean them or not. Grow up.

restricting user choices

[martin-boundary]

"that they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any applications they might want to use."

That's partly what good administrators are for. There's no need to reduce choice at the distro level, simply pay your Linux administrators more and you'll get lots of goodness ;-)

Moreover, if corporate users are "guided" in their choice of window managers by their admins at work, then they'll use the same WMs at home eventually, or they'll be ready to explore something else. Either way, problem solved.

Third factor...

[Channard]

There's a third factor that should also be taken into consideration - that of just how easy it is to completely mess up an install of the OS. Even if you have an OS that is completely user friendly, making it easy to do whatever you want, if the users have access to essential functions of the system, they *will* mess it up. An ideal OS would be user friendly, secure *and* even the most determined good intentioned meddler would be unable to make a dent in it.

Re:Third factor...

[El Cubano]

There's a third factor that should also be taken into consideration - that of just how easy it is to completely mess up an install of the OS. Even if you have an OS that is completely user friendly, making it easy to do whatever you want, if the users have access to essential functions of the system, they *will* mess it up. An ideal OS would be user friendly, secure *and* even the most determined good intentioned meddler would be unable to make a dent in it.

Then, by your reasoning, even Windows is not ready for the desktop. I recently purchased a new piece of hardware. The instructions for installation on Win 98SE/Me went something like this (thankfully I run Linux):

• Install hardware and let Windows try to install driver
• Remove specific Windows driver it just installed (don't reboot)
• Get driver from vendor and install
• Reboot and don't let windows try to install a different driver
• If hardware does not work, uninstall all drivers from the last couple of steps and start over
• If all else fails, format and start with a clean isntall of the OS

I mean, seriously, what kind of crap is that? Apparently, even someone knowledgable and following the instructions to the letter could screw things up to the point they would need to reinstall the OS. Imagine how bad a clueless idiot could screw it up.

Here Here

[Breakerofthings]

Perfectly stated!

I usually let my mod points go to waste; but today, I wish I had some to mod you up!

I do agree that vendors should get together, and put something slick and standardised together that looks and feels like windows (like Lindows has done), to make newbies comfortable until they learn the ropes

But that does NOT mean that I have to lose my choice of KDE, Gnome, Ratpoison, FluxBox, etc. etc.
Has everyone forgotten that those choices are one of the main reasons that Linux/BSD are cool in the first place?!

Let's not forget that (IMO) the "competition" between KDE and Gnome, for example, helps to drive innovation in both; Who the hell wants the Linux Desktop to stagnate like some others?

nobody decided

[quinine]

nobody decided that there needed to be more than one desktop solution, it just evolved that way since different developers have different goals. trying to unite them would be like saying, "two oceans are too much. we need to figure out how to merge the atlantic and pacific oceans in to one super-ocean." that's just silly.

that said, the more we can get the different desktops to interoperate via projects like freedesktop, the better off we'll all be.

Choice isn't a problem.

[nuggz]

There are currently 2 main options for new users.
KDE and Gnome, both are very pretty, easy to use and straighforward. I don't think you can go wrong with either one, they are both excellent.

I think the choice is good. For those who care about the differences you can switch, pretty easily now. I started using GDM specifically because it let me start KDE Gnome or another setup very easily.

doesn't linux already come with a standard UI

[TonyPyGarthno]

its called the terminal =)

Re:doesn't linux already come with a standard UI

[CableModemSniper]

ksh, bash, zsh, tcsh, etc..? Which one is standard? (Ok, practically every distro has bash by default, but still.)

Re:doesn't linux already come with a standard UI

[RexRuther]

I've been tinkering with FreeBSD and Linux, and in my opinion the terminal, while powerful & useful, does not give any hints to newbs trying to find some function or another. A gui, if designed well, gives hints to the user as to where to start poking around.

Man pages don't cut it if you don't know the command you are looking for.

There is something good to be said about right clicking on something and getting a list of things that are applicable to that object.

Re:doesn't linux already come with a standard UI

[Alan Hicks]

Hmmm....

% find /usr/share/terminfo -name "*"

That yields 2353 independent results.

Re:doesn't linux already come with a standard UI

[Anonymous Coward]

Emacs

Re:doesn't linux already come with a standard UI

[danila]

This is actually not "funny", it's insightful. There was a standard interface for Unix. Did it destroy it? No! Did it spoil the OSS movement? Hell, no! DId it turn programmers into blabbering idiots? Yeah, may be. :) So why does anyone think that GUI standard will be bad?

Heck, it is not simple to do, but the idea is extremely simple. Design a unified interface system (call it a "standard") that everyone is happy with. If there are some fundamental differences between KDE and Gnome, add an extra layer of abstraction and let them make two different implementations that would still work with all other layers. Then all you will need to run all and any applications on your system will probably be a small wrapper that will provide extra functionality not included in your GUI.

Re:doesn't linux already come with a standard UI

[Hatta]

Try apropos

Re:doesn't linux already come with a standard UI

[Anonymous Coward]

... and the terminal rules while all GUIs I have tried suck !

That's easy

[SoTuA]

Pha. Just persuade RedHat to switch to KDE as default desktop or SuSE to switch to Gnome...

What do you mean, "holy wars"? :)

IT woudln't hurt to have a unified desktop... but it sure is kind of utopical. I think we are going in the right direction. Either Gnome or KDE will serve as a full-featured desktop, and the ease of use is there (or mostly there).

I'm restricting my rantings to SuSE and RedHAt, seeing as this pleads to "Linux Companies"...

the complaint

[Hitch]

is that there are lots of apps out there that just don't work well without certain UI things installed. I don't have a MAJOR problem with this, but for a while there it was REALLY frustrating to find an app the was KDE only and required the installation of all the KDE libraries and Qt widgets etc. just for a little POS progream. Understand, this was back when I had a 1GB hard drive, and installing all this junk was taking up a lot of room for me - but even now, it just feels like a lot of bloat. Don't get me wrong - I'm not any bigger a fan of Gnome. I don't use either. I do, however, like GTK. as such, I'm far more likely to install the gnome stuff than the KDE stuff. what would be NICE is if gnome and kde were more like "skins" - write a program, include the hooks - and depending on whether someone is using gnome or kde, it comes up as gnome or kde. I know this isn't how these things are written, and this'll never happen, but it'd be nice.

Re:the complaint

[Hitch]

ah - and to explain why this is relevant - newb users are going to be really confused (I've seen it) when they go "but why do I have to install this whole set of gnome stuff to run [program]?".

Re:the complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, it is similar to windows, where they have to install net framework to run net apps?

Re:the complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I think the answer here is to design everything to a non-WindowManager based interface, or to build a standardized communication protocol between applications on the desktop.

But isnt' that what GNOME is (almost) supposed to do?

Re:the complaint

[Hitch]

no - a net framework to run net apps would be fine.
but the gnome desktop suite to run gnome-calculator is bloat. (note: I don't know if the situation is THIS bad, but it was close for a while. maybe it's better, but I stopped running gnome after it kept crashing X for me. (I know, that means a bug in X. still, doesn't functionally make a difference.))

XPDE

[cjcormack]

The Xp.org Desktop Environment is a great idea for people switching from Windows, it's not an exact clone, but will give users a more "friendly" interface (friendly to someone used to windows! not - i've dug myself a hole here... help!!)

Re:XPDE

[cjcormack]

I meant xpde.org :$

Michael,

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would look on DSLReports.com, you would see that Speakeasy IS the best consumer broadband ISP period. If you are having problems maybe you made a mistake. You may not have sent in a support ticket either. With Speakeasy, the help is there, you just didn't go for it.

If you don't think they are good enough then I suggest you look at options such as dedicated T1 or fractional T3 since you won't find anything more satisfying. And yes, because Michael mentioned his DSL problem as part of each of his 3 posts, this is on topic.

Differences?

[valkraider]

Is there any good site with detailed comparison's of them that the average joe user could find?

I recently tried to install Mandrake 9.1 on an old IBM thinkpad Pentium II (My main machines are OSX), and had to choose between Gnome and KDE and IceWM, and had no idea which would be better. I chose Gnome, and the first startup after install the machine sat there at the "Gnome" splash screen cranking the disk for almost 3 FULL DAYS! (72 Hours for the math impaired!). I shut it down and tried again, it cranked for about 3 hours and I shut it down. It has been sitting there cold for a week and a half now - without my having the time to figure out what is going on...

What's my point? The basic home Windows user would just give up at this point. ;)

Re:Differences?

[AstroDrabb]

The problem is with Mandrake. IMO, it is the buggiest and most unstable Linux distro I have used. Try Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, etc. Any of them should be much more stable. I did give Mandrake 9.1 a try and I had the same exact problem. Though, I let it sit for about 1 minute and then formated the drive and put Red Hat 9 on it.

Re:Differences?

[tf23]

Hey look, I got a new Gateway PC in a few months ago at work. Booted it up. First thing it did, during the Windows XP introduction crap was crash.

Over and over. crash crash crash.

What's my point? The basic user would just give up at this point, regardless of what the OS is.

Note the lack of 'windows' and 'home' in that sentence.

And yes, this is a true story, and the pc was given to us by Gateway, along with another one, for a promo.

New users less important than freedom

[stormcoder]

Compromising our values and reducing the freedom of existing users is not worth getting a bunch of non-contributing, ignorant users. If they would like to join the community, that's great but sacrificing the values that are the foundation of free software is not acceptable.

blalablabla

[Jondor]

Choice is bad. Monoculture is good. To beat windows you have to become like windows etc. etc. yada yada yada.. Nothing new here.

And the companies, what should they do with so much choice?! Well, very simple and what every company probably already does. Make a choice. And call it the standard for the whole company. Can't make a choice? Flip a coin. The options on the company desktop are KDE and Gnome. It doesn't realy matter all THAT much.

While I agree there is space for distro's with LESS choice, this is not the way to improve open source. Competition is good and will result in choice. Survival of the fittest etc. And a company which cannot deal with a changing environment will go the way of the dinosaur..

Re:blalablabla

[radish]

While I agree there is space for distro's with LESS choice, this is not the way to improve open source. Competition is good and will result in choice. Survival of the fittest etc

It's only survival of the fittest if the weak ones die. If (as with OSS) nothing ever dies, what you have is an overpopulated environment and a lack of available resources.

Mind you - I do agree that the choice should be up to the people in the position to dictate standards - namely sysadmins, policy makers, and for home users, distros. But it would be nice if there was an easy way of persuading developers of some of the more *ahem* specalised projects to help with one of the "fittest" :)

My struggle with Linux

[BMonger]

I've installed various distros of Linux (Redhat, Pogo?, and one other (maybe Slackware?)) and maybe it was just my total lack of patience but it seemed like I could get something to work on one distro and not on another. Graphics card would/wouldn't work, ethernet would/wouldn't work, sound would/wouldn't work. I actually started keeping a notebook around to write down the methods I got things to work. Sometimes it'd work again and sometimes it wouldn't.

Then once I got everything working I'd have to figure out which GUI(s) were installed on it. Sometimes they'd work and sometimes they wouldn't. Mostly due to video card issues I'm sure.

Then if I got the GUI to work I couldn't figure out head from tails how to get programs installed. Most everything that I downloaded it felt like I had to build or download from CVS or some weird junk like that.

Eventually I gave up on wasting my time and went back into Windows. Then my Windows machine bombed out (CPU overheated I think) so I scrapped it for parts and now am over joyously running Mac OS X. Yeah it's more expensive, yeah I *used* to have a one button mouse, yeah it looks like a lamp... whatever. I know I have a good and solid OS underneath all those fancy widgets (which is why I wanted to install Linux in the first place) and I have those fancy widgets (which is why I always went back to Windows). Everything works and to get applications installed I just copy them into a directory and voila! Yes on occassion some random freeware/shareware program doesn't work for some reason or another. But overall I think it's a good middle ground between Linux and Windows.

I'm not by any means knocking Linux. I know most a good 25% of the people here probably can get it to run in their sleep and I applaud you for it. But I just don't have the patience I suppose. It's not that I'm afraid of breaking something. It's just that after a weeks worth of trial and error it sorta makes you discouraged.

Re:My struggle with Linux

[Omicron32]

You should try Gentoo again. It'll work on PPC too.

The Gentoo install isn't the easiest ever, but I was a n00b when I installed it, and everything 'just works'.

Don't let the compile times put you off, all that Gentoo Zealot Translator bullshit is just crap. Don't knock it till you've tried it.

Hate to sound like a Zealot, so, umm... You could always try Debian too. :P

Re:My struggle with Linux

[cheesybagel]

Regarding drivers, it is a matter of choosing something with a Linux kernel and XFree86 version that support your devices.

Before I bought my system I chose components I knew had support in Linux. This makes things simpler. Luckily the most well suported devices are usually the cheaper ones, so you will not lose much from this.

If you think Linux has driver problems how about the Mac? You do not have driver problems because all the stuff you use comes bundled together. Try using certain PC devices like cheap DVD recorders, etc and you will see which one has better driver support as boxed.

If you like the Mac that is fine. MacOS X is a fine OS, unlike the previous attempts, with a great UI/API. I prefer non proprietary solutions.

Re:My struggle with Linux

[Jon Abbott]

Your post strikes a chord with me... I had the same learning curve to overcome as well -- it took me about six months to do it -- and this was in 1996! Unless you truly enjoy fiddling to make stuff to work, Linux is probably not for you. This is generally as true now as it was back then. BTW, I'm also running OS X now -- finally, usability and functionality can be in the same sentence!

Re:My struggle with Linux

[Ice_Balrog]

I've installed various distros of Linux (Redhat, Pogo?, and one other (maybe Slackware?)) and maybe it was just my total lack of patience but it seemed like I could get something to work on one distro and not on another. Graphics card would/wouldn't work, ethernet would/wouldn't work, sound would/wouldn't work. I actually started keeping a notebook around to write down the methods I got things to work. Sometimes it'd work again and sometimes it wouldn't.

First of all, why did you try Pogo and Slackware? There are distros meant for Linux newbs, and they are called RH and Mandrake.
Second, thats a hardware problem. NOT a GUI one. If your hardware isn't supported, then I'm sorry. There isn't much one can do.

Then once I got everything working I'd have to figure out which GUI(s) were installed on it. Sometimes they'd work and sometimes they wouldn't. Mostly due to video card issues I'm sure.

Again, if it's your hardware, the don't blame the GUI. Its got absolutely nothing to do with hardware support.
Also, if you go switching distros, then what would you expect? A clone of the last one?
Even then, KDE/GNOME are basically the same across different distoros. Don't give me the BS that they are completely different.

Then if I got the GUI to work I couldn't figure out head from tails how to get programs installed. Most everything that I downloaded it felt like I had to build or download from CVS or some weird junk like that.

Ummm... OK. If you download software that is still in development, then that's gonna happen. For just about every even semi-mature there is a RPM (or some kidn of package).

Eventually I gave up on wasting my time and went back into Windows. Then my Windows machine bombed out (CPU overheated I think) so I scrapped it for parts and now am over joyously running Mac OS X. Yeah it's more expensive, yeah I *used* to have a one button mouse, yeah it looks like a lamp... whatever. I know I have a good and solid OS underneath all those fancy widgets (which is why I wanted to install Linux in the first place) and I have those fancy widgets (which is why I always went back to Windows). Everything works and to get applications installed I just copy them into a directory and voila! Yes on occassion some random freeware/shareware program doesn't work for some reason or another. But overall I think it's a good middle ground between Linux and Windows.

Then by all means, USE OSX!
The goal of Linux is to give choice, not to make everyone use it.

I don't that is the purpose of linux

[shawn(at)fsu]

I do not think that the reason allot of people use Linux is because it is like windows. I do not want a compromise my desktop choices I like KDE, I do not want KDE becoming more like Gnome or Gnome becoming more like KDE. All the desktop managers have pluses and minuses, which is why people chose one over the other.
I also think that going to a one desktop fits all is the wrong approach to compete against Windows is the wrong idea. The beauty of Linux is the beauty of choice, that is it's advantage for the "fight" with Windows; some people use windows and like it, good for them. Some people use windows and say "I wish I had an choice on how my desktop worked, more than just applying a theme" and then they take a serious look at Linux.
I think the Linux community has got to get over this attack Microsoft attitude and just make a product that appeals to those people who are not satisfied with the options that windows provides.

Wassat?

[fluxrad]

So the argument goes something like this:

"In order to beat Windows, which all Linux users think sucks, they should try to make it more like Windows."

Yeah. That plan's not doomed to failure.

Re:Wassat?

[Hoi Polloi]

Yah what a crazy idea, after all, Windows has been a complete failure, right?

Re:Wassat?

[McNeany]

It worked for Microsoft. They stole the Macintosh GUI. Why cant it work for us? I bet it can. I bet it WILL if we ever come up with a standard!

Re:Wassat?

[Experiment 626]

"In order to beat Windows, which all Linux users think sucks, they should try to make it more like Windows."

Windows does most of its sucking in areas like security, stability, openness, licensing conditions, standards adherence, and so on. Even the most rabit Microsoft opponent would have trouble arguing that GUI ease of use for newbies, which much of this discussion has focused on, is Windows' big weakness. I think a more appropriate phrasing of the plan is to be more like Windows in areas where Windows is ahead, while retaining Linux's superiority in the areas where Windows does in fact suck.

Re:Wassat?

[ax_42]

So the argument goes something like this:

"In order to beat Windows, which all Linux users think sucks, they should try to make it more like Windows."

Yeah. That plan's not doomed to failure.

What's wrong with the plan? In order to beat Windows, which sucks at the core level, we need to make Linux, which "sucks" (call it Joe-sixpack-confusing) at the UI level more like the Windows UI. No contradiction at all.

BTW, the problem has already been solved: OS X - because it's easier to make Unix user-friendly than it is to make Windows stable :)

Re:Wassat?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think there is a difference, not all aspects of an operating system should be lumped into one in this consideration. Windows doesn't necessarily suck because of the user interface but because of the internals, but on the other hand, in my opinion Linux sucks almost solely because of the user interface. Take the good parts of everything, put it together well and you may have a winner.

Re:Wassat?

[JanneM]

If we offer something that is very much like Windows, then why switch at all? OS/2 was a better Windows than Windows, and it died on the desktop.

In my view, offering something where _you_ choose what it is going to be like, is a compelling argument. You are deployer for tenthousand desktops in your organization? Customize the hell out of the desktop, making it do - and not do - exactly what your employees need. You a 133t |-|4xx0r? Throw enough Enlightenment and other eye candy at your machine to choke a rhinoscerus. You a small business owner? Just go with the defaults for your distro and everything will work fine.

Re:Wassat?

[Arandir]

The Windows GUI does suck. And it sucks big time. The reason no one ever complains about it is because they are used to it. The very basics of manipulating on screen windows are simply missing. Poor control of z-order in windows, no snap-to screen edges or other windows. As a window manager only, even Blackbox blows Windows out of the water in terms of usability.

Then there's the new XP task-based interface. It only works if you're doing the certain tasks it expects you to do. Anything else and you're three menus deep looking for the task you really want to do.

Do not confuse familiarity with usability.

Re:Wassat?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in order to beat Windows which sucks at the UI level, we need to make Linux suck just as bad.

Yeah, that would get a lot more users. For OSX, that is.

What about Windows ?

[subStance]

Has this guy even talked to the average Windows user ? The most common question I get is "Which Windows version should I use ? NT ? XP ? ME ?".

The average windows user doesn't even know which *windows* desktop they should use, so it's a bit of a stretch to ask Linux distro vendors to solve a problem that Microsoft hasn't been able to solve - if it's even really a problem at all.

This guy writes a lot but says nothing

[mr.capaneus]

Articles like this are a dime-a-dozen these days. I am getting tired of reading about what some dude thinks "linux advocates" should be doing. That really misses the whole point of Open Source. Anyone can do whatever they want with the software and there is no single guiding force that is trying to compete with Microsoft. The Open Source community is just that, a community, not a company that is trying to grab marketshare. Open Source programmers will continue to create what they find to be useful tools. If this talking head wants a standard desktop for Linux, he should put one together and make it so good that nobody wants to use anything else. Otherwise he should just shut up because nobody really cares about what he thinks "linux advocates" should be doing with their time.

Why????

[brent_linux]

What does everyone think that we have to take Linux to the mass market?

Doesn't it seem that the mass market is coming to us? I mean the number of Linux users grows on a daily basis. The number of people that aren't just "using" their computers, but learning to understand them and operate them correctly is growing. More and more people are leaving MS because of MS than they are because they are looking for something else. Once they do then they find a new system that they like better. Making Linux more like Windows isn't going to attract more people. Making Linux better than Windows is going to make more people stay. IMO a single standard desktop interface is NOT better than Windows, the choice to use what you want and what you like IS.

Experienced user choice

[madsen]

After having used Linux since 1993 I feel like I'm not competent to really make the choice or rather have the time to make a choice so I just stick with what I'm using. But what matters to me is that the choice is there for me to make if I feel like it, not havin to be stuck with something that really doesn't suit me.

There is an actual issue to consider here...

[Ceyan]

I see most people saying that the author doesn't know what he's talking about, how Windows changes the interface every edition, and that Linux is all the better for allowing someone to pick.

That's all wrong. Windows does change it's interface but it still leaves people with NO CHOICE in the matter as to which to use (although you can change it after Windows is installed through themes or 3rd Party Programs). That makes a huge difference to not give someone a choice, than it is to say "This is the default option, but you can also select this desktop." Whether you like it or not there is a serious issue when it comes to offering someone a choice in Linux when they're used to Windows forcing them to use something. It's basic psychology.

Choice?

[stephenry]

This isn't about choice, it's about money. Linux on the desktop will never take off before their is some serious investment behind it. Furthermore, nobody will ever switch to Linux unless it's in their interest to do so. What Linux really needs is the development of native high-applications of which there are no suitable OSS alternatives, at a cost comparable or lower than their Windows counterparts.

The one way will take place is through a sufficient, standardised, framework through which applications can be developed. I'm not talking about GTK or QT, but the whole environment surrounding it; and more importantly, one that's not constantly in flux for long periods of time. Once that happens, then a trickle of applications will start to appear.

It's important to notice that for Linux to succeed Windows on the desktop, it doesn't need to displace it entirely. The moment Desktop Linux becomes an option to the consumer, is the moment Microsoft has lost it's grip on it's monopoly.

Re:Choice?

[AstroDrabb]

The one way will take place is through a sufficient, standardised, framework through which applications can be developed. I'm not talking about GTK or QT, but the whole environment surrounding it; and more importantly, one that's not constantly in flux for long periods of time. Once that happens, then a trickle of applications will start to appear.

This already exists. Gnome and KDE both provide a complete programming environment to work in. If you need lower level stuff, that is where POSIX and the std C library come in. It is no different under MS Windows. You can use MFC or program directly against the Win32 API. There is also the std C library for handling other tasks. MS changes things almost as fast as under Linux. They are constantly introducing new buzz words and trying to make that the new "standard". MS Messaging Queue, COM, COM+, J++, .Net, ADO, OLEDB, etc, etc. What it comes down to on ANY platform is to find what tookits/API's fit your needs and use them. There are already 1,000's of applications under Linux, commercial and Open Source. Oracles whole line runs under Linux, the same for much of IBM's stuff, PeopleSoft, SAP, Network Associates, etc, etc. The current situation with commercial applications under Linux is mostly server oriented. Though that is changing over time. Hopefully the next 2-4 years will see more commerical applications under Linux geared for the desktop user to allow even more choice. While I am a big supporter of Open Source, I also think that the "IT Pie" is big enough to sustain a healthy commercial and Open Source marktet without one being force to choose one or the other. The only problem I see right now is that software patents are giving an unfair advantage to larger corporations. And as far as desktop interoperability goes, just about ever distribution of Linux comes with the libraries needed for Gnome and KDE. While I use Gnome as my desktop, if there is a KDE app I want to use, I am able to use it without a problem since the required libraries are there. This is no different then a MS Windows user needing certain libraries to use an MFC app or a VB app or an app that needs the MDAC libraries, etc.

Choice == Good Thing

[muirhead]

In particular he argues that the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on..

KDE and Gnome both behave enough like each other and windows for a novice user. More experienced users have even more choice.

Choice is always a good thing, even if you choose stick with the default set-up.

OUCH!!! That hurt!

[Wvyern]

It has been medically proven that to think, actually causes a reaction in the brain that is similar to what happens when pain is perceived. Making choices implies the need for thought to make a decision. People tend to avoid pain. There is absolutely nothing wrong with providing the ability to make a choice, for the masochistic)i.e. technically savvy), however a standardized, GUI for complete idiots is going to have to be the default if competition with MS products is the real goal. Any readers who have worked in ID10T support positions will likely concur.

why do we care?

[bokmann]

While I'm all for standards, yes, it is a fact that the goals of the Open Source movement are not the same as the average end user. IF they WERE the same, then I doubt the open source movement ever would have started in the first place.

Why is this a bad thing? Can't we have different goals? While I'd like a little more acceptance, I'm fine with the fact that I will probably always be in a minority of operating system users. I'm also in a minority by having an above-average intelligence.

This is not a zero-sum game... I don't care if Windows or Linux has the larger market share... I just care if I can get my job sone with a minimal amount of hassle.

Re:why do we care?

[ajnlth]

I was just thinking, are there more extremely dumb people in the world than there are extremely smart people? If that would be the case then the majority of people would have above average intelligence. In any case I doubt it's an minority that has above averge intelligence, I would guess it's atleast 50%.

Re:why do we care?

[rakkasan]

Exactly! Operating systems are tools, not a philosophy (gasp) or a religion. Use what gets the job done.

Re:why do we care?

[swillden]

I'm also in a minority by having an above-average intelligence.

I guess you can call that a minority. It's clearly a very large minority, however, since it includes very nearly half of the population. Depending on your definitions you could even argue that it's exactly half of the population, which isn't a minority (or a majority).

Nevertheless, you're clearly in the majority that either doesn't understand or doesn't think enough about the meaning of words like "above average".

Re:why do we care?

[bokmann]

When I wrote that, I laughed at it, and left it there because I thought it was a funny statement. I guess if I had attached a smiley to it you might have understood.

Best quote...

[blixel]

From the article:

"The average user doesn't know--or care--about the underlying operating system, the idea of GUI interfaces, the various types of file systems, or about any other "technical" aspect of using a computer."

I think this is the best point of the article and the point most often overlooked by technically savvy people. Pick your analogy, driving a car, building a home, operating a microwave or television, etc... The general public cares as little about computers as "we" do about how our cars operate. We just want to get in them and drive.

Re:Best quote...

[vadim_t]

Yeah, that's why all microwaves have the same interface, and all cars use the same type of engine and have the wheel on the same side.

There are multiple interfaces to pretty much everything.

Re:Best quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

I care about how my car operates...

Re:Best quote...

[RedHat Rocky]

I will get flamed for this, but:

Not everyone can drive a car with a manual transimission, nor does everyone want a car with a manual transmission. Does this mean cars with manual transmissions are inferior or shouldn't be made? Does that mean they should be rengineered to appeal to the average driver?

I personally believe that the strength of choice is that one has incentive to LEARN while making that choice. It doesn't matter whether one chooses blindly or not, there is still the event where one says "This sucks. I think I'll try option B."

The greatest damage Microsoft has done to the computing public is eliminating the awareness of choice. People consider the quirks and annoyances of Windows to just be a fact of life. I hear the question "What else is there?" all too often, usually in response to my chiding their third reboot of the day.

Yes, the average user doesn't care about choice, the inner workings of their tools, computers, appliances and transportation. And that's just sad.

Re:Best quote...

[Have Blue]

This analogy should be generalized... In this modern world, virtually every nontrivial piece of technology you encounter (car, TV, mobile phone, microwave oven, etc) has a vast base of knowledge behind it which is, with the exception of the computer, invisible to all but the most specialized end users working in that field and not necessary to simply *use* it. We don't expect people to choose cars based on what brand of fuel pump they have or what embedded OS their engine monitor uses. We don't expect people to choose TVs based on the electron gun characteristics or layout of buttons on the remote. We don't have to know technical details of frequency assignments or wireless protocol design to use a cell phone. We don't need to know how radiation heats water to operate a microwave. Why are computers the exception?

(The answer seems to be a mixture of computers lacking the long history of standardization and polishing the other devices do, and the politics and elitism that prevent these standards from emerging. It really would be a good thing (for "them", if perhaps not "us") if every single computer in the world had an identical interface and core OS feature set, neglecting all considerations of precise details of this theoretical feature set.)

Re:Best quote...

[LMCBoy]

We just want to get in them and drive.

Then I invite you to go down to your local Best Buy, where they will cheerfully sell you Windows XP, which you can "just drive".

Pushing your analogy, why do you come into the meeting hall of the "custom kit car tinkerer's club" and ask them why they don't offer you a car that you can "just drive"? It makes no sense.

Re:Best quote...

[zpok]

Yep.

But I don't think Linux is for the general public. As long as it's build by and for the geek/corporation, it can look however it feels like.

The general public is better off using OS X or Windows. Consistent GUI's and predictable behaviour are important for them and Open Source doesn't mean dick to them (most of them copy anyway).

Getting Linux distributions on as many desktops as possible in its current incarnation(s) is counterproductive.

The best effort IMO is now Sun's distribution for large corporations, but that's for very predictable environments, and luckily they saw the need to make it look and behave a bit like Windows.

Anyway, you can't have it both ways, distribute an OS that's perfect for you, the ubergeek, and expect computer-challenged people (not the same as stupid) to be productive on it.

In my experience, programmers are among the worst judges of Usability For The Common Man. And no, the Common Man doesn't know what a shell is and doesn't want you to explain it to him.

Re:Best quote...

[antiMStroll]

I'm willing to bet a very large percentage of people here care very much about their cars, homes and TV's. It's the same kind of enthusiasm for tech that brings them to Slashdot. Microwaves can be an important choice to the cooking enthusiast. The article's main thrust is that those who do care should be abondandoned for those (the majority) who don't. I think it's wrong.

The road to success for Linux will be the same as it was for Windows: corporations first, then home users. The desktop is now ready for corporate use, the real holdback being apps. Once they arrive (especially games for home), home users will follow. The future of Linux does not rest on the VCR-blinking-12:00 crowd.

Re:Best quote...

[gbjbaanb]

perhaps /. (the computer equivalent of the kit car club) is not the best place to discuss that quote.

I think he means "we" to mean the majority of the general public, and not the types that read /. - go to Ford and ask if anyone has ever asked for a car they can customise, then ask how many people buy cars from them. I imagine the answers are 'lots and lots and lots', and 'no-one'.

Try the same at a kit car manufacturers, and you won't get exactly the opposite answers, you'll get 'very few', and 'well actually our pre-build service is quite popular amongst our customers'.

The point is that though you may want to tinker with your computer, the vast majority of users (including a great many Linux users) don't want to know - they just want the OS to be functional and perform the work they want performed. This appeals to the majority, so unless you want Linux to remain a very small market, you'll have to make things simpler, offer pre-setup installs, and make things the same as what they are familiar with.

Being able to customise afterwards is a brilliant feature - but don't expect many people to bother (besides installing utilities and changing colours :-)

Making it difficult is just making Linux out as some niche product that no-one but 'l33t' people are allowed to use. Not a good situation at all.

Re:Best quote...

[Tom]

But you still like to have a choice of different cars, don't you?

Re:Best quote...

[Bob9113]

Pick your analogy, driving a car, building a home, operating a microwave or television, etc... The general public cares as little about computers as "we" do about how our cars operate. We just want to get in them and drive.

This is precisely the reason that the World's most popular operating system is painful to me. Hamstringing Linux is not the answer. The average person does not want to fiddle with a manual transmission, and does not want shifts to jolt the car - that does not mean that the noisy, difficult-to-shift manual in the Dodge SRT/4 or the whiplash-inducing Formula 1 style tranny in the Ferarri Enzo should be replaced with slushy automatics.

Re:Best quote...

[LMCBoy]

The point is that though you may want to tinker with your computer, the vast majority of users (including a great many Linux users) don't want to know - they just want the OS to be functional and perform the work they want performed.

Ok, which is exactly why I would point such users to existing commercial OS products that fill their customer-like needs nicely (hey, even including some commercial OS products based on Linux).

Linux itself is not a commercial OS product, it is a community of developers and enthusiasts. That's not elitist, it's just a fact.

so unless you want Linux to remain a very small market, you'll have to make things simpler, offer pre-setup installs, and make things the same as what they are familiar with.

I don't care one bit how big the Linux "market" is, and I don't see why anyone but a commercial Linux distributor would care. I care how large and active the Linux community is, which is a very different thing from the market of Linux "customers". I am not a FLOSS developer to enrich Redhat/Suse/Mandrake, I'm in it for the community and the fun. I simply don't care if "Joe User" uses Linux or not. Why should I? He can use whatever he pleases. If he decides he wants to join the community, I'll welcome him with open arms and offer him some Free Beer.

If Redhat/Suse/Mandrake want to corner the desktop market by offering a simple-to-use version of Linux, more power to them, as long as it doesn't inhibit the community.

Re:Best quote...

[pmz]

The general public cares as little about computers as "we" do about how our cars operate.

I guess that explains why I constantly see shitty (but not old!) cars blowing oil smoke out their exhaust running on bald tires while the driver tailgates and speeds. I've even seen this on snow-covered roads (sigh).

If people knew just a little more about physics and just a little more about why oil changes are important, a lot of good would be done for the world.

Re:Best quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers are the exception because of the generalness of the tool. Think of the devices that a computer can easily emulate or, in some cases, completely replace:

• Typewriter
• Video game console
• DVD player
• Stereo
• Calculator
• ...

This doesn't even touch on the specialized applications that used to be covered by multiple tools, such as drafting boards and the accompanying utensils that go with them.

A computer's interface and functions have to support all of these specialized tools. I'm not saying that someday the "man behind the curtain" will be hidden to normal users, but having hooks to support so many different things definitely makes the machinery much harder to hide.

Re:Best quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you do care how big the Linux market share is, just not directly.

You want that new piece of hardware to work immediately. Or to run that new game right out of the box. You want your brand new printer to work the minute you plug it in.

Currently, Linux drivers are there in most cases, but sometimes they do not use all the features of a device and they are never available immediately for new devices. With a few exceptions, games don't ever come out for Linux at all.

Larger marketshare would make supporting Linux more desireable for the makers of these devices and software.

Re:Best quote...

[blixel]

Yeah, that's why all microwaves have the same interface, and all cars use the same type of engine and have the wheel on the same side.

Are you actually insinuating that it is as difficult to switch from a GE brand Microwave to a Sharp brand Microwave as it would be for the average Joe Walmart shopper to switch from a Windows installation to Linux?

Re:Best quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The desktop is now ready for corporate use"

I'm going to assume(I know) that you mean widespread corporate desktop useage, not just the IT guy's desktop - I'm assuming you mean it's ready for the desktops of the salespeople, marketing department, administrative assistants, and officers.

The problem with that is, those people do not set up their own machines(usually) - the IT guy does it.

Which still leaves the general home-use public out in the cold as far as setting up and choosing a distro, a GUI, network settings, etc.

In the corporate world, these decisions can (and usually are) dictated, whether by the CTO, IT Admin, install monkey, whoever, so the user is not dazed by the mindnumbingly technical choices between things that are so similar as to be a non-choice(in the user's eyes).

The corporate world gets to skip the whole deer-in-headlights syndrome because it has an expert that makes a decision that is forced upon everyone. (This is good in this setting.)

But when Mary Jane, the secretary decides to "try linux" at home, she's in for a rude awakening, most likely. It's one thing to use a *nix box and quite another to actually build one. She probably doesn't care about all the stuff required to be set in order to install linux, she just wants to "play" with it without the boss looking over her shoulder.

Anyway, I rambled, but the point is, without making the switch easier than installing windows - easier, not as easy as - making the jump from Office to Home will end up looking much like Homer jumping the canyon.

With XP, windows is unbelievably, astoundingly easy to install and very familiar to most officedwellers. If there's a linux that's lobotomized-monkey-easy to install with the same functionality/usability as windows, I want to know about it. I don't care _what_ apps I'm using to do XYZ - I just care that it's intuitive(which is not a synonym for easy).

Re:Best quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone can drive a car with a manual transimission, nor does everyone want a car with a manual transmission. Does this mean cars with manual transmissions are inferior or shouldn't be made? Does that mean they should be rengineered to appeal to the average driver?

You are trying to compare the minority car enthusiast crowd against the majority of non technical computer users.

To answer you question. No. It doesn't mean all cars should be built as sealed systems since the majority of people don't care. I never insinuated that.

The Linux crowd are the ones crying about "World domination", not the other way around. It's unrealistic to expect everyone in the world who just wants to check their e-mail and read their favorite online news site to become computer super freaks.

So I propose one of the following A.) Make a standard Linux distro that will appeal to the masses. (To the stupid, pathetic, low life, retarded, mentally handicapped... Is that enough insults to feed your elitist ego?)
or B.) STFU and take your Linux O/S back to the underground and live happily ever after with all the other trolls.

I personally believe that the strength of choice is that one has incentive to LEARN while making that choice. It doesn't matter whether one chooses blindly or not, there is still the event where one says "This sucks. I think I'll try option B."

I'll agree with that. Now show me a *real* person (a non elitist prick) who goes running off to Linux because Windows was just so gosh darn hard to use.

The greatest damage Microsoft has done to the computing public is eliminating the awareness of choice.

If that's true, then why are so many Linux distributions merging? Why are your Linux experts vying for a standard? Just because there is a single standard doesn't mean all choice is gone. The Linux enthusiasts will still have the choice to run whatever Window Manager gives them an erection. On my XP machine, I don't run the explorer shell like most other people. The choice is there if you bother to look for it.

People consider the quirks and annoyances of Windows to just be a fact of life. I hear the question "What else is there?" all too often, usually in response to my chiding their third reboot of the day.

And I bet your proudly installed Debian (or Slackware or Gentoo or FreeBSD or RedHat or Mandrake or Lindows or ...) on their system, thereby rendering it useless to them. "Uhh... dude, I just wanted to play Quake and check my e-mail."

Yes, the average user doesn't care about choice, the inner workings of their tools, computers, appliances and transportation. And that's just sad.

No, not sad. Some people have a life.

Re:Best quote...

[vadim_t]

Of course not, microwaves are very simple devices that just do one thing. It's not a fair comparison. Windows and Linux both do lots of things. Switching from Windows to say, OS/2 would have some complications as well.

I'd say it's closer to compare it to a switch from a SUV to a motorcycle. Both are vehicles that you can use to get to the same place, but they're driven differently, and have their own specific advantages and inconveniences. While a motorcycle is probably harder to use (never used one), it's smaller and you can pass between cars stuck in a traffic jam.

Re:Best quote...

[moranar]

So you are saying you just go to the car salesman and say "Gimme a car. I don't care which one, I don't like to choose. I just want to get in it and drive"?

Sorry. I thought that buying a car was something that involved a bit more thinking than "I want it blue. I like blue".

What you are saying is "a novice user is blinded by the incredible differences between all those distributions". But the novice user will normally not use more than one distribution, which (usually) chooses carefully its UI: Red Hat chose Bluecurve, Mandrake has Galaxy, SuSE has (I think) KDE as its default, Lindows also...

Every "Linux Operating System", defined as "a distro you can get on the net" has a well defined UI, even if that UI is the command line. Even Mandrake, that prides itself on letting you choose between 11 WMs has a big bold selection between only Gnome or KDE (the rest are chunked into a subgroup called "Other" in the install. So that difficulty to choose is not something real, in my opinion.

Re:Best quote...

[RedHat Rocky]

You are trying to compare the minority car enthusiast crowd against the majority of non technical computer users.

Responding to an AC (don't feel like being responsible for your words?), shame on me.

Read for content. I was comparing the pro-Linux crowd to the "minority car ethusiast" crowd. And stating that Linux is probably not for the "average" user.

World Domination? I don't give a moment's thought to that, it's a joke Linus started that the media likes to use all the time. I like my OS just the way it is, and I don't care if you use it or not.

And I bet your proudly installed Debian (or Slackware or Gentoo or FreeBSD or RedHat or Mandrake or Lindows or ...) on their system, thereby rendering it useless to them. "Uhh... dude, I just wanted to play Quake and check my e-mail."

You could be more wrong, but you'd really have to work at it.

Re:Best quote...

[blixel]

So you are saying you just go to the car salesman and say "Gimme a car. I don't care which one, I don't like to choose. I just want to get in it and drive"?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. How intelligent of you to come to that conclusion. Kudos, genius.

Re:Best quote...

[Enoch Zembecowicz]

The lack of curiosity in the general public that the above post panders to irritates me to no end. I simply can not understand getting in a car and "just driving" it, nor can I understand turning on a television, microwave, or washing machine and "just using" it with no thought to how it does what it does.
Simply treating machines like magic boxes that do something for you is a sign of big problems with the human race. Questions aren't being asked, people just want Budweiser and American Idol. Our service-based economy is developed around getting money from these people, so the world is being built around them.
Wake up, we're turing back into monkies.

Re:Best quote...

[blixel]

Responding to an AC (don't feel like being responsible for your words?), shame on me.

Uhh... yeah. That's it. Because I care so much about Slashdot.

Read for content. I was comparing the pro-Linux crowd to the "minority car ethusiast" crowd. And stating that Linux is probably not for the "average" user.

Should have made that clear the first time. End of conversation. I agree whole heartedly. Linux is great for the minority of people whom, like myself, actually care about the intricate details of computer systems. But, unlike the unsilent Linux Zealot crowd, I don't think less of someone just because they own a Mac or prefer to run Windows XP.

World Domination? I don't give a moment's thought to that, it's a joke Linus started that the media likes to use all the time. I like my OS just the way it is, and I don't care if you use it or not.

That's awesome. The Linux community needs more people like yourself to speak out. No, I'm not being sarcastic. That is genuinely how I feel. That's why I'm loud and outspoken. To help nullify the noise of the average elitisit Linux user. Over the past few years I have become the antithesis of a Linux Zelot.

You could be more wrong, but you'd really have to work at it.

A thousand pardons my good sir. Forgive my tactless, inept, attidue. I had you mistaken for someone without a brain.

Re:Best quote...

[RedHat Rocky]

That's awesome. The Linux community needs more people like yourself to speak out. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

See, the thing is, most of the Linux community is this way. Unfortunately, there is a verbal minority that keeps getting the limelight and the media jumps on that. It's the whole "squeaky wheel gets the grease" syndrome.

I do reserve the right to tease Windoze users, though, if only in payback for my mail spool being overrun with "Your message had a virus" crap.

Re:Best quote...

[hopeless case]

"virtually every nontrivial piece of tech you encounter has a vast base of knowledge behind it..."

You put that so well. Thank you.

I think where things are headed is, finally, the realization that for the average home user, a computer and its OS require on-going service from a specialist, just as a home furnace or water heater requires some sort of on-going service.

That's why I think lindows is such an interesting idea. The have focused on making all of the compiling and configuration choices for the user and offer the click-and-run warehouse as an on-going update service.

This gives the illusion of seemless operation, with an army of engineers in the back room doing constant testing and recompiling the latest versions of all of the open-source apps you might want to run.

As complex as computers and their operating systems are these days, I don't think any amount of up-front fool-proofing is going to work for very long (such as Windows and OS-X are attempts at). The answer is an on-going tweaking service, as with other complex home appliances.

When you take security into account, this concept *really* takes off. It is looking more and more like security issues may be the final nail in M$'s coffin.

I predict great things for lindows.

Re:Best quote...

[blixel]

See, the thing is, most of the Linux community is this way. Unfortunately, there is a verbal minority that keeps getting the limelight and the media jumps on that. It's the whole "squeaky wheel gets the grease" syndrome.

You're right. I have just been inundated by the squeaky wheels to the point that I couldn't take it any more. Many (not all) in the Linux crowd want to be more l33t than thou. Their life isn't complete if they aren't running their own home brew distro, or a Linux from scratch install.

Those types of guys are like this.

First, the Linux Zealot (we'll call him LZ for short) convinces his friend to dump that crappy "Money$haft Winblows" Operating System and install Linux. Two days later LZ is riding his friend's behind as to why he is using that "sell out" RedCrap distro. So LZ convinces his friend to install Debian or Slackware. A month later the friend finally gets Debian installed (it takes him a month because every time he asks LZ for help, LZ just replys "RTFM!"). LZ shows up again after his friend calls him over to show him he just finished setting up his Debian install all by himself. The LZ starts hounding his friend about the pussified Gnome or KDE Desktop he's running. "That's for cowards. We elitists use BlackBox!", the LZ says. So LZ's humilated friend installs BlackBox (or whatever). A few days later LZ comes back over and sees his friend running an XChat IRC client. LZ totally loses it. "What are you doing???? A GUI IRC client??? Have you lost your mind????" In his anger, the LZ fdisks his friend's machine and storms out.

A month later the friend gets so sick of LZ's condescending attitude that he drops his PC in a river and goes out and buys a Mac. Then (rightfully so) starts posting messages on Slashdot about how much he lates Linux Zealots.

Re:Best quote...

[moranar]

Then I have this used copy of Windows ME I'm sure wou want to buy. It's a great product, totally supported by that rock solid company, Microsoft. And if you call in the next 10 minutes, I have this great MS/DOS software I'm sure you'll like.

Re:Best quote...

[LMCBoy]

Ok, point taken. But I would definitely file a company who provides Linux drivers for their hardware under "community member". Nevertheless, you're absolutely right that hordes of mere "customers" would be an incentive for companies to join the community...

Re:Best quote...

[blixel]

Then I have this used copy of Windows ME

What were you doing using Windows ME? You must be a Lindows user.

It seems sort of evident.

[Progman3K]

It seems sort of evident, now that it is pointed out, that OF COURSE Joe User can't and won't be able to choose something as abstract as a window-manager.

But that's OK; there are projects out there that are trying to develop "simple-user" distros, and others that are for really specifically-targeted technical needs and whatnot.

THAT'S the REAL reason to go with Linux: FREEDOM.

And surely even Joe User can appreciate that on some level.

With Microsoft, ou DON'T get the freedom in any case. Some people in Redmond decide for you.

Surely we can give some equivalent Linux-development group the same role, and they can shepherd the ordinary users like Microsoft can, except that whatever they develop will be open...

It makes you wonder how much of an opportunity this could be for Linux.

I agree...

[Wdomburg]

Let's all standardize on Gnome and Metacity. Oh, you mean some people prefer KDE? Or IceWM? Oh well, nice thought...

I really wish people would get it through their f*@!ing heads that no matter how eloquently you argue that a single implementation would be a good thing, it simply won't happen until everybody agrees on what the best one is, which will never ever happen. Ever. Period.

Even if one of the two primary desktops for *nix (i.e. Gnome and KDE) ever becomes prominant over the other, it's not going to stop people from programming in marginal toolkits (e.g. FLTK) if that's what suits them. And prominance isn't going to come from someone saying "oh, we should really standardize"; it's going to come from inertia, as one becomes definitively more popular (either among users or developers).

But, hey, don't let that stop people from making themselves feel smart by pointing out the obvious.

They don't care...

[YrWrstNtmr]

They don't care that they can't see or change the source code to their current programs. They don't care that they don't actually own the software, as long as they only have to pay for it once. They don't care that most of their software comes from a single source. In short, they don't care about the fundamental issues behind open source software at all. But they do care about price, quality, availability, security, simplicity, and interoperability. Supply these, and open source will be the software choice.

Truer words were never spoken.

Blue Curve

[nege]

This is up to the distro owner, in my opinion. There is no standard "Linux" install, you run a distro. And the most popular is probably Redhat, and they DO have a standard look and feel, called blue curve. I think they have done an excellent job with it for the end user, and even though I do not care for it personally, I still have a choice to go download and configure a different WM. Redhat will continue to improve on their standard look and feel, and I always look forward to newer editions to see what they have made better.

Arguments

[GiMP]

1. Linux is not an operating system like MS Windows, it is ONLY a part of the operating system.
2. A product most similiar to MS Windows is a Linux distribution, which IS a full operating system.
3. Users chose their Linux distribution (OS), the Linux distribution (OS) choses their desktop environment.

Ultimately, the user is given a choice of many different operating systems based on linux providing application compatability.

Just because it is different than MS Windows doesn't mean it doesn't work, doesn't make sense, or can't succeed.

Re:Arguments

[Dynedain]

semantics

The next time there's an article about a major company or government switching to 'Linux' as their OS are you going to pipe up saying that the article should say 'a Linux distribution'? No? I didn't think so. Unless of course you are RMS...

Re:Arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a choice between two linux distro's that "just work" out of the box.

I don't want to spend an infinite amount of time making drag and drop work between my notepad type application and my web browser.

I don't want to spend an infinite amount of time making my fonts look nice. And then find out they don't look nice in all the programs.

I'm sick of hearing all these excuses about how Good choices are, when all the choices suck.

Re:Arguments

[GuruJ]

Of course, that argument doesn't work in reverse, otherwise next time a Government organisation switches to 'Mac OS X', you should really say they are switching to 'BSD' :-)

Distros are far more important than people think.

Clueless...

[Baloo Ursidae]

Doesn't every major distro ship with KDE as the default now? Given that there's not really any reason for the world to standardize on one desktop environment, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that at least for the forseeable future, KDE is going to be the default WM/DE?

I'm a Linux user and I wouldn't mind

[xutopia]

if Red Hat just stuck with KDE or GNOME and dropped the choices they give. I find it counter-productive to have so many GUIs.

Re:I'm a Linux user and I wouldn't mind

[tf23]

The only what I'd be OK with that is if they went with KDE.

While I respect that people don't like KDE, or like XX/YY better, I choose to use KDE. It'd be a pain in my ass if Redhat went with GNOME and didn't give me the choice out of the box to use KDE.

How about us, the current users?

[MoobY]

I'm always pretty irritated by people telling what desktops and the such should look like, based on their experience in windows. Especially those who want to throw away all current looks make me pretty angry. I'm using a mix of programs, with the most differing interfaces and I don't care as I'm familiar with the programs, have put energy into the programs and learned them. I use KDE with full screen terminals, mozilla, evolution, gnuplot, xfig, kprinter, acroread, all with their differing looks, and I cannot think of an alternative universal look that would make the applications any better, as they are currently in their best form possible. At least that is what I think. My desktop may look like an ugly mess of different looks, but this lays at the same basis that makes my working environment powerful (read: competition is good). So don't tell me it needs to change. It's just perfect like this.

Maybe you could start working on a universal look and themeing and the such, but don't let it be a reason for killing off all older code and programs, as they are pretty good. Or what did you think all of us millions of UNIX users liked about UNIX? It's definitely not the looks we're interested in. (Is it obvious that I don't care about making everybody use UNIX, and using that a reason for getting UNIX ready for the desktop?)

As The Architect would say:

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the problem, as you have so adequately pointed out, is choice." Some want it, some don't care. The ones that don't care want the default choice to work instead of crash.

With that in mind, the default GUI for Linux is now fvwm2. You're welcome. Back to work everybody.

Benefits of Usability Testing

[Ducati_749S]

One of the things that does help set a good GUI apart from an OK one is extensive, focused usability testing.
While the underpinnings of KDE and Gnome continue to advance, I doubt a great deal is being spent along the lines of usability for the GUI. Whatever your feelings may be towards M$, one thing that can't be argued is the amount of research & testing they put into the design of their UI.
Maybe the next logical step for one of these platforms would be to have a build that focuses on UI design for the non-technical users that makeup the majority of the Windows clientel. Until that happens, I fear these products will fall into the realm of "techie stuff", as my father puts it, for the less sophisticated users.

Nobody here is attacking M$. Or wants to.

[Qbertino]

What's all this war-talk? I have no interest in Linux 'winning' over Windows as fast as possible. What ever that may mean anyway. As far as I'm concerned Linux won the moment I saw Enlightenment Screenshots (I dig eyecandy, y'know? :-) )
Get into your head: M$ isn't an issue with Linux. Hasn't been, and never will be.
If everyone in the Linux community keeps that in mind Linux will be a standard faster than most people expect. I've used both OSes and I consider the Linux Desktop far more usable that Windows. And even though I was a Windows fan some time ago.
Calling the Windows desktop usable compared to current Gnome, KDE, a well-configured FluxBox or MacOS X Aqua is just plain silly.
Just like calling Outlook more usable than KMail or Explorer more usable than Mozilla Firebird. This comparsion is all just unfinished thinking.
The next will hear is that M$ Office is more standards compliant than OpenOffice. And OpenOffice therefor needs to merge with AbiWord to achieve victory.

You're saying that people are 'used to' Windows and not to a configureable system. But that's something entirely different.

this site's gui

[urmensch]

Kind of ironic that this site, "DevX.com - the know how behind development", looks completely broken in firebird. So much for its GUI.

As long as freedesktop.org works out well it shouldn't matter which toolkit you use. This is where themes can come into play in a big way.

Plus, a lot of windows apps i've used don't use MS toolkits but they still manage to integrate into the GUI (Desktop Environment).

This may be redundant...

[ducomputergeek]

But, its not the interface. Trust me, I am in the process of converting my boss over to linux for most of his work and getting Linux in place for a majority of our employees. Except for our graphics people that use Macs.

The reason why Linux has not made much in the way of maintream adoption in the home markets is the fact that there are hardly any major name-brand applications out there like Quicken, TurboTax, and others than many home users use. Hell, if Quickbooks Pro ran on Linux, we proably would only keep a windows box around to test website designs on in MSIE. There maybe OSS alternatives, but the average joe doesn't care and will go spend the $50 at Best Buy in order to get an easy to use product with tech support. Games are the same way. Some companies have made ports to linux, but the selection of popular games for linux is fewer than it is for Mac. And kids use computers more than adults and they use it to play games.

Now here comes the chicken or the egg paradox. Until more people use Linux, companies will not spend the money to port their popular software and Linux will not see an increase in home use until more name-brand applications are ported.

I know because at my last job, we switched to running Maya on Linux rather than Windows and the graphic artists at the company loved it since performance was a little better (only by about 2% on long renders) and it hardly ever crashed. So far I have all our servers switched to FreeBSD and trying to get Linux on white boxes at my new job. The news.com article about Ernie Ball was the kicker that conveniced my boss to give Linux a chance.

So long as the interface is GUI point and click and pretty straight forward, people won't care. Get major applications and games ported to Linux and Linux will sell to the masses.

Link.

[Omicron32]

http://www.xpde.com

Tell us something we don't know

[Rogerborg]

Now, tell us why exactly we want more "home users" of the type that want a system that has one button to do everything, and to have it pre-pressed before it leaves the factory? Leverage to get more vendor supplied hardware support, sure, but then we're just going to end up with "linux" systems choked with binary only modules. That's not a system that I'm interested in contributing to.

But I think it's a moot point. Look five years down the line. We'll have actual general purpose PCs running KDE/GNOME/X/GNU/Lunix, we'll have Macs, we'll have Son of XP Pro on corporate machines, and for home users, we'll have Grandson of XBox, the Palladium (or whatever they call it today) crippled Disney controlled locked down, DMCA protected media box running rented apps and rented media.

Microsoft can have the "home user" market, as far as I'm concerned, and welcome to it.

Re:Tell us something we don't know

[quinine]

Reading through some of these comments, I can't agree with you more. Sure, there's a place for linux in our enterprises.. Places like call centers or server racks. But this goal of having Dells or whatever come preinstalled with linux? Why the hell should we want that?

Recent case study of linux usability.

[Anonymous Coward]

A few days ago (25th) I bought a new scanner. Its a basic scanner (CanoScan lide 20) and I tried to do some scanning on both windows and linux.

With windows, plug into USB port, inserted the TWAIN driver disc. It installed a load of extra crap such as this crappy image manager (although it was easy to change to irfanview, and had to be rebooted. Windows tended to crash when I scanned at high resoloution (over 150DPI).

With linux (mandrake version), plug into USB port, run ScannerDrake (mandrakes scanner setup utility), and a Scanner icon appeared on the desktop. Clicking the icon brought up a twain like interface known as XSANE, it was all point and click. I was able to scan at 400 DPI without crashing.

So all the FUD I heard about getting a scanner to work by editing text files, recompiling kernels, modprobing (whatever that is) were non existant. Maybe in Sadistic distros like debian and gentoo, but not Mandrake.

What I want

[fudgefactor7]

I use KDE, I like it, it works for me; I don't like GNOME, it's kludgy, but there are parts of it that I wish KDE had. What I want is a merge of the two (Knome?). That would be cool.

Re: every few months...

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Windows has changed aspect exactly once, when Windows 95 was introduced. Even then things did not break - you could stil close a window by double-clicking on its icon on the top left of its window. Almost ten years later you can STILL close windows like that. The changes made in XP are purely cosmetic, a bit more color here, a bit of a curve there - that's all. I have not met one person who looks at an XP desktop after using Windows for years and gets lost. Ever.

Gnome and KDE on the other hand is another story altogether.

Yes, there must be only one target for the lawyers

[Picass0]

Choice is good. It's also good self defense.

So we consolidate all of the best features of numerous WMs and then someone claims we've infringed on IP.

Sorry, I think one WM is a bad idea. I'm a gnome user, but I like the fact the KDE is out there keeping Miguel on his toes and that I can switch anytime.

I also like that some of the non-spotlight WMs keep on pushing new features. Afterstep has re-written it's entire engine and is totally XML based. Enlightenment's next release renders to GL. And WindowMaker is still my favorite option for running a gui on old hardware.

I've always thought it was a selling point at the installfest when someone comes up to me, sees my tricked out gnome theme, and says "what's that?". If they seem to think my theme is to out there, I load up an OSX theme and suddenly they can't get Linux on their box fast enough.

One WM to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them. In the land of Redmond, where shadows fall.

Re: every few months...

[Zocalo]

Actually, I think Red Hat really realised the crux of the problem first; it's not the WM that's the problem, it's the look and feel. Hence we got Bluecurve, and now we have a plethora of popular themes being ported between KDE and Gnome. Some of these ports are so good I can log out of KDE, switch to Gnome and my desktop, widgets and applications are identical in both WMs, regardless of whether they were written in GTK or Qt.

Why standardise on a single WM and toolkit when you *can* have your choice and make it?

If I had to make a recommendation...

[EnVisiCrypt]

I would definitely say that Ximian desktop would be the way forward. It installs and configures a lot of niceties like Evolution, Open Office, management tools, and a sane desktop configuration.

I do believe the proliferation of window managers/desktop environments is a good thing. However, if business/home oriented distros could co-ordinate around 1 default desktop, things would be much more useable. It wouldn't remove any choice from the end user, the others would still be available, but the default could be "just there" for beginners to use.

Aside from all that, if the more tech-oriented folks want a distribution that caters to them and doesn't lay a default on them, they can still check out Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, LFS, or even *gasp* one of the BSD's.

Re: every few months...

[cK-Gunslinger]

No, I wouldn't say that the Windows interface has changed at all in the past 8 years or so. Win95, NT4, 98, 98SE, ME, 2K, and XP all have the same interface. Maybe some colors and styles have changed over the years, and some extra "features" have been added, but there is still a "Start" button. There is still "My Computer." Right clicking on the desktop will still bring up "Display Properties." There's still a taskbar with a clock in the corner. All these things have been stable for years, and users can feel very comfortable with any of these versions of Windows for 90% of thier tasks.

KDE and Gnome may be pretty similiar, but try switching from KDE to IceWM. Everything changes.

I get this a lot.

[_outcat_]

I hear this kind of thing a lot--"Let's do (x) and make Linux more accessible to the desktop user!"

That's all great. Seriously. Years ago, I'd never have been able to get into Linux if X hadn't looked (semi)-pretty on the first try. But the point I got the most out of this article is: the average user DOESN'T CARE.

I do support for about 500 users on a Win2k/XP network at a small college. I can count on one hand the number of "average users" who care how their GUI works, who even really care if they have a choice, who could even tell me much about screen resolution. Here's where I get maligned occasionally by my more Linuxy-zealoty colleagues: Linux is not ready for the end-user Average-Joe-Sixpack user yet.

Bitch and moan all you want; tell me Linux is ready for prime-time. Tell me that Joe User could install OpenOffice and interact completely smoothly--with his limited knowledge--with OfficeXP users. It's not always possible, no matter how much improvement some of these applications have undergone in the past few years. No one in my support radius knows or cares about Office's "smart quotes" or how they can truly uglify a document read in an alternate word processing application. No one here could get Evolution set up to work with our Exchange-only shop. The simple truth of it is, for a large mass of Gallumphing End Users, a Windows shop is just much easier to set up, maintain, and use.

Do I wish it were otherwise? Hell yeah. I love Linux just as much as the next girl does. But I dont see anything fundamental changing about the way the Linux community works. Part of the beauty of it is its LACK of standardization: if I want to put out a really easy-to-use distro and want to slap my very own GUI on it by default, and Jim-I-Wanna-Be-A-Linux-User eats it right up, who's to stop me?

I can't see this changing all that much in the foreseeable future. Linux has definitely made leaps and bounds on the desktop, but let's face reality: it's not ready yet and it won't be for awhile.

Re:I get this a lot.

[quinine]

So, your complaint is that Linux doesn't work well with Microsoft products? Could you do us a favor? Instead of complaining about this to us, could you please go join some Microsoft newsgroups and tell them about it? I think we've done more than our share to play nice with them and the amount they've done to play nice with us is right up around "undefined value." Jeez, of course an openoffice install isn't going to work perfectly with office; I think that if you converted everyone to openoffice that those installs would work with each other really well, though.

Re: every few months...

[Thyrhaug]

MS works at one desktop interface at a time. KDE and Gnome works at two different desktops, mostly seperated. That is the big deal. If Gnome and KDE would work together they'd be able to get much more work done!

No wonder Microsoft is first (not thinking about OS X here! :-) when it comes to new GUI-features (or mis-features as I prefer to call them)


(I'm not against having two big Desktop User Interfaces - user choice is a good thing)

If you chose not to decide

[mcmonkey]

You still have made a choice.

In particular he argues that the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on, and that they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any applications they might want to use.

That's part of the problem with MS hegemony, isn't it? If you want a tool to be really useful, you have to decide. You have to decide what you want to do and what features your tool needs to help you get that task done. You might actually have to exert some effect to chose the right tool for the job.

I won't say MS Windows is never the right tool (I'm sure plenty of others will), but I will say if you think there is shortcut around making an informed choice, if you just throw MS Win/Office/.Net at any problem without consideration for the issues at hand and the real requirements, then...what's that phrase?

Oh yeah, garbage in, garbage out. You can't NOT force users to make a choice. The users has to pick the right tool for the right job "in order to get good use out of any applications".

The Evil Corp Perspective

[CrazyLegs]

I'm an enterprise architect for a large multi-national bank. This is only relevant to give context that we are a typical giant corporation. We've recently been in planning mode to replace approx 25,000 OS/2 desktops and a few thousand OS/2 servers used in our retail branch locations. The choice, obviously, was Windows or Linux. Each choice has distinct risk - Windows is a lot of money and loss of upgrade control (financial/logistical risk) and Linux still has an unclear future in some contexts (strategic risk). Of course, they both have their benefits which we all know about. So why did we choose Windows even though it costs more money (licensing, new hardware, etc.)? Two fundamental reasons:

• lack of shrinkwrapped software. Not a huge problem for our retail locations, but more of an optical problem for senior mgmt.
• lack of standardized GUI!!

Make no mistake, the GUI issue is a big one for big Corps. It speaks to a perceived lack of standardized builds, support, etc. for Linux. Big companies (and home users) typically don't need or want a lot of choice. We don't need or want to worry about dealing with Corp XYZ Linux. What is great for the geek hobbyist is not so great for the rest of us who just need computers to help us 'do stuff'. I'm not being too articulate here, but Linux on the desktop will continue to stagnate while esoteric arguments over 'choice' and 'Windows Users Are Dumb' drag on and on. The Linux community, as a whole, has got to understand who the users are and what the users need. Sometimes, standardization - i.e. lack of choice - is good.

For "newbie" distros, yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a good idea. Once someone is more comfortable working in and with GNU/Linux, then they will always have the choice to go on and mod their distro any way they like. However, for people new to GNU/Linux from the windows arena, too much choice is a hindrance. "Hiding" the choice initially is a good idea, as they learn more about their new OS they will discover that they have choice.

One such oft-overlooked "newbie distro", Xandros, is handling this in the right way. It is extremely stable (based on Debian Woody), uses KDE 2.2, and CrossOver software for plugins and msOffice compatability. It provides one each of the "best of breed" common applications, and the GUI is as simple and straightforward to use as any windows GUI. Installation is a breeze, and I have had windows-using family members up and running using GNU/Linux in well under an hour, by themselves. Kudos to Xandros - this is how it should be done, when someone is introduced to GNU/Linux from windows.

I can't speak for Lindows (won't try it), but Lycoris is very similar to Xandros in this way. The former "best for newbies" distro Mandrake (which I gave up on after 7.0) was never as simple to define and use for "newbies" as it is touted to be.

Too much choice can be painful, in a sense, for someone in unfamilar territory. Restricting that choice initially can help them with their transition. The great thing about the amount of choice available in GNU/Linux is that once they have learned enough to do it, they will always be able to try another distro or upgrade their own with new GUI frontends and apps.

In my day, we had one desktop, and we liked it!

[eddy the lip]

No, I didn't read the article. I think we've all heard this argument enough times to know what it's about, and I really, really doubt this guy has stumbled on some new and revolutionary way to back it up.

First, the goal of linux is not to replace Microsoft. This may be the goal of some distributions, and more power to them. But linux (the whole experience, not linux proper) has as many goals as there are developers and users. The moment you forget this, you start getting silly screeds that start "Linux needs to..." Which is stupid - linux doesn't need to do anything, it's doing very well, thank you.

Second, users don't hate choice, they hate being made to choose. Once they get past a certain point, some like choice a lot. It's just that choices are very often presented at the wrong time - when the user is trying to figure out the basics, and before they've been able to absorb information required to make an informed decision. The cure isn't eliminating choice, it's deferring choice.

Finally, this fault barely exists today. Any distribution a brand new linux user is going to be exposed to is very likely one of the commercial distros that have a default already selected. Sensible defaults are better than no choices because they guide the user without constraining them.

Really, this is just getting silly. When did linux get popular enough to start attracting this kind of nonsense?

Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps

[Joel Carr]

Perhaps some of the people who write all this free software do it because they want the programs to work how they want them to. Perhaps they also do it in the hope that some others may find it useful for their needs.

Perhaps their sole reason for writing software has nothing to do with a desire to net hordes of Windows users. Perhaps choice and freedom of choice is something many open source developers care about.

Perhaps there is a reason why the goals of the open source community are not the same as those of the average user. Perhaps the 'average user' isn't the user base the 'average' open source developer is targeting or interested in.

Perhaps it should be commercial companies that seek after commercial goals. Not necessarily people who are hacking code for fun...

---

What ticks me the most...

[MouseR]

...about Linux is that every time you want to download a new program, you require downloading X, Y and Z other components to get the frickin' thing working.

I'm a fairly tecky person, with 15 years of experience developer on Macs. I use X11 for some apps I use from the 'nix community, including OpenOffice.

Ever installed MacBoch? It's a bitch to just get launched. You need extra scripts, info .TXT files and loads of crap just to boot anything--IF you can get it to boot.

I had to re-install my main OS recently, due to a somewhat annoying pre-release OS I was using. I still can't get OpenOffice to re-install properly, less with Apple's X11. I'll need to download XFree86 for Darwin (DarwinX) and use an extra launcher called XOroborox if I want to at least have Mac OS X -styled windows.

OpenOSX folks have gotten it right. They might be a somewhat expensive Linux/Free Software distributor, but they've found ways to package things simply.

My mother always bugs me to convert PowerPoint she keeps getting from colleges so she can view them on her Mac. Will I installer her OpenOffice? Heck no. Too much of a hassle. I convinced her to get Apple's keynote presentation software, wich can read/write PowerPoint files.

I really wich is was simpler for those who'd ratter get going ratter than go on a scavenger hunt every time you want to install something.

There ARE exceptions, though. I was quite surprised when 2 days ago I downloaded TuxPaint for Mac OS X. It worked right out of the "box". Not even requiring X11. Right on. This baby is gonna find it's way to my kids' computer tonight.

Re:What ticks me the most...

[MouseR]

Let me rephrase that second-to-last line:

I really wish it was simpler for those who'd ratter get going ratter than go on a scavenger hunt every time you want to install something.

Sorry about the babble speech. I got trigger-happy on the submit page.

Re:What ticks me the most...

[tvm662]

Since when was OSX linux? You can't get free software to install on your non-free operating system because Apple don't want you to, how is this a reflection on Linux? Would you have a problem installing OpenOffice if you were running Linux for PPC, no I don't think so. The job of packaging free software has moved away from the software developers to the distributions. Look at all the Red Hat/Debian/Gentoo arguments, they're mostly about packaging. If OpenOffice doesn't install on OSX isn't that a problem with Apple, not Linux.

Tom.

Diversity, culture, ecosystem

[file-exists-p]

Diversity is good. Everywhere I go, I see the same shops, the same food, the same tv programs, the same clothes. May it be in europe, USA or asia. This is depressing. The uniformisation may be a good idea on the short term and from an ecomonical point of view, it's a disaster in term of comfort and happiness on the long term. And, as in genetic, it's obviously a disaster from a memetic point of view.
-- Go debian!

Re:XP FUD

[oni]

Where is the major difference here? That's right; there's none.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Try explaining to someone over the phone how to install a printer or alter network settings. The dialog boxes and even the places you go to bring up those dialog boxes are very different between 98, ME, and XP.

This will fix itself

[kraemer]

Why even debate this? Nobody cares because it doesnt HURT enough. People will pay MS. Companies will pay MS. When it REALLY hurts the pocketbook, then people will all be on the same page. But then once the real battle begins MS will probably turn around and give the OS away for free....

Users confused by developer chatter

[amcguinn]

The one thing that's really new and unique about Linux is that the chatter of developers is in public. That's brought the problem that end-users overhear it and get confused about it.

The parent poster, who is probably quite intelligent and keen to learn, is therefore confused between Red Hat, which is a product he can pick up and use, and Gnome, which is a component included in Red Hat, and which if he were a developer he could take and build into products of his own.

I'm deliberately using the word "developer" in a very broad sense, and some of you may be thinking "You don't need to be a developer to pick a different desktop environment", but that is just an indication of how easy the development process has been made by the Open Source method. It's still worth distinguishing between the things you need to do to run your system, and the things you can do if you want to dip your toe into the ocean of system development.

This is a marketing issue -- I think it's mostly up to the distributors to emphasise the end user products they are selling and try to separate them in the media from the components that they have assembled the products from. In some ways it is a good thing that some user thinks they are running "Linux version 7.1", however much our hair stands up when we hear it.

WTH

[Anonymous Coward]

he argues that the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on,

Really? When I first installed various flavors of Linux: Red Hat, Mandrake, etc. I was, as a Windoes user, able to choose between window managers by trying various ones out, seeing what each individual wm's features and limitations were, and deciding which was best for what purpose especially when it came to file size (example: KDE vs. IceWM). I had very little problem installing Debian too btw. :) I think people who feel the need to create an atmosphere that "Linux is more difficult than it really is" needs to stop.

they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any applications they might want to use.

Then they should stay in their small little world of Windows, since as you suggest, Linux would be just too tough for them. After all, they'd suddenly have a choice! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:XP FUD

[javatips]

You are absolutely right! Before XP, the Windows look & feel was NOT changed since the release of win95.

Since Win 95 was release in late 1995 and XP in late 2001, the look & feel of Windows has not changed for 6 years!

That a little bit more than the "every couple of years" that the parent parent is refering!

Re:XP FUD

[cheesybagel]

You are mistaken. Compare the change of UI from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 for example. The window buttons changed a lot, as did the scrollbars, well everything changed.

The change to XP was not simply to make the widgets blue. Notice app buttons are no longer beveled except when you pass the mouse of them. The taskbar is also different. There are many other subtle changes that most people to not even notice but they are there.

When your UI has reached a certain point, improvements usually come in smaller steps. But many small steps make big changes.

Small V. Wide Use

[Cranst0n]

Unfortunately, we can argue this point until we are blue in the face. We are all geeks (gee geeks on slashdot???) and look at thewhole tech world much differently thanthe everyday layman (see: technoweenie) who doesn't understand the differences and just wants a quick product that works.

YEah, Microshit OS change looks with every revison, But if you get one revision (XP for exmaple) their is no choice upon start up for the look of it. You actually have to learn how to change from the XP look to the "Classic Windows" look, and the majority of people out there don't want to worry about it. They just want something they can start up and use (at least until Windows barfs on them).

The thing that this aritcle misses the point on is that there is a distro that works in a similar fashion in Lindows( I have not used it, but have heard from people who do). So the whole argument winds up being moot anyways.

Personally, Red Hat has a good start on making and everyday friendly distro with BlueCurve, but it still needs some refining. The Multi desktops need to be (especially for us geeks) otherwise we will eventually be complaining about the desktop because its not what we want. Then again, in the end its the back end of the OS that really matters.

Never Mind.

My argument against a standardised GUI

[Felinoid]

Something ALL users want be that Linux, Windows, or MacOs users is an annoyence free operating system.
Here is the rub.. non exists. Or to make matters more confusing all operating systems are both annoyence free and flooded with annoyences.

It depends on how the user operates.
Windows is one compleate user friendly GUI with a certan behavure.
MacOs is a diffrent user friendly GUI with a slightly diffrent behavure and a totally diffrent os.
Linux isn't user friendly for the most part. At least not untill you get it installed configured and running.

A standardised GUI is the wrong direction for Linux becouse not all GUIs fit all users.
What Linux needs is a broud range of user friendly interfaces. It needs compleately user friendly configurations.

It needs a user friendly and totally automated way to update source code.
(Gentoo I know I know... I was working on something myself but that seams moot now)

Why do we need to conquer the Home Desktop, again?

[MoralHazard]

You know, I've always wondered about this. Sometimes I want Linux to conquer the home desktop, sometimes I don't care. Other times, I feel like the LAST place I would ever want to see GNU/Linux is on my mother's desktop.

Is it about the driver support? If so, I'm not sure that we need to be worried so much any more. The only really heinous driver support problems I've experienced are in laptops, but you can find laptops that will run Linux just fine if you spend an hour googling. As for everything else, I haven't lacked for a driver that didn't appear less than two months after I first needed it. Which is pretty good, when you consider that it's free. YOu pick your components a little more carefully.

Linux has never been easy and standard for a reason--it's supposed to be flexible, fast, and powerful. Those are competing goals, in software engineering--the more time you spend on making it idiot-proof, the less time you have to write that O(1) task scheduler. And when you write software to be usable by the lowest common denominator, you impair its capacity to do the amazing shit that makes Linux so much better.

I just saved $3,000 for a Gigabit Ethernet tap by configuring a dual-home GigE Linux machine as an 802.1d bridge and running snort on the bridge. When Mr. Shithead-tech-columnist gets his standard, idiot-proof desktop, which wizard will configure bridging for me? And which one will compile the kernel with the right tweaks to pass traffic back and forth that fast? Or will it be a registry hack? And will I have to wait for a service pack?

Re:XP FUD

[bigman2003]

Don't forget- you can always go back to the 'classic' view. Looks like Windows 2000. And yes, part of the Start menu has changed, but not enough to really confuse anyone.

I thank him for the heads-up

[mao che minh]

If a company is going to treat their customers so blatantly bad (leaving his order untouched for weeks) then they deserve bad publicity that comes from the mouths of disatisfied customers. And why oh why would you ignore a customer that has an audience of tens of thousands of people?

I now know that SpeakEasy DSL is perhaps the worst DSL provider around, and will spread the word. That's how it works. You don't let companies treat you like it's a privilege to use their product.

Corporate Environments

[TWX]

In a large corporate environment, the IS department should put together a basic environment, WM, and theme to be default. This promotes standardization across the board. Let users play, though.

One of the biggest complaints that I've had with Microsoft shells until I stopped using Windows (around the time that 2000 came out) is that while color and fonts and the like can be changed, the results don't seem to be that pretty. Style remains very sterile with just color shift. Granted, XP has some theming, but it's behind the ball in that regard, and still has that Redmond feel.

Usability my butt

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing wrong at all with the current desktop environments. Here at work(yes we have over 150 linux desktops) we use KDE. Now the end user has only the control over his desktop that I wish to give him. When we deploy a new app I put a icon on everyones desktop. If they need a default printer setup I do that for them as well. Now the guys that are running these systems are production workers for the most part. Most of these guys have never even had a chance to touch a computer before. The funny thing is that I never ever ever get any support calls they run what we give them.

In a enterprise environment you would have to be a damn fool to go load linux on every desktop. In our enviroment everyone runs via remote X and in the enterprise this is the only way linux should be deployed.

A guy with a icon on his desktop does not care what the desktop is.

Re:Usability my butt

[hyperstation]

mod this anon wussy up, he just nailed it...

Windows or Linux = no choice at all

[DrSkwid]

An OS by amateurs for amateurs or a profit machine for exploiting end lusers

great, where do I sign up

Re: every few months...

[dirk]

Every few months, someone else comes along and argues that Linux needs ONE desktop interface if it's going to combat windows.
Kind of /funny/stupid/, since M$ changes interfaces every couple of years, and touts this as a usability feature (new, improved interface, blah blah blah).

It's kind of a stretch to count the different version of Windows as different interfaces. The interface has been almost exactly the same since Win95, with the changes being fairly minor. But more importantly, at any time you buy windows, you get 1 interface. Everyone purchasing a copy of Windows XP gets the same interface by default. You can changing this interface, but it puts user's at ease to see the same familiar interface when they start the system. Linux could still keep the multitude of GUIs, but it would put less experienced users at ease if they got a default interface no matter what Linux system they logged onto.

What I don't get

[teslatug]

Why couldn't all the different toolkit, window manager, desktop environments come up with a single look to the widgets (skin) that they could all support? I realize that it is a big task, but we could still have the choice many loathe to give up, and gain the uniform look the rest of us crave.

Re:What I don't get

[quinine]

like bluecurve?

I don't really like they way it looks, but if that's what you're into..

Re:What I don't get

[teslatug]

Yes, but not at the distro level. It would have to start at the window manager or X level so that all distro's *could* have the same look if one so chose.

Re:What I don't get

[quinine]

Unfortunately, that's not really possible at X or the windowmanager. X really just handles putting pixels up on the screen, sometimes over a network. Unless you include something like Xaw that few use, there isn't really too much of a concept of "button" or "text area" or anything there. This is what we have GTK and Qt for, so a standard theme would have to encompass both to achieve unity. I'd like to see some sort of widget theme standard come out of freedesktop, though. As for the windowmanager, that's just the border around your windows like the name implies. Too many of us like to be able to change that for a windowmanager that has one theme to evolve.

A standard like you're talking about doesn't need to be done at the distro level, any good artist(which I am not) could create one for everybody.. It would just need to encompass a Qt, GTK, Icon, and Windowmanager theme.

Re:XP FUD

[tomhudson]

BS. In the last decade, they've changed the interface 5 times

1. Windows 3x
2. Win95/98 (I'm classifying these 2 as the same, even though M$ doesn't)
3. Millenium (which hid a lot of things so as to make the interface "more user-friendly)
4. Win2k (with the Win9x interface, but still a lot of things moved/changed, because NT != 9x)
5. XP

Exactly

[FreeUser]

How many times have Linus or others said that the goal for Linux is NOT to attack Microsoft's monopoly, but simply to provide a freely usable and stable UNIX-like operating system for anyone who wants it.

Exactly. This entire rant (the Article itself) is basically a characterization of the "People are confused by choice. We should get rid of democracy and diversity, and have one leader, one people, and one empire." Oops, guess I just ran afoul of Godwin.

All of this exemplified the "dumbing down of America" (which is really the dumbing down of the developed world, something Europeans are just starting to wake up to, I think, as this phenomenon is certainly no longer limited to the United States, if it ever was), and the pervasiveness of the mindset that ignorance and laziness should be pandered to, rather than fixed through education, epitomises this.

The point being that, yes, freedom does entail the responsibility and the requirement that you think for yourself. And yes, thinking is WORK. In other words, is Freedom antithetical to laziness? Absolutely. But it is far better to give up the allegiance of the lazy and illiterate than it is to give up our freedom of choice simply to make their lazy lives a little easier.

Of course, the reality is that this false dichotomy is exactly that: false. GNU/Linux neither requires, nor would benefit from, having less choice ("one desktop"), nor does failing to do so make it impossible to appease the lazy and illiterate if that is one's goals (and there are distributions which aim to do exactly that) ... it is sufficient to have one or two defaults (KDE and/or Gnome), which is exactly what we have. I give my friends and family KDE and they are happy with it. I myself generally use KDE, but sometimes I get bored and decide to try out Gnome, Enlightenment, Windowmaker, Flux, or something else. I enjoy that freedom, and I'm not going to give it up (or negate it) just to pander to the illiteracy or laziness of some reluctant ex-windows convert.

A default is enough, and almost every distribution under defaults to one desktop or another. Beyond that, the user can educate themselves and make a choice, or stick with the default, but the idea that those of us who prefer something other than the default (whatever it is ... KDE or Gnome most likely) should give up our projects and devote our energy to working on or testing what others have chosen "on our behalf" is utter and complete nonsense.

1) We aren't out to destroy Microsoft, we're out to enhance our own freedom. Microsoft has become the enemy because they are out to destroy us, and to take away our freedom.
2) It isn't our responsibility to pander to the ignornance or laziness of others. It is their responsiblity to learn, or not, as they see fit.
3) Freedom has built into it responsibility ... it is neither designed for, nor applicable to, those too lazy (or uninformed) to excersize it.

Then again, I always thought changing the verbiage from "Infammible" to "flammible" to appease the ignorance was a profoundly idiotic move...

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough*

ESR better start watching his back.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

You're my new hero...

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't hurt if you spelled inflammable and flammable correctly. You could also tone down your self-righteous diatribe against us ignorant bastards. Then again, you probably would have called for Webster to be burned at the stake.

The problem with Linux desktops is that there is no universal default so the casual (not ignorant) computer user has no hope of being able to sit down at an unfamiliar workstation and get some real work done.

Re:Exactly

[Ender Ryan]

That is possibly the best post regarding LInux desktops I have read in over a year. Thanks.

I'd like to add to that, that distros themselves are competing with each other, and part of that competition is delivering the best desktop they can. Take RH for example, they have unified (sort of) GNOME and KDE and created a very usable desktop. SuSE, Mandrake, etc., all have their own default desktop.

My point is that Linux doesn't compete with anyone, although Linux distrobution companies might. Said companies create their own desktop, and it has nothing to do with GNOME, KDE, E, WM, etc.

BTW, I am a command line man myself. I run GNOME but don't touch a single GUI config tool, except for GNOME itself. But today I have been playing with a server that came preloaded with RH 8, and from what I've seen so far, it is an excellent desktop. Everything is so simple and easy to configure; it's easier than windows. It's even got a complete set of tools for setting up all the server software.

To reiterate, the competition lies with the distros, not the community, and the distros have their own desktops that compete against windows and other distros.

Re:Exactly

[Uzik2]

>This entire rant (the Article itself) is basically a characterization of the "People are confused by choice. We should get rid of democracy and diversity, and have one leader, one people, and one empire Ack! I think you've gone way off on a tangent here. Here's the scenario: 1. I want to set up a box to do email and run my office, or edit video, or . 2. I don't want to use Windows. I want to use Linux. 3. I get . I try to install it. It asks me which desk top manager I want, along with what 8,000 other applications I want to install. How do I know what to install? Even if I wanted to spend the time (and MONEY, because time is money), where would I go to find out? If I'd installed Windoze I could start using my system in an hour or two. If you want to go snow boarding you don't start by buying a wood working shop to make your own snow board. You go buy a board. The author simply wants a linux that's usable in an hour. If you want more from it that's great, but that's something for later. We're not confused by choice, we just want to choose when and where we're going to spend our time and money. Choosing between IceWm, KDE, and Gnome isn't where I want to spend my time.

Re:Exactly

[keester]

Then again, I always thought changing the verbiage from "Infammible" to "flammible" to appease the ignorance was a profoundly idiotic move... I don't think that misspelling a couple of words qualifies as verbiage. That's a language joke. Get it?

Re:Exactly

[RustyTaco]

If you want to go snow boarding you don't start by buying a wood working shop to make your own snow board. You go buy a board.

No, you go to the shop and look at the hundreds of different boards and pick one you like the color of and the shape and try it out. If you try it and don't like it, try another one. This isn't brain surgery, hell it's not even as complicated as tieing your own shoes and there is NO commitment. It's not like your stuck with your first snow board for the next 15 years.

Choosing between IceWm, KDE, and Gnome isn't where I want to spend my time.

So click "Next" and use the first thing the shopkeeper suggests. Is "yeah, sure, whatever" that hard a concept to people? Or do they just turn off their brains and put them in a drawer when they see blinkinlits? Err, nevermind, they do.

- RustyTaco

Re:Exactly

[Azghoul]

I think the point really is, most of us don't consider the lack of a "single unified default" to BE a problem.

There's no way in hell every distrib is going to settle on one. I, for one, welcome the diversity.

Don't all you (collective you, not you in particular, AC) environmental weenies whine about bio-diversity being a good thing?

Re:Exactly

[pmz]

Oops, guess I just ran afoul of Godwin.

Nope. Your discussion is perfectly relevant right here and now.

Re:Exactly

[redtoade]

This post is the epitome of why Linux is failing on the desktop! This argument isn't about Linux! It's about migration.

All of this pseudo-intelligencia, philosophizing garbage demonstrates how isolated most computer science geeks (and thus developers) are from the majority of computer users. Inevitably, the entrenched Linux community balks at standardization. That's just a fact. Somehow they derive their collective self image as software rebels. Linux is the icon for the anti-establishment, "we are not part of the normal world and proud of it," the internet is ours DAMN IT" crowd. Well get over yourselves. As Linux is adopted into the work force, more and more home users will adopt it also. AND THAT'S what this discussion is really about...

This isn't about Linux users! The majority of computer users use Microsoft Windows. So any decent designer would immediately recognize how easy it is to smooth out the learning curve by drawing on the one thing that almost all computer users have in common: familiarity with the gui. Windows users don't care about computers. They don't spend their days dreaming about kernel compilation... and they never will. They typically go to work, do their job and go home when they're done. Most don't turn computers on at home. Most don't have CompSci degrees... or any college degree for that matter. Most just want to use their computer the way they use their TV: turn on, watch, change channel, turn off.

If televisions were packaged like Linux distros: where components arrived in separate shipments, the consumer was responsible for complete assembly, the instruction manual's chapters were scattered all over the internet, with no two television sets having the same controls nor receiving the same channels... there would still be some self righteous jerk screaming how standardization would be the end of the world! And only a small percentage of isolated geeks would be watching TV expecting the rest of the world to lose their technical ignorance. Get real.

The expectation you have of the user to close the distance between what they know and what you want them to learn is naive. That's not how industries produce consumable goods. And like it or not, Linux is now part of that economy. Despite whatever philosophies you chose with which to see the world, supply and demand exists. If you choose to ignore that fact, I guarantee that there's someone else out there that's not so short sighted waiting to take over where you stopped short.

What really pisses me off is the throngs of Linux minions who scream that standardization is limiting freedom of choice. No one is saying that the desktop needs to be locked down to one gui! What is being said is that the default gui should be the same across all distros. That's not very difficult to do despite the KDE vs Gnome debate. You pick KDE. End of story. I'm a Gnome user myself, but let's face it, KDE is more similar to Win32. But so what? I would expect the distros to still have both standard and advanced installation options. The standard would be an out of the box vanilla KDE install. The advanced would give you the choice between desktops. Why is that so difficult? Answer: it's not. It's a pissing contest. No one wants to favor one desktop over the other. Linux users feel their sense of rebellion being flushed down the toilet as more and more non-Linux users cross over. Tough.

Re:Exactly

[Uzik2]

> No, you go to the shop and look at the hundreds of different boards and pick one you like the color of and the shape and try it out.

Except with the window manager I can't see the color or the shape before I buy it. Some of them
are so different that I couldn't even ski on
them without going through lessons first.

> So click "Next" and use the first thing the shopkeeper suggests

All the distros I tried gave me options and
no advice. There's no 'shopkeeper' here to give
me advice.

The advice I should get should be something
along the lines of 'if you want to do video
editing you need xxx because all the video tools
use xxx widgets', or 'if you want to do gaming
you need yyy...'. That level of intelligence
is beyond most installation scripts.

I had hopes the KDE and gnome guys could get
together and define an API to talk to the
"window manager". The application code would
work on any window manager.

Re:Exactly

[dash2]

I write my own code. I compile my own kernel. I have messed with Makefiles and played with Perl.

Does this mean that I want each of my apps to have a different file open dialog? It does not. Do I want to learn the behaviours of 3 different widget sets. No, I don't. On the other hand, do I want to reject good GUI applications because they use a different toolkit to my chosen desktop? Not that either.

2) It isn't our responsibility to pander to the ignornance or laziness of others. It is their responsiblity to learn, or not, as they see fit.

I hope your mechanic tells you that, next time you bring your car in to be fixed. And I don't normally laugh at bad spelling, but as you're so contemptuous of other people's ignorance...

Re:Exactly

[asr_man]

On my planet the cost of using a computer is directly proportional to the number of things I have to think about while using it. And if it costs too much, I'm not using it.

I am not confused by choice, but I also recognize that the fastest way for a population to embrace an idea is to offer it uncluttered by choices of little distinction. We'd all be cursing if cars came with a choice of gas pedal locations. Window managers are no different.

I suppose we should be dismayed at the lack of choice in PC architecture? It is that very lack of choice that made it the phenomenon it is today. Plenty of choice in who provides it; clear expectations of what you get. We call standardization on my planet.

No one likes standards being dictated to them. But they have to happen if the benefits of OSS technology are going to be enjoyed by the largest possible audience. You can contribute to the debate and help constructively shape the choice. Or you can pander to your own laziness by exercising your freedom to post a self-righteous diatribe on SlashDot.

Re:Exactly

[edunbar93]

and the pervasiveness of the mindset that ignorance and laziness should be pandered to, rather than fixed through education, epitomises this.

1) That's like saying when you design a car, you should make its operation as complicated as possible in order to force the user to learn how it works. Most people - not to mention engineers - will say that this is an insane design methodology.

2) Just because you *know* how the thing works, does not mean that you should be forced to take the time to glue all the pieces together just to make it work. This is laziness on the part of the developer, not on the part of the user, and as such, the extra time *not* spent by the developer to make the install easier and faster is multiplied by the number of users the software acquires. The end result of this is a massive waste of time and resources that could have been fixed at the root instead of at the leaves.

3) People with knowledge and experience are typically worth more per hour than people without knowledge and experience. As a result, it is *more * important not to waste their time. If installing a program takes an experienced technical user hours when it could be modified by the developer to take minutes, what could possibly be wrong with that?

Making things easier to use does not pander to the ignorance and laziness of others. It saves time and money. It makes people more productive. And most of all, NOT making things easier to use is the way of the ignorant and lazy designer. Your arrogant attitude is invalid.

Re:Exactly

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

I'm a Gnome user myself, but let's face it, KDE is more similar to Win32.

Many companies actually choose GNOME for exactly that reason - it's NOT like Win32. KDE looks too similar to Windows, and users expect it to behave in exactly the same manner (which, of course, is impossible). GNOME keeps a clean, consistant interface with far fewer options and commands than KDE, as well as easier to spell and pronounce names (Konquerer? Kontour?). GNOME doesn't look like windows, and it doesn't act like windows - so users expect it to behave differently and are forced to learn instead of being confused by the small differences.

Or, at least that's what UI professionals tell me.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

There's NO WAY you should pick KDE. For two reasons:

1: It's too much like windows
2: Commercial developers have to pay trolltech. You've just created a monopoly like microsoft. I'm not going through that again.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

The expectation you have of the user to close the distance between what they know and what you want them to learn is naive.

One clickety-click desktop is called KDE and another clickety-click desktop is called Gnome. I realize this might be a little much for plebians like yourself to understand, consider abstaining from using a computer or any other electronic device if you are having difficulty understanding. As an alternative to making any effort with regards to using your virgin brain you may like to consider a Microsoft Operating System. Thanks.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

If televisions were packaged like Linux distros

Distributions today are not in subcomponent parts, but are becoming highly integrated to the point where they have a similar structure to that of Windows. Have you considered SuSE version 8.2 lately? It's very Standardized and has every appearance of being a single system.

It is very likely that KDE will become the one standardized GUI for everyone to use. But I happen to think it sucks big time because of it's insame memory consumption. If it weren't for the huge resources requirements I would think it's pretty damn cool and might use it, but WindowMaker is just fine.

As for you comments, I would expect the distros to still have both standard and advanced installation options. The standard would be an out of the box vanilla KDE install. The advanced would give you the choice between desktops I encourage you to install SuSE 8.2 and then get back here with our inputs.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, didn't even read the post... did you?

"What really pisses me off is the throngs of Linux minions who scream that standardization is limiting freedom of choice. No one is saying that the desktop needs to be locked down to one gui! What is being said is that the default gui should be the same across all distros. That's not very difficult to do despite the KDE vs Gnome debate. You pick KDE. End of story. I'm a Gnome user myself, but let's face it, KDE is more similar to Win32. But so what? I would expect the distros to still have both standard and advanced installation options. The standard would be an out of the box vanilla KDE install. The advanced would give you the choice between desktops. Why is that so difficult? Answer: it's not. It's a pissing contest. No one wants to favor one desktop over the other. Linux users feel their sense of rebellion being flushed down the toilet as more and more non-Linux users cross over. Tough."

Re:Exactly

[Mark Bainter]

This post is the epitome of why Linux is failing on the desktop!

A very eloquent post, but you completely missed the point.

You STILL assume that there is some goal for Linux to take over pervasive use and that we expect that to happen. You STILL are arguing from the POV that we should CARE if linux is in widespread use on the desktop.

Guess what, many (most?) of us don't! We couldn't care less. Linux was not created to replace windows. It was created to do the things that people like us (geeks) want to do which windows does not allow for. It was created because it was fun!

Well get over yourselves.

How about you people with your crusade to eradicate windows from the world get over yourselves. I don't care /how/ pervasive linux gets on the desktop, some people will STILL use windows. And mac, and bsd, and beos, and, and and.

Oops, there goes that "choice" again. That evil word. How in the world can we expect people to get anything done in a world full of choices!

I don't care that people expect to turn their computer on and get work done. That's great. They should pick a system that lets the get that work done, learn it, and use it. If it doesn't meet your needs, fine, get one that does.

This whole 'we need to commoditize linux so that it gets widespread use' is stupid. The whole reason most of us started using linux is that it /wasn't/ a homogenized operating system. You had real choices. And I gotta tell you, the arguments I'm seeing are that you want to be able to sit down anywhere and say oh, it's linux, and have it work.

Well guess what. Until you /prevent/ people from customizing their systems and using "non-standard" guis and such that's never going to be the case. Cause people /will/ change it.

Query: So now what do floppy/firewall/etc based distributions do? What about minimal distributions?

And I have to ask, what is the difference between learning a new interface jumping from windows to linux, and learning one jumping from one linux distro to another? If the first can be done, why not the second? It's not like the distributions change the interface on every boot or anything.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

One distribution having that installation option isn't a solution though. You are still stuck with each distribution having their own way of doing things. And while this is great for the entrenched Linux crowd, it sucks ass for any user who's only computer training is on Microsoft systems.

The suggested solution isn't for a particular distribution or yet another new one. It's that ALL distributions offer the same standards by default... and then allow the user to modify these with whatever options under "advanced installation." Contrary to popular vehement Linux users, this doesn't restrict freedom of use. You just pick "advanced" and then Gnome or no-gui... whatever. But the key is to get all of the major distributions to agree on a standard default installation desktop. Otherwise every individual Linux box (by default) will look completely different from EVERY OTHER PC. Which, like it or not, is a huge detriment for the typical computer user.

Re:Exactly

[Trifthen]

This is *not* about desktops. We have the LSB, why not some kind of standard base for GUI design? I don't care if you write your fucking GUI in visual basic, so long as you follow common concepts of usability and design. How about a standard specifying the minimum set of features and integration all Linux GUI applications must have? Why do we have POSIX, LSB, and a whole bunch of other standards, but *absolutely nothing* uniting all GUI development?

Why that particular inconsistancy?

Re:Exactly

[shawn(at)fsu]

I am willing to bet allot of money that most Linux users "only computer training is on Microsoft systems" before they went to Linux. Mine was and I did just fine.

Re:Exactly

[shawn(at)fsu]

Think of linux like an automobile. The kernal is the car, the GUI is like the transmission it's either automatic or manual. How long has automatic been around...some would say for the average driver automatic is better, but there is no shortage on people who buy a car that is manual. Manual has it's pluses and negitives, just as automatic does. People are not as dumb as some people like to think they are, they can adapt if they choose too.

As for TV's, they are not the same either, the remote control which is the primary way of interfacing with you tv anymore is differnt from one model to the next, the menu system is differnt also, but people can adapt to those changes as well if they choose too.

There is a big problem with saying Linux and meaning a GUI.

Re:Exactly

[Zork the Almighty]

I thought it was only commercial developers writing to Win32 that had to pay.

Re:Exactly

[teslatug]

You're missing two important points: 1) No one is saying that choice should be taken way, but rather the default choice should be the same across the board 2)No one should care about battling Microsoft on the desktop per se, but unless you get uniformity, you won't get commercial developers and normal users, if you don't get users you won't get hardware support (do you like to use cheap scanners, digital cameras, printers, etc.) because hardware manufacturers don't give a crap about small markets.

Re:Exactly

[yaar]

This argument isn't going anywhere, and it can be put down with a step back and a few moments concideration.

Linux is about choice. Choice for the users to Choose their desktop as well as choice for the developers to Choose the options provided by their product. Arguing that all distros should standardize on the same desktop is like arguing that, i dunno, all ... fuck it.

This is why we have different distros. Some cater to the hacker/engineer element, some to the gamer, and some to grandma.

Don't like choice? Tough.

Re:Exactly

[shawn(at)fsu]

I hope your mechanic tells you that, next time you bring your car in to be fixed they might not say it but they make allot of money by using it as a business model. Think of how many people take there car to have stuff done that for some another car owner is nothing hard, like rotating tires or changing oil. Every car owner has there own level of personal maintenance based of many different factors: time, money, tools, etc. I had a friend that replaced is transmission on his own, that something that I'm ignorant about and wouldn't even begin to try to do this on my own. So I'd go to the mechanic. Weather or not the mechanic tells me it know not we both know it's true.

Re:Exactly

[UserGoogol]

Flammable and Inflammable are both equally old and of slightly different origins. (See dictionary.com or something.) Although it is true that as a rule flammable is used because inflammable can sound like unflammable, this is only when something's flammable you typically want to warn people very clearly.

Otherwise, you seem mostly on point.

Re:Exactly

[shawn(at)fsu]

Yes, and I'm ignorant about spelling and grammer also. I know that.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

But it isn't about Linux. Or for the free software priests: "GNU/Linux." Or open source or free software, or whatever the political and philosophical reasons behind the whole BSD/Linux communities. This is about making it easier for typical computer users to use Linux. Wasn't that the point of the article?

But moreso, it's specifically about distros. If you're a puritan Linux user, fine. What do you care? The ideas mentioned in this thread will never affect you. No one's asking you to care and more importantly no one's asking you to change anything about how you use your Linux. Go on and install Linux from scratch and happily live your life. But for those that use distros... more specifically first time users... these ideas would be a god send.

The original article was about making Linux on the desktop easier... again, this translates to DISTROS. The thought is to place the same standard desktop as a default choice for installation FOR THE BEGINNING USER. This has nothing to do with closing source, or removing support for one desktop over the other, or forcing only one desktop on all machines. It interests me how the Linux pioneers take offense to it. No one is suggesting we limit choice... it's still open source! By definition, you can change it to your heart's content! What the hell is the big deal? Like you said, unless you prevent people from customizing their guis, there won't really be a standard. That's exactly right! But what it will do is give the beginner the same starting point as every other beginner. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

For years people complained how difficult it was to install Linux with distros. But, they've improved every version with ease of use, and with every version they've made it easier for first time Linux users. So why does the thought of a standard default desktop incite you so? Isn't it the continuation of easing the installation process?... specifically for the first time Linux user? If not, why have distros at all?

Btw, I'm not assuming ANYTHING. I know that the typical Linux user/developer doesn't give a shit about anything but their own little piece. I know that I chose Linux for the unbelievable freedom and quality. You're preaching to the choir, so don't waste your time stating the obvious. But this isn't about us, it's about them. Wasn't that the point of the original article?

It amazes me that the Linux crowd is so unbelievably self-centered and defensively nasty. Any mention of tweaking for the normal user brings flames of spite. Maybe Linux has grown beyond the control of the entrenched Linux crowd, and it's pissing them off that they're so many uninvited guests who have joined the party.

It doesn't matter what Linux was when it was created. It's now part of the business world... and with corporations now part of development teams, guess what? It's becoming main stream! And with that most of the frontline Linux crowd will fade away, taking their isolationist views with them. It's just part of life.

In the meantime, the distros that survive will use the same tactics that made Microsoft a house hold word. They will design for ease of use. End of story. It seems to me that the only crusade here is the old crowd defending against the barbarian hordes.

Re:Exactly

[Joe Tie.]

If I'd installed Windoze I could start using my system in an hour or two.

Then I have an easy solution, for both our hypothetical user and the author of the article. If Windows is the better choice for you..use Windows! Like anything it does have faults. But when it comes to acting, looking, and feeling like Windows - Windows does one heck of a good job.

Re:Exactly

[Uzik2]

Good idea! I actually do. ;) I'd rather not though, if a better alternative were available. I thought that's what the author of the original article was talking about, what was making linux a non-viable alternative. I've got a Gentoo box for a server but almost all the rest of the stuff I end up doing on windows. With Gentoo I could pick and choose everything. I didn't need a GUI at all for a web server. In that area it beats Windows hands down.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good comment

Re:Exactly

[MrGrendel]

All of this pseudo-intelligencia, philosophizing garbage demonstrates how isolated most computer science geeks (and thus developers) are from the majority of computer users.

Whoa! Somebody doesn't like philosophers! Like it or not, both the FS and OSS movements are founded on philosophy. Take that away and they die. Usually when people whine about "philosophical garbage" what they are really complaining about is that some other people are able to use logic and reason to make a point, and that makes it difficult to refute.

The expectation you have of the user to close the distance between what they know and what you want them to learn is naive. That's not how industries produce consumable goods.

First of all, most of us who actually develop Free Software are not interested in producing consumable goods for any industry. And I, personally, have only one expectation from users: don't complain at me for what I have given you for free. If you need help with my software, ask for help. If you want improvements, offer them. If you think my software is just too damn difficult to use, don't. It's that simple. What I don't need is a bunch of arrogant commentators coming along and demanding that I follow this or that standard, reduce the learning curve for users, or join some other project instead of working on my own because that would be a more efficient use of community resources and would be a more effective way to achieve some goal that I do not share. Nobody pays me to develop Free Software and I (and other FS/OSS developers) don't owe anybody anything beyond what I am already giving away.

Despite whatever philosophies you chose with which to see the world, supply and demand exists.

This is exactly the point. There is a demand for software that can be freely modified and offers greater choice to users than proprietary software offers. Linux and other Free Software provides the supply. You can complain all you want about how we need to enforce standards to defeat MS (or whatever it is you want), but that desire will never remove the demand for software that does not follow the standard. If someone tries to enforce a standard gui across all distros, another distro will pop up that does not follow that standard and people who do not like the standard will use it. There is nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it. As long as there is a demand for choice, and there is, FS/OSS developers are going to supply that demand. In many cases the suppliers and demanders are the same people. You can complain all you want about how there should be a standard desktop that all distros should default to, but unless you have a way to prevent people from developing other distros that fit their preferences, it is about as useful as complaining that the moon should be pink.

The real question to be asking is what we will gain by providing a standard gui for Linux. I don't see what the benefit is. People who want standards for the sake of standards already have windows and mac. Why would they want to move to Linux unless it offers something that is different from the standard? People who aren't interested in choice will never move to Linux regardless of whatever standards are implemented for Linux guis.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguing that all distros should standardize on the same desktop

You've misunderstood the argument. All we're talking about is for the distros to have the same default desktop. It would not exclude anyone from using any other desktop they want, or even no desktop.

Christ, it doesn't even have to be installed by default; it could be as simple as a certain box being checked by default in one of the installation menus.

Don't try to tell me that this restricts freedom of choice. Just check a different box.

Re:Exactly

[Ender Ryan]

Rebellion? Anti-establishment? What the hell does any of that have to do with the post you replied to?

Nothing!

Read my response to him. This whole argument is totally rediculous, as the competition with windows really has nothing to do with the Linux community, but rather the distro companies themselves.

RedHat is an OS. Mandrake is an OS. SuSE is an OS. They all have their own "standardized" desktop. They are the ones competing with windows, and each other(!), not the community. The community just makes software for itself to use.

That's an oversimplification, of course, but that's basically how it is.

Cheers.

Re:Exactly

[jtev]

The default is the shopkeepers advice, each distrobution has a default WM, if you don't like the default, you can try something else, but there IS a default.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually when people whine about "philosophical garbage" what they are really complaining about is that some other people are able to use logic and reason to make a point, and that makes it difficult to refute.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

No most of "us" don't. Most of "them" do.

Somehow FreeUser (11483) missed that point while reading the main article.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

So any decent designer would immediately recognize how easy it is to smooth out the learning curve...

First of all, most of us who actually develop Free Software are not interested in producing consumable goods for any industry.

Well, it's pretty easy to guess how well you design.

Re:Exactly

[Quixadhal]

You know, *I* would be happy if any one of the linux desktop GUI's (pick one!) just worked as consistanly as Windows. I don't care which one, go ahead... change the damn window buttons, change the menu placement and where things ARE in the menu hierarchy... but at least get things like cut-and-paste to work seamlessly and consistanly between ALL applications!

Everyone seems to be whining about which desktop to pick, as if ANY of them will be a good replacement for the windows gui. Let's concentrate on making them work right first.

Having said that, if there were at least a minimal standard for which menu categories existed, and where one might hope to find simple things like user administration tools, or how to change the friggin desktop background image... that would go a long way towards keeping consistancy.

Re:Exactly

[Uzik2]

That's true. Let me be more clear here ;)

I wish it gave advice instead of choices.

I recall one distro started to do this. They
would give a blurb about each of the choices
in the install script. Just looking at a GUI
isn't enough to judge if it's what you want.

Just choosing one at random and then
trying to figure out how to work it isn't a
good use of time for me. I don't have the
background to choose one intelligently. I can
spend a lot of time trying out each choice,
or I can use one I know I can work (windows).

When I last used redhat I tried gnome because
it was supposed to be 'windows like'. Even though
I had chosen gnome there were apps on the box
that didn't use gnome. It was a confusing mish
mash of interfaces.

If there were a single API for apps to write
to then ALL the apps could look and work
like gnome apps, or like KDE apps. Then I would
get a choice of window manager with consistant
behaviour throughout.

It would be great if we could focus on writing
the apps and not have to worry about rewrites
for every window manager. Reusable code!
Leveraging your effort! All that efficiency stuff.

It's been a great chat, thanks! :)

Re:Exactly

[Arandir]

Many companies actually choose GNOME for exactly that reason - it's NOT like Win32

Yeah! The panel is at the top of the screen instead of the bottom!

as well as easier to spell and pronounce names

Fsckin Aye Bubba! No one has a problem pronouncing "Gnumeric".

Or, at least that's what UI professionals tell me.

And the UI professionals are right! They're unnavigable unusable websites all say that they are right, so it must be so.

Re:Exactly

[BalkanBoy]

The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal. - James Fenimore Cooper

Re:Exactly

[Ice_Balrog]

You are right about 1 thing. It isn't about Linux.

It's about Distros! How hard is it for you usability "experts" to understand? If people want consistency, they should go for RH. And let the rest of us be, so we can do things the way WE want.

And still, why do poeple give a rat's ass weather every Joe uses Linux? I sure as hell don't.

Re:Exactly

[a1englishman]

I don't think it even has to work exactly like Windows, either. It just has to work consistantly, and predictably. Apple Macs aren't exactly like Windows, yet they get people to migrate.

Re:Exactly

[fault0]

> Or, at least that's what UI professionals tell me.

Or... that's what Ximian marketing tells you :)

Honestly, I don't really care whether KDE or GNOME becomes the "default" desktop. They are both like Windows for a reason.

> as well as easier to spell and pronounce names

hmm, wow, that's an mildly racist comment actually, and shows that you're living in one particular world view (lemme guess, you're either American or European?).. different cultures have different words that they are easier and not-as-easier to pronounce. In my view, I think GNOME is hard to pronounce.. I had no idea on the correct pronouncation until I heard others say it.
Even though I am quite fluent in English now, I still occaisionally have problems with pronouncations of some words in English.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

When I used Linux (I use OSX now), my impression was that KDE was trying to imitate WindowsXP, and GNOME was trying to imitate Windows98/ME/2K. If I wanted to use Windows, I would have used Windows. I didn't, so I ended up using fluxbox on Linux. Sorry, but both KDE/GNOME are too Windows-like. They only have superficial changes from Windows.

Re:Exactly

[GypC]

If you want standardized and simple, use Red Hat.

What else do you want? Eliminating the possibility of other interfaces and toolkits, so nobody will be confused? How exactly do you propose to stop people from developing alternative interfaces for fun? Make it illegal?

The whole concept of an exclusive interface for Unix is ridiculous pipe dream.

Re:Exactly

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

In general, the "K" sound is hard to pronounce and hard to spell. "Q" is also uncommon and makes words harder to spell. So does "U". Konquerer is extremely hard to spell, and it does an extremely bad job of describing a web browser/file manager. Epiphany is little better (easier to spell, but still lacks descriptiveness). Safari is better yet (common word, easy to pronounce and spell, somewhat descriptive). The best name for a web browser would have to go to Microsoft: you don't get much more obvious than "Internet Explorer". Media players? There's GStreamer and XMMS and Xine, all of which have horrible names (not common words, hard to spell, don't describe the product). iTunes is quite good, as is Windows Media Player.

Good:
Internet Explorer
iTunes
iPhoto
Windows Media Player
Notepad
Calculator
Paint
Word
Windows Messenger
iChat
Windows

Bad:
Epiphany (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive)
Konqueror (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive)
GNOME (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive)
KDE (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive)
gCalc (Non-Standard)
Gnumeric (Non-Standard, Semi Descriptive)
Evolution (Not Descriptive)
XMMS (Non-Standard, Not Descriptive)

Notice a trend here? Apps should be named on what they do rather than some obscure pun. "System Monitor" is better than gtop. "Spreadsheet" is better than "Gnumeric". "Web Browser" is better than "Epiphany". "Notepad" is better than "Gedit". "Dial-Up Connections" is better than "KPPP". "Media Player" is better than "gStreamer".

Both the GNOME and KDE projects need to standardize on their own set of applications and encourage those applications to use simple names. gStreamer could become "GNOME Media Player" (this would be the project name; it would simply be called "Media Player" in the GNOME menu).

Re:Exactly

[ndogg]

The demand for simple, easy to use user interfaces will be met bet commercial entities. There's no reason why the rest of us should care. Volunteer efforts should continue to do what they want to do, but they shouldn't have to worry about end users unless they want to. That's something that marketing people in commercial entities do.

Re:Exactly

[fault0]

I'm sorry, but you have an extremely English-oriented view of the world. In the future, OSS is going to be less and less important on English itself, as things become more and more localized.

I wonder how "Safari" will sound in Mandarin or Hindi. I wonder if the Vietnamese consider "Q" easier to pronounce than "B".

Overall, I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to make sweeping generalizations about human-kind just because something is harder to pronounce in your own particular language.

Re:Exactly

[dash2]

Of course you'd go to the mechanic, and so would I. My point is that if your mechanic behaved in the way you recommend, he would demand that you learn to fix your own car. It's not sensible to look down on people for not sharing your specialized interests. Also, a world in which we all had to do everything for ourselves would be a very poor place - we would have returned to the Stone Age.

"Attacking Microsoft's home user monopoly"

[image]

It is worth considering that "attacking Microsoft's home user monopoly" is not necessarily a core goal of Linux. In fact, one could rightly argue that the one core goal of Linux is the original goal -- to provide a free, open implementation of a UNIX-like operating system. Competing with a huge commercial entity such as Microsoft (or Sun, for that matter) is a incidental goal sponsored by some particular individuals within the Linux community and certain other corporate entities (RedHat, Lindows, IBM, etc).

Granted, there are huge gains to be seen when Linux-based systems do compete with Microsoft for the home user. The price-point of RedHat, Debian, and even LindowsOS, systems are certainly going to have a positive impact in the market vis-a-vis the pricing and licensing models for MSFT. And the relative security of Linux-based systems vs. Microsoft systems will ultimately force a shift in MSFT's strategy of preferencing convenience and feature-set over security and reliability for the home user.

But we shouldn't overlook that Linux, as an open-source, community driven project, isn't interested directly in competing with anything. We've seen various products, such as Gnome, KDE, etc., emerge to provide capabilities on top of Linux that do directly compete with MSFT, but it is important to remember that those are not core Linux values, but rather a fortunate by-product of a environment that is legitimately tired of a marketplace almost fully co-opted by a corporation that leverages it's (near) monopoly position to the utmost.

Standardization has occured

[Anonymous Coward]

Redhat uses Gnome, Suse KDE. If there's something in one that's not in the other, let them fund porting it. Let them help with development of the platform. IMO they are both doing a good job in furthering development.

What should be done is streamlining of the gui kits for all. Do we need the WX toolkit? I'll say no. If we streamlined QT, GTK, made better development tools and centralized development resources for the toolkits, we'd be further ahead than just standardizing on one.

What a load of ROLLOCKS!

[7-Vodka]

"...the open source community must recognize"
The open source community must do this, the Free Software community must do that, Slashdot users always say this, blah blah blah..

I'm sick and tired of people trying to tell everyone what "NEEDS!!!" to be done so that morons using windows will deem our desktops worty enough of them to use.

1. I hate to break it to you but the 'open source community' doesn't all write software for the same reason. I'm sure most individual developers could give a rat's ass if people migrate from windows or not, as long as they are happy with their work.
2. We are not one person with one attitude, the strength of FREE SOFTWARE is in the collaboration of people with different motivations. Free Software is like a ratchet. People pull in all sorts of directions but the GPL makes sure *the software* keeps going in one direction -->> improving.
3. If we standardize, we loose our strength which lies in DIVERSITY, without which the above would loose momentum.
4. There is NO way to standardize, how are we going to forbid distros from adding other wms?
5. He's arguing we should give up the one ideal the majority of us agree upon, freedom, just to get some useless users to switch?

Re:XP FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

3.11 -> 95: it was pretty big change in my not so humble opinion
95 -> W95+IE4/W98: also significant changes
98 -> ME/2000: lot of stuff in dialogs changed, changes in explorer.exe are more subtle
2000 -> XP: pretty radical changes, except for blue widgets the start menu completely fucked up, control panel was completely fucked up, logging in... why do I waste time typing this all?

And that you can change XP look back to "almost 2k"? And what? With the same knowledge, you can choose among Gnome, KDE, IceWM, whatever. Takes about same effort.

This effects Linux users aswell

[McNeany]

A 'standard' desktop will help stabilize the linux community. Right now there are myriad GUI's to choose from. This makes it difficult for the 'proficient windows user' (not an oxymoron, moron) to migrate from windows to linux. I am a network administrator using both NT and Linux as server os's . I consider myself proficient at both. However, regarding Linux I find myself using the CLI instead of the GUI because its the only thing that always works. to explain: I find a GUI based tool that I'd like to use in Linux, But it only works well with one desktop environment. My coices are to flip flop between GUI's or not to bother with the tool at all. Usually, if the tool doesn't work with my primary GUI of choice (GNOME) I don't use the took at all. This impacts my useability of Linux. I don't want to learn 30 or even 5 ways of doing the same thing in different GUI's. If I'm helping my friends with their Linux distros I am forced to be proficient in more than one GUI. Even if there were only 5 different GUI's out there... thats 5 different areas where a Linux 'expert' needs to become proficient where With Windows its allways only one. Thats 5 different ways in which the Linux comunity becomes fragmented. It is easier to become proficient with Windows than it is to become proficient with Linux. (I'm talking about Linux in terms of GUI) Yes, I strongly feel that a 'standard' GUI needs to be had. I'm not saying that the choice of GUI should be removed (after all Windows once allowed for an alternate Interface (remember editing that win.ini file?)) I'm just saying that we need to have a standard 'default' GUI... Not everyone is going to choose the same distro... so.. as it is right now we are falling prey to whatever GUI is the disto developers favorite. Lets make ourselves a tighter community and agree on one GUI to promote. Lets make a Linux Standard GUI. I don't care which one is chosen...

Re:This effects Linux users aswell

[quinine]

Sure, and while we're at it, maybe all the countries of the world could kinda get together and agree to stop having wars. Let's wake up and smell the coffee: the "Linux community" you speak of can just barely hold itself together, let alone attempt some sort of grand unity. Sure, it's always better when things interoperate in a standard way, but when people don't agree with one another they simply agree to disagree and go on about their work.

Re:This effects Linux users aswell

[McNeany]

I'm offering a possible solution. Not simply accepting that no solution exists. Pessimists like you (you probably think of yourself as a realist) are doing nothing to help this situation. Why do you sit back and simply accept the way things are? I never said it would be easy. Neither is world peace... But are either not worth striving for?

Re:This effects Linux users aswell

[quinine]

No, you're not offering a solution. You're telling people what you think they should do. If you were offering a solution, you would be submitting patches to the KDE and GNOME mailing lists offering them better freedesktop integration, or perhaps working on freedesktop specs yourself. If you've done any of these things, please share and I will be quiet. I sit back and accept things the way they are because the only contributions I can really claim are the occasional bug report or helping someone out on a list. Open source developers give to us out of the kindness of their hearts, and it is foolish for us to believe that we should be able to give them unfunded mandates.

Applications don't work?

[nuggz]

What applications don't work? Rather then complaining perhaps someone should file a bug report.

I can't think of any time I've had trouble running an application under a different window manager or desktop environment.

Well except flightgear 0.9 under KDE the sound doesn't work.

The issue with home users

[StewedSquirrel]

I see everyone here arguing that Windows changes look now and then and that removing the "choice" is the simple solution. I see a major problem with that. Part of the appeal of a unified GUI, is that Bob can call his cousing Jane from across the country and say "I have this window that says 'network components', which of the two icons do I click?" You can have simpled instructions on hardware setup "click the control panel, choose add-new hardware, click next". When you try to discuss the myriad of GUI options available for Linux, you can't even get away asking "what distro do you have?" Depending on which GUI you're using, the controls are quite different. I guess the point to be made is that most users can handle a single thread of divergence. It's simple enough for an average home user to say "what version do you have?". The simple answer is "oh, I have version xxx". It becomes insanely more complicated when it comes down to more than one thread of divergence, as Linux often does. "I'm having an issue. I have kernel 2.4, Redhad 6.0 running KDE 3.1.3." That's not to mention the graphics libraries that need to be installed, nor does it bring into account that each distro that uses KDE has a somewhat different default desktop layout. Most home users would be hopelessly lost by the time they had to say more than "I have RedHat 6 or something like that". The final point I want to make is this: Linux does not have to position itself to dominate the desktop market. It has no motivation to "take over" the entire segment. HOWEVER, it MUST compete against Microsoft in a meaningful manner in order to prevent Microsoft from abusing it's Monopoly power. Stewed ~~~ Squirrel

Choice Vs. Usability

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Fooey. What do you mean by choice? What do you mean by usability? I have a +7 vorpal clue-by-four for the next person who tries to tell me there is one and only one solution for everyone's needs.

Frankly, I like to find out what the actual requirements are before I go shooting off what the best solution might be. Granted, 9 times out of ten the requirements are "Cheap and I want to use it for years" and in that case it's Linux hands down. Secretaries have been using Mainframe Green-Screen apps for decades. What interface is "usable" is a matter of training.

I would also like to point out that all of the research into the current WIMP interface was evaluated on 4 year olds, not adults. Most adults actually need a more verbal interface, as our thought patterns are generally arranged in the form of ideas. WIMP is artificial and clumsy. The only GUI that is on it's face intuitive is a touch screen, but judging by the fact I have the ticket kiosks to myself at the movies, how intuitive can it be?

Useless

[vadim_t]

I'm tired of seeing all this "Linux needs only one GUI" stuff. It's *never* going to happen, and for a very simple reason. Linux is not a company. Microsoft has just one GUI because it's a single entity that can control Windows perfect. Not so with Linux. Linux is a community where everybody does whatever s/he wants, and the best programs become common and the bad ones are forgotten.

I mean, we haven't even managed to standarize on a single temperature unit, a single currency or heck, on a single way of measuring distances and people think that just because they whine about how we need a single GUI that somehow thousands of developers are going to think "Of course! Why didn't I think that my WM is completely unnecesary? I should work on KDE instead".

Besides, there's not a single good WM for Linux. On a small computer I'd use IceWM or Enlightenment. KDE 3 is not going to run on a P133. On my desktop I use KDE. I don't like Gnome. Surely there are plenty people that will only run Gnome and nothing else. Trying to convince people to switch to one WM (which one?) is futile.

You're right and wrong

[aliens]

We certainly can make things customizable/replaceable when starting with a default.

The thing is Linux does does not have a default. And that's his point. I sit someone down in front of Windows they recognize it. The goal is to sit someone down in front of linux and they'd go, "oh it's a linux machine" and know what to do. The problem is I take a dozen linux boxes and each one is vastly different. One runs KDE, one Gnome, one IceWM, etc.

That all said there will never be a default. Redhat will want to do it one way, Mandrake another, Knoppix another. So the entire discussion is moot. Linux will never be the desktop competition for MS. Redhat maybe, or Mandrake possibly.

What you'll hear is not, "oh this is Linux. I know it" Rather it will be "oh this is Redhat"

And that's the way it is.

Re:You're right and wrong

[BiteMeFanboy]

I never said there was a default. I never said that it wouldn't be good to have a default. That's a straw man set up by a few commenters who have trouble with reading comprehension.

Re:You're right and wrong

[aliens]

That's what I figured. You'd be fine with a default as long as it didn't supersede the user's ability to tweak it if he/she wanted to. Right?

I totally agree, I just used your comment for a jumping off point really.

Re:You're right and wrong

[BiteMeFanboy]

I think we're on the same page then. It would be silly to oppose a default. It doesn't limit choice in any way.

Re:You're right and wrong

[poot_rootbeer]

What you'll hear is not, "oh this is Linux. I know it" Rather it will be "oh this is Redhat"

Which distro was it in "Jurassic Park" that the little girl knew the GUI for?

Re:You're right and wrong

[kryptobiotic]

IRIX

Re:You're right and wrong

[Tombstone-f]

That was no distro. That was a "Unix System"!

Re:You're right and wrong

[BeBoxer]

Not only does Linux not have a default, Linux cannot have a default. The original article states "Microsoft's choices weren't made by fiat". Uh, whatever. Microsoft (and Apple) might solicit the opinion of users and developers but ultimately they do dicate an official GUI by fiat. But on "Linux" there is nobody in a position to issue that fiat.

Having a standard GUI ultimately means preventing developers from writing for other GUI's. Because after all, if a bunch of developers ignore the standard and keep writing applications for other GUI's it's not much of a standard, is it? If Linus decrees that Gnome will henceforce be the official Linux GUI, but the KDE folks keep right on working on KDE, what's been accomplished? But there isn't anybody or any organization that's in a position to tell developers what to do. That's the whole beauty of open source. And maybe it's a weakness as well, but I don't think so.

The logical fallacy some of the "standard GUI" crowd makes is in assuming that "Linux" is an end user product. It's not. It's just a kernel. And XFree86 isn't an end user product either. Nor are the GNU tools, nor even KDE or Gnome. They are just parts. It's the role of distributions to make actual end-user products. If a "standard" end-user experience is important, then a distro will address that and only make "standard" looking and working applications available to the end user. And hey, what do you know, that's exactly what Red Hat is doing! Hopefully it will work out for them.

false presuppositions

[dermusikman]

as the author had stated, the average linux user *does* believe in free software. and i, for one, couldn't give two shakes about conforming such a powerful oppurtunity as linux to the low standard Microsoft has set for users to expect. (having been a professional and freelance tech for a few years, i feel justified in saying exactly that.)

the average user is not comfortable with the Microsoft desktop. the average user does not know how to install programs, despite the "universal style". the average user is a myth - the elusive "unified desktop" is a myth.
Gnome is *not* incapatible with KDE: it's just a matter of having the right libraries installed! when one Windows program uses OpenGL and the other DirectX, one doesn't claim they are incompatible - you install the freaking library!!
and the only incompatibility between distributions is that of filesystem when installing from pre-compiled binaries. maybe what the community needs is a universal gateway for these rpms (debs and slack-tarballs are pretty much distro-specific) which is a bit more user-friendly than rpmfind.net - or even a small business DEVOTED to exactly that!! or a prepackaged format that dynamically installs according to the nuances of the file-system, instead of effectively "untarring" into a static filesystem.

it's my personal belief that Linux diversity is its strength - the fact that RedHat can design Bluecurve, unifying Gnome and KDE; the fact that Xandros can mimic Microsoft's (ugly) interface; the fact that i can tailor-customize a WindowMaker desktop specifically for the needs of my family -- standardization is a crock. businesses standardize, and if i were to start my own distribution, i'd make the desktop and packaging standard, and even try to incorporate community development sites for the benefit of the user.
the linux community is a technically savvy community - it's up to distribution businesses to decide these matters, install both gtk and qt libraries by default and run a customized GUI. the author is barking up the wrong tree.

Yes! Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a fairly savvy windows user - did some sysadmining on win boxes at school, etc, and I was fairly familiar with Open Source, GNU/GPL, etc. However, in my first month of Linux use, I'm still amazed at how many things are different - and very difficult. I see a lot of trolls coming saying that noobs should get used to the choice, as that's what windows is about. However, some of us (most of us?) are intelligent, are willing to try hard things, and are not PHB types. We just haven't had an opportunity to be exposed to Linux yet. (Or BSD, for you die-hards out there).

Leave detailed choice to the pros

[earthforce_1]

When you purchase a vehicle from a dealership, you are offered a certain selection of options - colour, trim, and maybe engine size.

There are a huge number of possible options that you are not offered. You are not offered the chance to stretch the body by 1 metre, and most dealerships will not sell you a 3000 watt stereo, or exotic underbody lighting. If you want to do such weird and wonderful things with your vehicle, there are plenty of after market auto parts stores that will sell you just about anything.

Same for your OS. The average desktop user has certain needs, power users may want more, and somebody running a firewall on low end hardware may want no gui at all, or at most a mininimalist one.

Same old tired argument

[Etyenne]

From the article: '...the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.'

This guy need to recognize that OSS are driven by their community needs, not the needs of some abstract average user.

In particular he argues that the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on, and that they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any applications they might want to use."

Instead, they should be forced to use whatever was deemed correct by ... ?

The nice thing about OSS is that you can make it whatever you want. If a Linux distributor believe having a choice of DE hurt his potential market, he can solve the problem by bundling a single one with his distro. Case closed.

Lets face the real problem!

[forming]

The whole "Standard GUI" is far from the problem. It may be a small part of the problem, but the lack of a standard GUI isn't what keeps the average user away! I have never heard someone say "I would like to try Linux, but there are just to many choices of GUI's."

I think the one major thing that keeps users away from Linux is the fact that you can't just go to the store and buy some software or hardware and just put it in and it magically works. Sure there has been a lot of progress made in this area but it is no where near what it is for those other operating systems. If more hardware vendors would start releasing drivers for Linux and these software companies would start porting there applications to Linux this would be a whole new ball game. Without some help from the rest of the PC industry Linux never has a chance at cutting in to the MS monopoly.

Re:Lets face the real problem!

[scottking]

i agree with your point 100%

linux needs to get easier period.

the gui choice is a moot point, considering that (as mentioned by others) most distros use a default desktop environment anyway.

Re:Lets face the real problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as one who would LOVE to switch from Windows to some form of Unix, let me add to your 'one major thing' - lack of COMPREHESIBLE documentation & instructions.

This is the ONE THING that has kept me away from Unix. Every bit of documentation I've ever come across - from online, to books, to man pages (especially bad since these assume you already know the command you want) - starts off with assumptions about my knowledge.

"Edit this file" - OK..but WHERE is the file? HOW do I edit it - command line? vi or other editor? its own editing interface?

"Make sure THIS setting = X and THAT setting = Y" - ok...How do I check what these settings are? How do I change them if they're not right? What do they do (i.e. if I change them, what other things might they screw up?

All of these things may seem so simple to someone who's been using unix for a while, but frankly I don't have the time to spend tracking down each and every reference. I may hate M$ and dispise their business practices, but at least if I want to do something in Windows, I can almost always find documentation that will tell me EXACTLY what I need to do.

As a full-time DBA, sometime perl programmer and sometime web developer with an hour's one-way commute and one (soon to be 2) children, I am NOT going to spend what few spare hours I have trying to play 'fill in the blanks'.

Re:Lets face the real problem!

[Arandir]

Hear hear! I've been listening to the rants about what Linux needs to achieve "world domination". Then I installed Windows XP for the first time on a new dual-boot system a couple of weeks ago. Funny, the very things that "Linux needs" are the same things that Windows XP lacks.

"Linux needs a one-click GUI installer!" Windows XP doesn't have one. It starts up in that horrible newbie-frightening text mode, and you don't get out of it until after the first reboot.

"Linux needs a standard widget tookit!" Quicktime doesn't look like WinAmp doesn't look like Realplayer doesn't look like PowerDVD doesn't look like Media Player. NET doesn't look like "classic" MFC. I've even seen one case where a .NET component had a .NET look even though it was embedded in an MFC application. Huh?

"Linux needs to take usability lessons from Windows!" Oh man I don't even know where to start with this one. So let me pick on the whole "tasked based" stuff. Redmond guessed what tasks I would be doing, but they guessed horribly wrong. The most frequent menu entry I use is "more programs here -->". So why hasn't it move up to the top yet, instead of being this line at the bottom in smaller type with a smaller icon?

Of course, maybe their right. Maybe Linux isn't ready for the desktop. But if it's anything like FreeBSD, which I DO USE for my desktops at home and at work, then it is more than ready. The only thing it's missing is universal hardware manufacturer support.

Wrong!

[zulux]

goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.

Then you need to educate the users and tailor their OS to fit their individual needs. Free Unix can do this, and it's an advantage!

Business: How would you like a OS that *ONLY* has business applications on the desktop.

Children: Here's a clean desktop with a few icons - single click them to play.

Geek: Here's mutilple desktops filled with options and tools.

Server: There's only PostreSQL running on this server. No remote logins are allowed.

You'd thing after 100 years sombody would come up with the perftect car that we'd all love, but there as diferent as Hummers and Prius's.

Computers will be the same, and Microsoft's unified system that tries to fit the needs of pre-schollers to servers sucks.

Force? Choice? What nonsense is this?

[ChrisJones]

Nobody is forced to use a desktop they don't want and a newbie user probably won't be choosing the desktop they do use. Why not? Because generally the distro they install will make a default choice for them.
Give a Linux newcomer a copy of RH9 and they won't even dream that KDE exists, but they will be able to run KDE applications if they want. Ok they won't integrate completely, yet (yay freedesktop.org), but virtually no Windows applications integrate cleanly with other ones (beyond standard clipboard type operations, which will work fine betwixt GTK and Qt) and most new software I see on Windows these days seems to be abandoning the standard UI tools and introducing application specific, custom, pretty, artist made GUIs, which is even worse than providing a choice between two polished, standardised interfaces imo.
Hell, if you use RedHat's BlueCurve, your Qt and GTK applications will even have the same look.
All of the above is without even mentioning that for any given Gnome or KDE application, there is almost certainly a counterpart for the other desktop, making the choice even less relevant.
Both KDE and Gnome have a purpose, those purposes are different and the only result of having both projects continue to run is that both will be enriched by the fruits of the other, or at least will be able to better the mistakes of the other.

KDE vs Gnome needs to be resolved first

[sputnikid]

Before you can have a Linux vs MS GUI fight. I think the Linux community needs to come together and settle their own differences first.

As nice as it is to be able to have several GUI choices... it is ALSO the biggest annoyance in the O/S.

At least with Windows you can buy Windows software and its guaranteed to work with the operating system.

Any GUI is easy

[JustAnOtherCodeSerf]

Anyone that can get Linux to do what they want can deal with whatever GUI you throw at them.

Easy installers and package managers only get you so far. In the end, you need to understand what's going on. If you get that far, no GUI is going to be a problem.

Re:XP FUD

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Install printer: Connect printer, wait, print. You might need to install drivers, in which case insert cd when prompted.

Alter network settings: Control pannel, Networking, Right click, Properties, Click on TCP/IP, adjust values.

This works on EVERY Windows machine. The control panel has not changed that much. The cosmetic change that happened in XP is easily overcome. So, your first words over the phone would be "open control panel, click "show classic view"...

Developers as well, not just users

[MrEntropy]

I would also add that is is important for developers to see a standard environment as well. For instance, if I am Adobe looking to port Premiere to Linux, which toolkit should I use? Qt/KDE? GTK/Gnome? Which distro should I target with which version of gcc and runtime libs? Red Hat? Suse? You can't just pick one, the user may not have that environment installed, and even if it is all statically linked, it may not behave/look the same as the rest of the user's environment. All of this translates to extra expense and hassle in development, which I suspect is a lot bigger turnoff than any GPL hangups people may have. As much as we may bash Windows for changing the environment, at least the Win32 API has remained consistent for the developer.

We may argue that we have all of the Open Source apps we need, but there is still no decent DV video editor such as Final Cut Pro or Premiere. Photoshop is light years ahead of GIMP in features and usability. Roxio has a very full featured and easy to use CD and DVD burner on Mac and Windows, nothing in Linux really compares. Until we make it easy for the developers AND show a market by attracting home users, I don't think we will see these types of apps ported.

Re:Developers as well, not just users

[dododge]

For instance, if I am Adobe looking to port Premiere to Linux, which toolkit should I use? Qt/KDE? GTK/Gnome?

And one need only look at some of the older attempts to see how bad things can be if the wrong choices are made.

Speaking of Adobe, the old Unix versions of Photoshop come immediately to mind. For example the file chooser was this horrible monstrosity that tried to pretend the system was a Mac and made no sense at all to a normal Unix user. It also interacted very badly with anything other than the stock vendor window manager; I can recall things like manually resizing or moving a window (I think I was using ctwm at the time), only to have Photoshop shortly thereafter change the size or position of the window to something else on its own. Bizarre, and very, very annoying if nothing else.

And then there's the Solaris version of Internet Explorer, which basically seemed to be a conversion of every Windows DLL over to a Solaris shared library, all loaded and occupying some ghastly amount of memory and looking/acting exactly like the Windows GUI. At least that's what I recall of the beta versions. I think they also had a "Motif" display option, but that it worked worse.

Re:Developers as well, not just users

[MrEntropy]

Thta funny, I actually worked on the port of Photoshop from Mac to Irix for a short time. I was responsible for tuning some of the painting and filter loops for MIPs chips. The biggest speedup I got was converting integer divides (somewhere on the order of 135 cycles) to floating point divides (convert float, divide, convert back to int. something on the order of 18 cycles.) The app was ported using Quorum originally, a Mac toolkit emulator running in X11. Ah, the stories.....

I disagree: Sell Linux Like Power Tools

[tjstork]

Choice and flexibility are always a positive attributes for consumers, markers of the power for the end user.

Let's not forget that Windows has a lot of customizability and sells on that merit. For example, setting fonts, colors, everything with visual tools are a selling point of MS applications and the OS itself.

Linux should be marketed as an operating system that is more powerful than Windows and it should promote its data center roots. Web sites that offer Linux services and distributions should do well to look at how the differences between cheap tools and better tools are marketed.

Users can understand that with choice comes complexity, and, while you may not have the --whole-- market, you can grab the high end of it, grab the people that --care-- about software. They in turn will drive the lower end of the market.

Always target power users, make them happy, and you will not lose.

Re:I disagree: Sell Linux Like Power Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

more powerul at doing what exactly ? making a word document ? playing a game ? surfing the web ? watching videos ? listening to music ?

i think you forget what most people (wallmart customers et al) do with their computers, unless you want to keep Linux with its 5% of the market and everything that goes with it (no games,no manufacturer support,no applications)

think VHS vs Betamax

Re:I disagree: Sell Linux Like Power Tools

[smithmc]

Always target power users, make them happy, and you will not lose.

You mean the way BeOS and OS/2 targeted power users? While MS targeted Joe Average and won really really big?

Re:XP FUD

[Malor]

Windows 3.1 was the first major PC windowed interface. (there were earlier versions and a couple of alternatives, but 3.1 was the first one to really hit the bigtime.)

NT 3.51 looked fairly similar but had some significant differences.

95 was different. NT 4.0 was revamped to look kind of like 95, but it was quite different once you did a little looking around. Fundamental user interaction was about the same, but for system administration they didn't resemble one another at all.

98 changed things again, and then 2000 was introduced with yet more changes. Wasn't it in 98 where they first tried that Web Desktop (single-click) interface?

XP redid it AGAIN, massively, to the point that I feel my use of the computer is significantly impaired until I get the interface elements all switched back to what I'm used to.

Every new iteration of Windows has changed interface; in the case of the Web Desktop, they tried to completely change the metaphor.

You can support your argument by simply decreeing that all these changes were "minor' ones, but personally I disagree with that.

You don't quite get it

[bahamat]

The choice of desktop is a good thing. For a new user to Linux that choice is left up to the distro, not the user. I've used RedHat, Mandrake, SUSE, TurboLinux and Debian. Those distros all had a default desktop (GNOME, KDE, KDE, AfterStep, and GNOME respectively) but I choose to use WindowMaker. In all recent versions of those distros the ability to switch desktops isn't advertised, but it's there. This is the way it's suposed to work. And it's the Right Way.

Re: every few months...

[tomhudson]

poster wrote:

I have not met one person who looks at an XP desktop after using Windows for years and gets lost. Ever.

Guess you don't get out much, then. A lot of people got lost just changing from 95 to 98, which was a lot less of a change from 3x, which was also less than 10 years ago.

Everyone I know gave up on Millenium, which "hid" way too much, in comparison to 9x.

As you point out, the changes are, in many respects, cosmetic. But that's enough to throw people off, which was my point, that Microsoft has in fact made many changes over the years (Look at the differences in IE 3, 4, and 6, for example).

talking from both sides of ones mouth

[Kunta Kinte]

How many times have Linus or others said that the goal for Linux is NOT to attack Microsoft's monopoly...

It would be hard to argue that Linus et al. are not gunning for Microsoft, BSD, and other competing operating systems.

In fact, if we be honest about it, I think it is obvious that they are. Not that there's anything work with being competitive.

Remember when someone published a report that IIS on WinNT was insanely faster than Apache on Linux? Linus and the other kernel hackers had kHTTPD, and a ton on fixes in the kernel in no time flat. A bunch more fixes/enhancements made it into the next major kernel release as well.

This is just one example.

Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I want a terminal, I want something with a black background, and either white or neon-green text. It's just more cmfortable to read that way. But when I boot a terminal from my (GNOME) RedHat box, I get a YELLOW background and BLACK text. Or if I change it to "green on black" I STILL get barely readable NAVY-BLUE and PURPLE on my friggin' BLACK background. Damn it guys, we need to standardize terminal colors!

What's the point?

[bsdpanix]

I thought the point of a GNU/Linux system in the first place was to offer an affordable, configurable, "free", Unix-like system for those of us that "wanted" a choice. Since when did the goal become to replace Windows with Linux for the average schmuck?

Is this guy explaining to us why...

[xutopia]

the icons in the menu in both Gnome and KDE are not draggable?

There ARE standards.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a organization known as FreeDesktop. They have published standards to make OpenSource desktop enviroments interoperate. Gnome 2.4 when its released be compliant with the new standards and KDE 3.2 will be as well. Other Desktops and Window managers are also starting to comply. There are also more standards being drafted.

We don't need a unifed desktop, we need STANDARDS.

Re:Linux: It's not for the stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, looks like a lot of Windows users have mod points today.

Wrong assumption about motivations

[RedHat Rocky]

Mr.Jones starts off with incorrect assumptions:

"...there's simply no doubt that the desktop--and Microsoft--are the current target of many open source software projects. These projects are conceived, executed, and extended to compete with Microsoft's desktop applications."

The majority of projects are not about competing with Microsoft, rather their goals are to offer an alternative, often because of dissatifaction with MS offerings or the desire to be free of MS altogether. The goal is to get work done, not "beat Microsoft". Many would say they are more concerned about creating a quality application than targetting the OS/App choice of "average users".

The only ones claiming otherwise are the media and users dissatified with the projects current state. How many times have we heard "In order to compete with Microsoft Application X, Gnu Application Y needs to blah blah blah".

naa

[delirium of disorder]

I'd rather stay somewhat elitist to keep my choices instead of catering to the lowest common denominator.

CLUE

[InsaneCreator]

Linux is an operating system with a CLUE! ...Command Line User Environment ;)

Then don't install them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lilith's heart-shaped ass, didn't you install Red Hat on your machine? You *do* know that you didn't have to install *every* package offered, don't you?

Indulge in a little self-reliance; you might like it.

Choice differentiates Linux from Windows

[yintercept]

I concur. The big advantage of Linux is that there is choice. This ability to chose is Linux's competitive edge. Tossing out the competitive edge because you don't have the market share you want is absurd. Companies that follow this type of path generally put themselves out of business. Quite frankly, i have never be thrilled with either KDE or Gnome, and believe the kick ass linux GUI is still waiting its creation. Having an open architecture that allows different GUIs to evolve is the ultimate competitive edge. Choice is good.

Linux's niche market is extremely strong right now. Rather than do it wrong because some people hate Bill Gates so much that they would make any compromise to hurt their enemy, I would rather see people accept that evolution takes time. Allowing multiple GUIs allows for long term evolution of the GUI.

In the long run, Linux is served better by having multiple GUI options. We should be arguing for more not fewer choices of desktops.

Re:Choice differentiates Linux from Windows

[DerekLyons]

I concur. The big advantage of Linux is that there is choice. This ability to chose is Linux's competitive edge. Tossing out the competitive edge because you don't have the market share you want is absurd.

Huh? If a product feature or philosophy isn't gaining you market share, then it's not a competitive edge, it's a sure sign that you are doomed to marginality if not outright failure.

Douglas Aircraft was damm good, perhaps the best in the world, at designing propeller driven commercial aircraft. Lockheed was a very close second. Boeing was far, far, behind.

Where would they have been in 1970 if they hadn't discarded the edge they had over Boeing in propeller technology to join Boeing in the jet age?

Apple was reduced to marginality because they marketed to the edges of the user base, (those few people who didn't want to be part of the crowd). Microsoft concentrated on producing what the users wanted (applications) and marketed their software as immediately useable and productive, while Apple stuck to political slogans.

When you are in a race for market share, handicapping yourself before even getting out of the gate is a poor idea. Claiming that you know better than the poor unenlightened masses is a sure way to alienate those who you wish to woo.

Re:Choice differentiates Linux from Windows

[yintercept]

The key, however, is that Linux has a very strong, growing and loyal customer base. It has a strong niche in the server market, etc..

The assumption that Linux needs to make its move into the desktop right now is short sighted.

MS is stuck in a track where their entire product is based on a computer configuration with a keyboard, monitor and mouse. By allowing multiple GUIs, Linux will be in a better position to handle things like the voice recognition, and will rule the OS world when the standard configuration of the computer has two legs, a spinning head and the standard user interface includes a death ray and fiendish laugh... or, err, whatever the future holds.

Timing is everything. A consolidated GUI might have been the big thing yesterday. Tomorrow, however, the advantage is the ability to adapt.

Re:Choice differentiates Linux from Windows

[DerekLyons]

The assumption that Linux needs to make its move into the desktop right now is short sighted.

Only if you consider the current situation, where Linux has a hard time finding compatible hardware and nobody ports significant software, desireable.

is stuck in a track where their entire product is based on a computer configuration with a keyboard, monitor and mouse.

Linux is little better off.

By allowing multiple GUIs, Linux will be in a better position to handle things like the voice recognition, and will rule the OS world when the standard configuration of the computer has two legs, a spinning head and the standard user interface includes a death ray and fiendish laugh...

Bilgewater. Such things are (should be) handled at the OS level, not at the application level. Microsoft/3rd parties have easily enough added drivers for new hardware configurations (CD's & writers, DVD's & writers, etc...) without changing their basic GUI one whit in it's essentials.

or, err, whatever the future holds.

Problem is, tommorow becomes today. Being ever ready for what the day after tommorow *might* bring, leaves one vulnerable to what today *is* bringing.

Re:Choice differentiates Linux from Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Claiming that you know better than the poor unenlightened masses is a sure way to alienate those who you wish to woo.

Huh? Maybe before you post you should find out whether you're the one arguing in favor of letting people have the options to choose what they want or whether you're the one arguing that you know better than them and that a single option should be dictated to them. It might help you to avoid insulting your own side.

Re: every few months...

[tomhudson]

Unfortunately, the average user can't handle "any" change. They learn 1 way to do something, and get confused when confronted with another way, another set of menus, or how an application responds (just look at the different versions of your fav. development environment over the last 10 years).

Natural Selection

[N8F8]

I consider the point moot since the market is likely to choose one predominant GUI/Window Manager anyhow.

Re:XP FUD

[Gherald]

Yes it changed form 3.1 --> 95. But this was just natural progress (the 3.1 interface sucked).

If you compared KDE 3.x to 1.x., would it look the same? No.

So that isn't the point. The point is the end user does not know how to choose KDE/GNOME/Whatever

lifestyle gumdrops

[epine]

There are two things I hate about this article. The first is that it is a straw man attack. The second is his premise that no one think too hard. The users won't think hard, he won't think hard, so why should anyone else? I can agree with the first two, but I don't think it follows for the third group, those of us who conduct the development process.

I've never had any patience for the "take over the desktop" mantra. Satisfying the general public is the most difficult task in programming. Where this does this notion come from that importance is measured in eyeballs? I thought we ditched that one after the dotcom implosion.

The general population is not a fixed target. What was "obvious" to a non technical person in 1985 is far different than what is "obvious" to such a person now. Even if we all agreed that "one size fits all" would improve the landscape (over my dead body) "one size" is a moving target.

Finally, uniformity is a marketing process, not a development process. Leave the developers alone. For once, Apple had the right idea when they packaged FreeBSD in a translucent gumdrop (the gumdrop stands for the amalgam of two incompatible user interfaces, one nested inside the other).

Let's get down to brass tackies: there is a large segment of the population which is relatively careless about where they double click (beer goggles, teenage pregnancy, reality TV). These people are well served by Outlook and Explorer. There is another group that is more fastidious about how they conduct themselves. These people are better served by any other mail client and Opera/Mozilla.

The choice is not about windows managers, it's about lifestyle, and that choice doesn't go away no matter how you package the underlying technology.

Doesn't everyone know this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't OSX users point this out every day now? "I would certainly use Linux, if it looked as cool as OSX"... Who wouldn't?

Linux looks like shit... it's really kewl, but it looks terible.

I of course do use it anyway, but just to serve up stuff that looks good, like the www pages created by good designers...

and by the way, f*ck gimp. Without photoshop, it doesn't matter anyway. It's still a desktop that can't run photoshop.

Ya go head, ridicule me, point me out and laugh. but either way, I'll still be buying several new OSX boxes every year.

Re:Doesn't everyone know this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, disney got photoshop to run just fine on linux. Where's your beef now?

This guy just doesn't get it

[-argon23-]

The goal of Linux has never been to tackle Microsoft head on. Commentators like this just can't seem to understand that most developers aren't coding for joe average. They are coding for themselves and the rest of the open source community.

The choices in toolkits, window managers and desktop environments has been an evolution, not some grand strategy. Success of one environment over another takes place simply by developer and user choice.

The choice is simple. If you want a consistant, integrated environment, use Windows, MaxOS X, or a linux distribution focussed on doing this like Xandros or Lindows. If you want flexibility and power, customize a Linux GUI for yourself.

minor but important correction...

[gosand]

Would it be fair to say then, that Red Hat has the right idea trying to make a standardised GUI using the bets bits of (predominantly) GNOME and KDE? Having used Bluecurve'd GNOME over other versions of GNOME, it really is a superb piece of work.. definately the way forward imho, and a huge improvement over the standard.

Please note my minor but very important corrections to your statements:

Would it be fair to say then, that Red Hat has a right idea trying to make a standardised GUI using the bets bits of (predominantly) GNOME and KDE? Having used Bluecurve'd GNOME over other versions of GNOME, it really is a superb piece of work.. definately one way forward imho, and a huge improvement over the standard.

Choice is one of the critical strengths of Linux. Standardizing the GUI (if that were even possible) for everyone would weaken it. No matter how you standardized it, someone would lose out. I have thought at times that Gnome and KDE should merge and work together. But that would kill off parts of each one of them.

I personally don't like RedHat's Bluecurve, but I do appreciate what they are trying to do with it. Hey, if it takes off, then maybe RedHat would become the "average-user-friendly" distro because of it. But talking about standardizing the GUI for all of the Linux world is just crazy talk. I found Bluecurve more confusing because I can tell the difference between KDE and Gnome. You put the same front-end on both, and it would be harder to explain to a non-computer user what the differences are. At least if they are separate, they can see the differences.

From the article header:
the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.

I think it is very important that the open source community recognize this too - but I don't think they have to do anything about it. Why compromize the primary goals and strengths to simply appease the average user? Linux didn't get to where it is by appeasing the average user, why start now? I am not being elitest, I just think that there is no reason to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. You want to make a dumbed-down distro - go for it. Challenge Microsoft's desktop, take it over. Win over the average computer user. Just make sure you don't stomp on those primary goals in the process. Having installed older distros, I can absolutely appreciate the advances that have taken place in newer distros. There are still things that can be improved upon as well. But none of these have or will compromize the strengths of Linux.

As OJ says, that would be ludacrisp. :-)

Re:minor but important correction...

[p3d0]

You can't make a correction to someone's own humble opinion. Perhaps it's your opinion, but that doesn't mean his is "incorrect".

What do you mean by 'Standard'?

[idlethought]

I just stuck SUSE 8.2 on an old laptop for someone who has used Windows 95, 98 and XP a little but no more than for a few hours a week.

It's got KDE installed as default, and currently uses KSpread & GRAMPS* for genealogical research. Now KSpread is KDE, GRAMPS is Gnome and the user is not really aware of any difference. She just gets on with it - Her considered opinion that is it's just a bit different and in some places easier to use than Windows. Kspread is particularly a hit because it works more the way she expects it to than Excel does.

This Linux isn't ready for the desktop stuff is getting old. Linux isn't ready for a non-techie computer user to install on an existing machine the moment anything the installer doesn't expect happens. Neither, to be perfectly honest, is Windows.- And stunning observation of the obvious: the majority of Windows licences aren't retail to direct to the consumer.

Linux and Windows are both perfectly capable of being equally usable on a pre-installed system, with carefully chosen hardware, a well thought out initial configuration and some over-the-phone support for the people who get confused between the network socket, the mains socket and the USB sockets.

Apple has the right perspective in that the majority of PC users look at their PC as just another piece of consumer electronics- it's a glorified TV/Games Console: For these people the operating system is a component as mysterious and unidentifiable as the hard-drive.

Linux won't conquer the desktop until it's a standard options when buying a PC and the cost of the hardware gets low enough that it competes on price, and the interoperability means that that is the only difference.

Samba, Wine, MS Office filters are the stuff that matters, not KDE vs Gnome battles- they're at the point where they fade into the background as part of the scenery: The standardisation of the KOffice file formats is the sort of thing we should be doing... And look it's being done.

* Kudos to those SUSE people who performed the non-trivial task of producing a GRAMPS rpm for SUSE 8.2 - it's working fine and a good example of what *doesn't* happen in windows land.

target newer users

[b17bmbr]

Where I teach,I hear fellow teachers, and even students, look befuddled and apprehensive (ah the big words) when using windows. Most of these are for want of a better term, newbies. They are computer illiterate. So they haven't become dependent on the windows GUI. Plus, since they know so little about comptuers, anything is going to be difficult, UNTIL, they learn how. Linux will have a harder time in users who are used to, but not savvy with, windows. They know where their apps are, where their files are, and not much else. They will be unwilling to "change". However, most of this "is linux desktop ready" is crap, because, if you put somehting in front of a worker, er um, employee, and say, use it, they most likely will. As long as microsoft can have mindshare, that PC=windows, then it will be tough. But, newer users are not going to have the problem. "Oh, you click on the big K. Thanks"

Bash, C, Perl shells???

[doublem]

Which shell are you running? They're not all the same you know.

Not even the terminal is standard!

I love it. I really do. I LOVE LINUX! :)

Windows is for computer games, just like my Playstation 2.

Well at home anyway. I'm still stuck with windows at work. :(

Re:Bash, C, Perl shells???

[Anonymous Coward]

perl shell?

Re:Bash, C, Perl shells???

[doublem]

Yes, there is a shell based on Perl. Last I heard it was still alpha though. Haven't kept up with it.

Choice is Holding Linux Back?

[e.m.rainey]

So if it boils down to freedom of choice, source, and alteration, versus widespread acceptance, I'd go with freedom. That is, afterall, what OSS is all about; Freedom .

This Article is Rediculous.

[13Echo]

Many open source software programmers aren't writing their programs for the average user. They are writing free alternatives to commercial programs, and generally are writing them because there is no such program that is available on the platform. They are writing them because they feel that there is a need for such a program, because, perhaps, they would like to be able to use such a program. Functionality comes first.

And really... Why should they write them for the average user? The average user has Windows. The average user has MacOS. If the average user wishes to use Linux, they have plenty of options that better cater to their needs. A Mandrake, Lycoris, Suse, or Lindows install will best handle their needs. But, the average user is not going to install icewm (as this goon noted in the article). Why would they?

The writer's comments about "weather or not software will work" are pointless. You don't have to be running Gnome to allow have Opera (QT based) work. You can run Mozilla (GTK w/custom XML) on top of ther QT based KDE. Merely having libraries is all you need. The UI can be whatever the user wants to use. I've not found an exception to this. Sure, things may not look uniform, but that's because QT and GTK (and others) use different libraries for skinning and such. They do, however, work.

As far as I am concerned, the typical "rules" of the "average user" do not apply on free platforms. We write software for our needs. We share it with you as well. Most of us, dispite having some dislikes for Microsoft, don't care if Linux dominates the desktop. If the software doesn't suit your needs, then you're probably using the wrong tool for the job (there are plenty of reasons to use Windows). We want choices though. We won't make your mind up for you, and we don't want to. If that's what you want, then you're using the wrong tool for the job.

Go to Redmond to have someone tell you what you should want.

Re:This Article is Rediculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's spelled ridiculous, numb nuts. Sorry, but this is a slashdotism that I simply cannot stand.

Re:This Article is Rediculous.

[Trifthen]

No. You see, ridiculous comes from the Latin "ridiculus" and means something is laughable, or "to laugh". What he really meant was that the article was red-iculous, or "to red". As we all know, people become red when they're angry, and so this person was illustrating that this article made them angry using a little-known derivation of the humble word: ridiculous.

And here you are, insulting the poor irate troll for using said word. Shame!

Fundamental differences

[Cthefuture]

If I had to choose, I would vote for KDE.

Gtk (GNOME) is free and open. It has a "safe" feeling. However, it's not really cross-platform* and is not very polished (the C API sucks and the gtkmm interface is still rough around the edges). It is a valid choice because of it's freeness. Hence the reason why we have GNOME.

QT (KDE) is not free and in fact it is way too expensive for most normal uses*. Not everyone wants to release their stuff as GPL. However, it's the best cross-platform GUI toolkit available and feels polished. The applications made with QT are typically more professional feeling than Gtk applications. It is a valid choice because it works really well (better than Gtk).

So those are the two sides. You have "rough and free" versus "polished and expensive". Because both are equally valid this is why we have the split.

And I agree with you. If I had to pick who will win the GUI war I would say KDE. But only if Trolltech lowers their prices will KDE survive in the commercial market. As I've mentioned many times, Microsoft's developer prices are way lower (for more stuff) and that's part of the reason why they rule the desktop.

* Gtk has always run like crap on Windows and on OSX it has to run in the X11 layer.

* Come on Trolltech, give us a sub-$1000 cross-platform QT.

Re:Fundamental differences

[David Gerard]

I'd be surprised if no-one was working on a cross-platform Qt, starting from the Unix version. Even one to GTK-Win32 standards.

Re:Fundamental differences

[steveha]

You have "rough and free" versus "polished and expensive".

And the "rough" one is getting more and more polished as time goes by, while the polished one isn't getting noticeably more free.

I already like GNOME 2.x better than any other environment; all I need for complete happiness is for the apps to all get finished.

I have successfully moved my wife off a Windows computer and onto a Linux computer with a GNOME 2.x desktop. It's enough like Windows that she didn't require much training.

So, if I had to choose one, I choose GNOME. But there is no way to force such a choice on the free software community, so GNOME and KDE will have to continue to coexist.

steveha

Re:Fundamental differences

[Cthefuture]

True. And even I use GNOME because it's faster than KDE (currently).

And like you, I think Gtk2 is a great improvement. Though QT is becoming more polished also (just look at the planned improvements for QT4).

However, Gtk is not getting any better on any platforms other than Linux. Gtk on anything else sucks badly and is the reason why I don't develop GUI applications using Gtk. It was suppose to be better with Gtk2 but from the tests I've done this isn't true at all. I fear Gtk will never be a good cross-platform GUI API.

Of course it wouldn't matter if everyone was running Linux, but currently only a tiny fraction of desktops run Linux.

Re:Fundamental differences

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"However, Gtk is not getting any better on any platforms other than Linux."

It's still quite "rough", but I've seen a lot of improvement from the GTK 1.x days. With the WIMP skin and a little work on a consistant interface (drag and drop, copy and paste, etc.), it could be quite good. Look at GAIM - it's still "rough around the edges", but it's not really any worse than the QT apps I've used on Windows.

Re:Fundamental differences

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem..but I think your tests must suck.

GTK+ 2.0 runs very nicely on Windows. I use it in a production environment nearly everyday.

Since last year we have migrated completely away from VB to using python+pygtk on a windows platform.

Re:Fundamental differences

[ninewands]

"However, Gtk is not getting any better on any platforms other than Linux."

Please don't tell that to my Ultra 10 that is quite happy running GNOME 2.0/Gtk 2.0 on top of Solaris 8.

I imagine any "fit & finish" problems Gtk might have had will quickly become history now that it is an official Sun "supported product."

Re:Fundamental differences

[Ogerman]

QT (KDE) is not free and in fact it is way too expensive for most normal uses*. Not everyone wants to release their stuff as GPL. However, it's the best cross-platform GUI toolkit available and feels polished.

Is a society less free if it prohibits slavery? Certainly not. Likewise, the GPL is no less free for prohibiting non-free derivatives, or in this case, non-free products that depend on free libraries. If somebody decides to ignore the benefits of community development, that's their choice. But that doesn't mean we have to let them free-ride on the hard work of those who believe that Open Source is the future and that proprietary software, like slavery, is inefficient for society and perhaps often immoral.

Qt and KDE are 100% free and open.

I personally license all software I develop under GPL. This is done expressly for the benefit of my clients, who benefit when other developers contribute back to my codebase. Some of the software I develop is intended to completely obsolete the need for all proprietary products it competes with. Again, I do this solely for the benefit of my clients, and more importantly, future clients. What's in it for me? A massive competitive edge in total cost for my services and the ability to be involved in a large-scale software project while still being my own boss. What if other competing consultants use the same software? Great! More co-developers means less work for all of us.

There is no need for proprietary software to supplement Open Source. There is only a need for more honest, hard-working developer-consultants.

Re:Fundamental differences

[JohnFluxx]

>Is a society less free if it prohibits slavery?

He meant 'free' as in beer.

stupid english language

Useability

[ChiaBen]

One of the core features of Linux is the ability to choose. I use Metacity on Redhat 9 on one machine, Blackbox on Redhat 7.3 on another, and Fluxbox on Debian Potato on a third. On the machines at work, we have X-less servers, and Solaris with Gnome.

I think for a beginner it's nice to have a standard, but that's why I recommend beginners go out and get Redhat, or Mandrake with their excellent easy setup, and install tools.

Don't force me to have a WM, I don't always need one. But, if you make one that is clean, quick, lightweight, and easy to use, I'll have 20 copies by noon today, thank you.

Heck, I'd probably even be willing to pay for a few of them!

Re:Useability

[x-router]

Indeed I can only imagine the horror of losing blackbox/hackedbox and being forced into the gnome/kde bloatware camp. Choice is what makes linux what it is, I don't like all this pandering to windows users trying to bring them on board. Linux didn't get where it is today by pandering to noobs, linux is linux not windows.

Speaking as a programmer

[Brad Oliver]

...I'm not very familiar with programming Linux GUI apps. And by that I mean I have no clue what it entails. So with that in mind...

Doesn't having two or more GUIs in competition mean multiple APIs to target? If I were developing a Killer Linux Desktop App, don't I as a programmer need to decide KDE or Gnome? Or is this a non-issue?

Re:Speaking as a programmer

[codepunk]

You have to ask yourself what GUI toolkit do I use, QT, GTK, wxWindows, FLTK etc. Now because I like to have my apps run on anything I use wxPython which uses wxWindows as the GUI engine. Since python is portable an wxWindows is portable my application will run on linux, windows and yes even a POS MAC.

Re:Speaking as a programmer

[spitzak]

The same program can run under any X environment without any changes.

The main problem for users is that if you use the "official" development environment for KDE or Gnome, your program will link to dozens of shared libraries. These libraries are not necessarily installed on a machine that is running the other system. Recently this situation has improved and most Linux installations put both in. In the future it is hoped that somebody will actually rewrite X and put advanced graphics into it (about 90% of these shared libraries are for drawing graphics).

The more serious problem (but less annoying to users) is that neither system has standardized exactly how to do some operations. For instance getting an arbitrary URL/file to open (HINT TO KDE/GNOME: make a program called "start", or put the name of the program in an environment variable, or something! Comon, this should not be such a pain in the ass!). In my experience though the lack of these interfaces does not cause programs to crash, and usually the produce a reasonable error message.

Re:XP FUD

[quigonn]

Windows 1.0 look different than Windows 2.0, which looked different to Windows 3.0 and 3.1, which looked different to Windows 95. So what?

Re: every few months...

[tomhudson]

poster wrote:

No wonder Microsoft is first (not thinking about OS X here! :-) when it comes to new GUI-features

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I remember multiple-screen-pager utilities from 3rd parties that worked in Win3x, but if you want this feature in Windows, you still need a 3rd party utility.

then there's the whole question of running programs remotely, which X does nicely, and Windows only seems to be able to do with NetBios attacks allowing people to do popup spam (unlike X, no authentification/security).

Microsoft has never done interface innovation (except for Clippy, and we all know how that tyurned out). The courts ruled that all this stuff (Windows/Icons/Mouse) was originally from Zerox (Palo Alto Research Complex - PARC).

Re: every few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's the case, are any Linux WMs doing any better? Everytime I see a new version of Distro X has been released, I check out some screenshots and am amazed by how much they change (improved.)

The reason behind Bluecurve

[yerricde]

If you install the GNOME libs, you can run GNOME apps in KDE with the KDE window manager's window decorations. If you install the KDE libs, you can run KDE apps in GNOME with the GNOME window manager's window decorations. If your distribution has made default widget themes for GTK+ and Qt with similar-looking decorations (Red Hat's default theme is an example), and if GNOME and KDE libs agree to handle drag and drop in a compatible manner, users often won't notice much of a difference between GNOME apps and KDE apps.

It's About Apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not, Linux is in competition with Microsoft. The Linux community may not feel the need to compete, but you better believe that Microsoft does, and they're going to leverage one success after another to get there. One place they definitely succeed is third party application support; not 31 flavors of wardriving utilities, but the boring beancounter apps that businesses need on the desktop, the stuff that tends not to get polished on Linux, if it gets written in any form at all.

The existence of multiple GUIs is a hurdle to companies considering porting applications to Linux. It's additional expense, additional risk, for as-yet unproven returns. Lowering that barrier by rallying around a single GUI would improve the chances of Linux ports, which in turn would take away some of Microsoft's leverage to displace Linux.

Does such leverage really work? Of course it does. Ever heard of an IT department making the case that supporting a single platform company-wide will help lower their costs? Whether true or not, that argument gets made. And if it's Linux or Windows exiting the enterprise, guess which one is more likely to be deemed necessary, due to all those specialized apps the business needs?

I'm not saying that the advantages of a single GUI outweigh the disadvantages, but I don't believe the author's point should be summarily dismissed, either.

"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[cnelzie]

Sure you can do somewhat decent desktop publishing, sure you can handle programming tasks, and quite a few other desktop tasks...

However, you are making the same mistake as everyone that spouts that rhetoric. That mistake is quite simple to overlook, because you likely haven't been exposed to it...

The mistake is the lack of Manufacturing software, like CAD/CAM systems, Quality Analysis systems and other extremely important engineering and design software.

Catia, Unigraphics, Pro-E and other world-class CAD systems simply do not run on Linux. Control software for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) is only available for the Microsoft Windows platform. That software often controls the basic construction of a manufacturing companies IT infrastructure.

It's the idea of 'incompatibility' and the desire to have a homogeneous network structure that 'forces' many companies to utilize an entirely Windows based network.

Get Catia and Unigraphics as well as the other software I mentioned to be fully supported and released on Linux and then there will be nothing stopping Linux from hitting the desks of the manufacturing industry.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[iSwitched]

No mod points today, or you'd be +1.

Your point extends far beyond manufacturing packages. The "Gimp is as good as Photoshop" and similar rhetoric shows how far there is yet to go in the realm of apps.

In fact, I'd say that the recent offering from Redhat and others have taken dramatic steps in easing the issues that this article sees as so important. The desktop environment installed by default on these recent distributions is likely to seem very usable indeed to any reasonable person. In my opinion, the consistent GUI has arrived, sure more work needs to be done, but the framework is there.

The problem, as you've put so well, is that people become tied to the apps they use. What they use at work becomes what they want at home. It always seems to surprise the average geeks that rank-and-file users don't want to learn a new, unfamiliar app to do a task they feel they already know how to do, and as one who focuses on usability and GUI design, I say why should they?

Until that singular arrogance on the part of many Linux advocates (even some, dare I say, who read Slashdot) can be done away with, until more people are willing to scream "the emperor has no clothes!" Linux on consumer and (as you point out), many business desktops, is doomed to lag behind.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[sg3235]

The mistake is the lack of Manufacturing software, like CAD/CAM systems, Quality Analysis systems and other extremely important engineering and design software. -- Get Catia and Unigraphics as well as the other software I mentioned to be fully supported and released on Linux and then there will be nothing stopping Linux from hitting the desks of the manufacturing industry. You start to make a great point and then limit it to a select group of users. Specialty software exists in many domains. I'm doing Video Editing and DVD burning. Sure there may be stuff out there for Linux, but last I looked it required finding and combining a bunch of different packages. I have a nice audio processing app that runs on Windows. They don't have a version for Linux. My wife has a specialty program that helps her design quilts...not available on Linux. She also has an embroidery machine with very expensive embroidery software for Windows. That's not to mention the gaggle of games we have that run on Windows Sure, there are bunches of games for Linux...but we already own tons for Windows. I hate Windows as much as anybody...but right now the world is tilted that way and it's just simply to inconvenient to let that hatred take over and get rid of Windows.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[prgammans]

Catia, Unigraphics, Pro-E and other world-class CAD systems simply do not run on Linux. Control software for Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) is only available for the Microsoft Windows platform. That software often controls the basic construction of a manufacturing companies IT infrastructure.

Yes you are right that there is a need for linux version of these applications, as a user of Pro/ENGINEER and linux I can understand the problem. But a port of Pro/ENGINEER is under way. see this FAQ. There is already a linux port of Alias Wavefront another major package.

As such you can seen that though there is still a problem with the lack of high end grahical and engneering application this is slowly reducing.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider it a tragedy that the Unix resurgence took off about 1-2 years after workstation software makers had abandoned Unix for NT. When I graduated in '97, Unigraphics told me that their next version was NT only. The next rev of AutoCAD dropped the Unix port, etc.

Just a little sooner and we would have had apps already written for us.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[Laur]

It certainly appears that Pro-E runs on Linux. I believe Unigraphics does as well, but their site was much more difficult to navigate. At least something from them runs on Linux. CATIA doesn't appear to run on linux yet, but with IBM as the main US distributor hopefully that will change soon.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, Pro Engineer does indeed run Linux. You can buy a preinstalled Redhat/Pro-E box.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Over here all the Zeiss CMM's are based on Ultrix systems... Good ol' DEC Unix

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[blibbleblobble]

"rank-and-file users don't want to learn a new app; why should they?"

For Freedom?

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[mattgreen]

For Freedom?
You are completely missing the point, average users DON'T CARE about the political implications of an operating system!

Nor should they.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[Grishnakh]

Then let them continue to pay through the nose for every new version of Windows, and suffer through all its security problems. No skin off my ass. Hopefully MS will jack up their prices even more, and all these "average users" who don't care can shell out even more just to keep using their software.

Meanwhile, users who DO CARE about their freedom will switch to an OS that offers that, and will reap the benefits.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[iSwitched]

touche'

Although in fairness (to me), you've paraphrased away the meaning of what I was trying to say, which was originally:

"rank-and-file users don't want to learn a new, unfamiliar app to do a task they feel they already know how to do"

Perhaps my choice of words was poor, it was never my intention to suggest that users never want to learn anything new.

My statement needs correction, it should say that most users will not accept an alternative with dramatically different interfaces and levels of functionality, when they already feel they have the tools to perform the task.

It also occurs to me that 'rank-and-file' users are less likely equate finding alternative software packages with 'Freedom', the way you and I might. Frankly, I wouldn't imagine them caring much, as long as they get their task done.

Once again, this is fine, not everyone can be an expert, and there are usually many tools for any given task. Why do we as individuals, seem so intent on converting others to our beliefs? Whether it be religion, or choice of OS, the scenario plays out over and over.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[DunbarTheInept]

It always seems to surprise the average geeks that rank-and-file users don't want to learn a new, unfamiliar app to do a task they feel they already know how to do, and as one who focuses on usability and GUI design, I say why should they?


Because familiarity is not the same as usability. If everyone in the auto industry in the early days had the attitude you put forth, cars wouldn't have steering wheels today. They'd have reins.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[SmackCrackandPot]

Catia, Unigraphics, Pro-E and other world-class CAD systems simply do not run on Linux. Get Catia and Unigraphics as well as the other software I mentioned to be fully supported and released on Linux and then there will be nothing stopping Linux from hitting the desks of the manufacturing industry.

I'll definitely agree with this. Unfortunately, these companies have limited resources, and are only able to support a small number of OS's. Before Windows NT arrived on the scene, companies were happy to support all UNIX OS's (AIX, HP, IRIX, Solaris). However, after Windows NT became available, the competition soon forced several companies to drop support for one or more UNIX OS's. Some are only willing to support one UNIX OS and Windows NT at the most.
It's a catch-22 situation. Until there is market share, these companies won't support Linux as a viable OS. Until they support Linux, Linux won't gain market share.

A good start to help this happen would be to ensure that all the application development components are available in a single download, install or CD-ROM. This would save considerable time for anyone wishing to develop applications for Linux. Optimisation tools combined into a integrated editor are also a necessity. While I can get by with two 50-row text windows side-by-side (running vi/gdb), I find MFC far more convenient to dig deep into large applications.

Even with MFC, developing applications on Windows still requires considerable effort. You still have to make sure that you have the latest device drivers/DLL's, most recent API header files, and notes on all known bugs. Microsoft does provide two CD-ROM's worth of information from the developers network, but much of this dates back to the days of 16-bit Windows with 8-bit framebuffers.

For me, this is the balancing point between choosing to develop for Windows or Linux first.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[iSwitched]

Thing one: I've already been bitch-slapped for my poor choice of words on that comment, so before kicking a guy who's already clarified his position, perhaps you ought to read the whole thread.

Thing two: you have no idea what attitude I'm trying to put forth: As someone who switched from Windows to OS X 20 months ago, I am well aware that familiarity is not usability, in fact usability can and does win out over familiarity. I'm living proof.

However, down here in the real world, you can't just toss out a users years of learned behaviors for the sake of pursuing some academic vision of perfection. If we all had the attitude you put forth, the menus on our apps wouldn't all start with FILE - EDIT.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[a1englishman]

When the PC was young, there were two opperating systems available to it: PC-DOS and CP/M-80. Of course, PC-DOS flattened CP/M-80 even though CP/M was the dominant OS of the time. Why? Because Lotus 1-2-3, the first killer application for the IBM PC came for one OS only, and it wasn't CP/M.

There's no killer application for Linux. For the Mac, it was DTP, for Windows it really is Office (and cheap hardware). Linux needs to capitalize on something it can do that nothing else can, and everyone wants.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[DunbarTheInept]

If we all had the attitude you put forth, the menus on our apps wouldn't all start with FILE - EDIT.

And the world would be better for it. Not all programs work on files, so having all programs have a file menu is brain-damaged. Let's look at what's on the File menu in a typical program: In addition to that ability to save and load files, it has the ability to open new instances of the window, the ablity to close the window, and the ability to print something to the printer. NONE of those are appropriate for a "file" menu. I remember the first time I used a system with that brain-damaged interface. I couldn't figure out where the quit option was, because I assumed the program was telling me the truth when it said that menu was for file operations. Silly me. Nowadays we're all used to it, but I remember what it was like when it first started being used. It made no sense of any kind and the only reason it feels normal now is that people can get used to anything if they get exposed to it enough times.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[algernon7]

'the only reason it feels normal now is that people can get used to anything if they get exposed to it enough times'

Man, that sounds a lot like a case of familiarity breeding usability.

While I tend to agree with your arguments (go, blackbox!), I was duty bound to post my first impression of your comment, as it made me chuckle.

Re:"Most" tasks is highly inaccurate...

[DunbarTheInept]

Man, that sounds a lot like a case of familiarity breeding usability.

I never said it became more "usable". I said people got used to it. That's not the same thing.

Speaking as a former windows user:

[Dstrct0]

The GUI thing wasn't a huge hurdle for me. When I switched, I started out with Gnome, because at the time it made more sense to me.

I experimented mostly with Gnome & KDE, but also checked out some of the other ones (Ice, and one or two others that I can't recall due to low caffeine levels), and I found Gnome to have most things where I would expect them to be, lots of settings to play with, etc.

After a while of Gnome, I decided to switch over to KDE for a change of pace. Neither GUI is especially challenging to get around in, and both have a bunch of fun & powerful features.

IMHO, we definitely do not need a standard GUI. Both KDE and Gnome are simple yet robust enough to provide the new user with everything they need.

As new users get more comfortable with their new environment, they will want to explore more. They will get curious about this other GUI they've heard so much about online, do a quick google for how to add it into their system, try it out, and discover a whole new facet of the Linux world.

I could keep going, but I have a feeling this is getting rant-y, so I'm just going to say this:

Choice is a very important part of Linux, and a very powerful magnet for users who are not used to having much choice. Reducing that choice could be a big hinderance to attracting curious new users.

this guy just doesn't get it...

[Malor]

He's basically arguing that the whole Linux community should band together and make One True Window Manager, and cease development on all the alternatives.

It's like he thinks that someone can just... order this to happen. OK, I hereby decree that KDE is the One True Window Manager. If you're working on one of the others, stop work immediately and start learning to code KDE.

While I'm at it, I also decree that it will only rain at night, except when there's a game, and never on weekends.

There are lots and lots of good ideas for interfaces out there, and competition and the "marketplace" will eventually sort out which ones are superior. Over time, Linux may gradually move toward a single unified interface naturally. Maybe someday KDE will be so good that all the GNOME hackers will just stop working on their project, or vice-versa.

But it will NEVER happen based on decree or spontaneous cooperation by everyone involved in Linux. Different programmers, different opinions, different approaches. It's the old herding cats problem. Linux users like choice; in most cases, that is the ENTIRE REASON they are using it.

Taking the choice out of Linux might help it on the mainstream desktop for a short while, but long-term would destroy it, because all the developers would go elsewhere.

I could probably reduce this entire post to four words: Competition good. Monoculture bad.

Win32 WM's

[jedidiah]

Consider Afterstep -> Litestep.

To claim that no Win32 power user is interested in alternate desktop interfaces is just plain WRONG. Win32 power users have actually been assimilating Linux WM ideas into alt win32 desktops for quite some years now.

The mere existence of Linux desktop users demonstrates the demand within Win32 users for genuine choice. Many of the curent Linux users are refugees from the lack of choice present in Win16/Win32.

Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The call for standardization is not anti-innovation. It is about basic commonality of functions and consistent user experience. That's what Apple got right with the Mac early on, and MS caught onto after a while.

I've been a Linux/BSD user on the server side for over 10 years. I love it, but I've never really tried it on the client side. I have too many wild applications that are windows based, and there haven't been alternatives.

Well, this last month, I've tried to use the Linux desktop on the side (Knoppix and RedHat 9). Some of the things that struck me were the lack of Cut & Paste across applications, the random UI menu structures, and non-obvious icons.

While I was pretty impressed with Open Office and the fact that things actually worked (considering my past experience was 8 years ago that's rather expected), it was the utter lack of polish and UI consistency that struck me.

Think of it this way, if the linux desktop is so great, why can't I can copy text from my shell window into my e-mail app and web browser? Why can't I drag a file from the file manager into my e-mail message and have it become an attachment?

Developers: Please work for a standardized functional UI implementation. A common API for cut & paste, consistent top level menu labels, clear and common control icons, and maybe even a structure for drag and drop.

There's lots of textbooks about designing UI's, and sure it's a lot more fun to do your own thing. If you expect any kind of broad recognition for your work, or people to tell you what a great job you've done, then the final product needs to merge into something bigger--a consistent UI across the desktop from the desktop manager to the applications and utilities.

Standardization means I can use your app without having to start from ground zero guessing at what functions mean and can apply knowledge from other apps. Things work the same and can interoperate. These are the things that will make the desktop suceed. These are the things MS learned from Apple and implemented to make Win95 and above a successful desktop (yes, marketshare==success).

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[tomhudson]

poster wrote:

if the linux desktop is so great, why can't I can copy text from my shell window into my e-mail app and web browser?

I don't know why you can't copy from a terminal and paste into your browser. Works for me:

echo "hello world" hello world

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[MonkeyBoyUk]

(yes, marketshare==success

No, wetting my pants because the thing is sooooo cool == success

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[__past__]

The call for standardization is not anti-innovation. It is about basic commonality of functions and consistent user experience. That's what Apple got right with the Mac early on, and MS caught onto after a while.

Funny how you try to enforce your "call for standardization" with references to two incompatible, competing UIs.

The whole multiple desktop issue is only a problem if your task is to have "linux conquer the desktop". This is, IMHO, flawed thinking - Linux will not succeed on the desktop, because it doesn't even have a GUI. Or a shell, for that matter. But you can build something with Linux that has.

There are multiple desktop systems, and some of then can use Linux as their basic infrastructure - Gnome and KDE can, Windows and OS X are standalone solutions. This is the level that matters for desktop users, the UI and the apps, not kernels and hardware drivers. If anything, Gnome and KDE will conquer the desktop, not Linux.

The nice thing about the Linux-based (rather, Unix-based) Desktops is that, once you decided for one of them, you can still use that one app that is only available for the other, which is not easily possible if you had chosen Windows or OS X.

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[schotty]

Think of it this way, if the linux desktop is so great, why can't I can copy text from my shell window into my e-mail app and web browser? Why can't I drag a file from the file manager into my e-mail message and have it become an attachment?

Umm you can. If you are in X, just highlight and middle click on your target. If you wanna trash linux, feel free. But use one of the valid pitfalls, not imaginary ones.

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the same cut-paste problems. Sometimes it's CTRL-SHIFT-C/V, sometimes its middle mouse. I shouldn't need to read the manual, this should be intuitive.

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that so many people seem to have trouble pasting stuff in X? When I first switched to Linux, I was amazed how easy, fast, and logical it is to paste things in X!

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[Greyfox]

That's odd. I've never run into an X application that I couldn't cut and paste at least text into. Hell it even worked between Lotus Notes running in Wine and my assorted other applications.

Menus seem pretty consistent between Gnome and KDE, at least on Debian. Window manager menus are a tossup but if you're running ButtMonkeyWM "because it's faster" you deserve what you get anyway.

The best thing about Linux is the choice it allows me. If one window manager doesn't work for me, I can move to another. In Windows, if I don't like the fact that a system modal dialog can block every application in the system, there's nothing I can do about it. The Windows "standard" seems to be some application cheerily trying to guess how I want to work and getting in my way like an enthusiastic puppy as I try to do my job. I get a very similar feeling from watching most television commercials or animated web pages. I'll pass on that, thanks.

Figure out how to standardize the Linux application ability to not get in my way and just do what I want and you'll have my attention. I want to give a program a task, background its window and do something else while it thinks about what I told it. If the best you can come up with is "All the GUIs should look the same" I'm not interested.

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[nutshell42]

it generally works if both are of the same toolkit and often if they're not where copy and then paste is less reliable than selecting and middle-click.

I can c&p just fine when using only KDE and GTK apps but I can't c&p from Eterm to KDE apps, I have to select, middle-click in a GTK app and then proceed normally.

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[Trifthen]

1. Highlight some text in application A.
2. Highlight some text in application B.
3. Try and paste using a middle click.

While I love the middle-click system, I've had multiple instances where I highlight something two or three times before it will paste. The problem above shows that I can't highlight something, and paste over another selection. Why? Why can't I paste from one selection to another? Because the very act of selecting something fills the buffer. And try cutting and pasting between your system and something running in Wine. I can get text from wine, but i can't paste back into it. Yeah, that's useful.

He is right. There is no consistant way to cut and paste between applications in any of the current GUIs, and that's just a shame.

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it this way, if the linux desktop is so great, why can't I can copy text from my shell window into my e-mail app and web browser?

funny... I havent had that trouble cince 2000 or when mozilla hit the desktop...

In fact I just tried it on a blackbox desktop and I can copy and paste from the xterm to mozilla and firebird, and 2 different email clients...

let me guess, you are not doing a proper paste..

Unix and X has had middle button as paste longer than windows has existed... dont blame your lack of knowlege on the OS. just because microsoft bastardized things dont make it standard....

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd make the argument that we are well past the phase of arguing about "who came up with it first."

The fact of the matter is, there are standard ways of doing things in Windows, and 90 percent of the world population as a result associates certain gestures and keystroks with expected actions.

In pushing Linux into the desktop masses, if you want to try and reverse years of history and re-educate 90 percent of the world population that a middle click now means paste, go right ahead. You'll fail. The choice for shortcuts and keystrokes is largely arbitrary- it doesn't mean that something as "bastardized."

On the other hand, not following the RFC for FTP and screwing up your FTP client like M$ did- well, that is bastardizing.

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[arose]

Middle-click is the only way I copy text, keyboard shourtcuts are NOT efficient NOR intuitive.

Re:Standardize the GUI - It's not a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck did they screw up their ftp clent? I mean it was ripped directly from BSD code. And BSD was the standard.

Exactly!

[Sutekh-Acolyte]

This has been one of my main complaints with Linux. For someone who grew up on DOS/Windows it's terribly difficult to adjust to the Linux environment because of the massive choices available. When I get into an OS, I want to be able to get around the system and perform complicated tasks as fast as possible.

Especially for a serious, well-educated computer user not interested in every single feature of Linux, all one wants is to set up the OS and have a very short period of getting used to the environment. Linux has yet to click with me (and many similarly skilled people) in this way.

I think that if a larger collaboration of developers got together and created an interface dedicated to user-friendliness, Linux would be much more popular. You'd have to craft it to look and feel like Windows in certain ways to help people horribly crippled by being trapped in Windows for such a long time. You could still include the option for powerusers to choose other interfaces like KDE et al, but would hide that away in a Control Panel's "Interface" section.

Re: every few months...

[cK-Gunslinger]

If that's the case then most Linux distros suffer from this problem 10X. I consider myself a pretty savy user, but I'm often befuddled by each new RedHat and Mandrake release, as the configuration utilties change everytime. Even after using one for weeks, I still end up spending too much time figuring out where to go to change themes or resolutions.

Yes, look at the wonderfull consitency of M$ Apps!

[Qbertino]

One of the major roadblocks for Unix was the lack of one single standardized platform for applications.

Yeah, right!
And them M$ OSes. Sooo consitent. I mean really. All one platform. Those new ones every odd year and those updates really support downward compatability and all that. Check out the major desktop app of them, M$ Office. Sooo standardized and compatible it's a bliss. And the usabilty. And look at the GUIs look and feel! All the way from Win3.1 up to XP they just changed the colordepth. Absolutely. Apple on the other hand failed completely with consitency and a standard plattform. I mean those numders (7,8,9) where changing faster than one could watch.
Yeah. It's all true. Go check. And that new Aqua. So confusing. All new and blue. Makes you all hazy in the head. Really. Try it, you'll hate it. And Java won't run at all. And won't look standard either. And 'Swing Metal' is *sooo* sweet. No, those Apple people, they *really* messed up. No wonder. They switched to Unix. Poor them.

BTW: The *only* reason I put up with learning Linux is that I'll never again have to learn an OS. Never again. Think about that for a minute. Debian may be tough, but the knowlege I build now I'll be able to use until I die. That will *never* be the case with M$. They earn money by changin their OSes. Yepp, thats what they do. AmiPro 3.1 was more that enough for my Wordprocessing needs. Then I got myself SmartSuite (Win95), which was nice too. Now I'm fed up for good. After I had DOS/Win3.1 and switched to Win95 (as late as possible) and Win2k showing up at the horizon I've had enough. I switched to an OSS OS and I've never looked back since.

Karnak Makes A Prediction

[chaoticset]

Another desktop will be created to fill this gap that approximates the Windows desktop as closely as possible. It will have some happy name like Porthole or Glass or something, but by all its developers and anyone in the know, it will be called Orifice.

Has Windows really one GUI?

[svennieboy]

With all the skinning and theme-ing most Windows users I know do, it's hard to think they use the same GUI.

If in my dorm some windows user for example has problems with her Internet connection and asks me to come and take a look, I usually have to search for a while to find the Network Neighbourhood icon. When finally find it and open the Properties dialog box, I get a slight headache from the colors they decided they find pretty.
And when someone found out about WinBlinds and told his friends about it, things became even worse (you can really change the appearance of a desktop using that program).
And this is just the user changing some preferences and using a theme.

Microsoft itself doesn't have a consistent GUI itself. Ever seen the Load... dialog box used in MS Office 2000? I've never seen those in any application before (not even other MS apps).
Microsoft changes the user interface in it's own apps.

So, despite the 'fact' that Windows has one GUI, even Microsoft designs it's own dialog boxes to use in it's applications.

Sven

Problem is BRANDING, not CHOICE

[alexhmit01]

The problem is the term Linux. And RMS's GNU/Linux DOESN'T improve things at all. It is an issue of branding.

Linux is a kernel. Yeah, the systems use GNU tools for System (UNIX, user space stuff) level things, but that isn't the issue.

The ideal would be to DROP Linux from the branding effort (like MS dropped NT from their branding when they wanted to make it the mainstream system, otherwise consumers don't want to pay for "pro" level software).

If RedHat develeped three platforms:
RedHat Advanced Server (powered by Linux)
RedHat Workstation (powered by Linux)
RedHat OS (powered by Linux) [hey, shell out $20k for branding consultants, I'm not a naming guy)

note: Mandrake, SUSE, and anyone else that wants to play should do the same.

then RedHat would be promoting RedHat as the OS. They could then standardize, and utilize Linux's brandawareness in the "powered by" portion, without this problem.

The "open source" effort is about freedom, and a consequence of that freedom is choice, which I see as a benefit. However, that isn't "useful" for end users.

For Example, you should be able to go into a store, and pick up a CD not for "Linux" (requires glibc X.Y+, Linux kernel 2.X.Y+, etc.), but for RedHat, or for Mandrake, etc., then you would accomplish what this guy wants.

RedHat should have a standard look and feel across their consumer and workstation OSes. You should be able to buy "Redhat compatible" software (requires RedHat 9.0 or higher). Now, tech companies could STILL release "software for Linux," but the box could state RedHat 9.0 or Mandrake 9.0 or higher.

In that case, there is NO need to drop KDE or GNOME or whatever. Hackers can do whatever they want. However, the "commercial" install should include RPMs or whatever for whatever distribution they want.

RedHat should have a logo certification, as should Mandrake and any other players.

To have the RedHat logo, you should have to sport a "blue curve" look and feel.

In addition, the "installation" programs should rethink the options a bit.

Sure, the Server piece should let you super customize it, and maybe a free downloadable ISO "hacker edition" as well. However, installation options should affect applications, NOT libraries.

I should be able to target a certain edition of RedHat (or Mandrake, or SUSE), and KNOW what libraries are installed. It is absolutely REDICUlOUS how many libraries are options.

Real simple, if KDELIB isn't installed in the "base," then KDE apps aren't "supported."

The problem isn't an issue of technology existing (afterall, Windows has had Progman/Explorer replacements forever), it's an issue of the branding.

Getting software for "Linux" requires knowing what libraries are installed.

Getting software for Windows or Mac OS X requires knowing what version is installed.

I may need to have Jaguar or 10.2.3 or higher, or whatever for my Powerbook software. I never need to have a particular optional library installed.

And THAT is why Linux is having trouble on the desktop.

Leave the technologists alone, but "Linux" companies, reorganize your installation/brand awareness if you want the desktop, corporate or otherwise.

Alex

Choice vs Usability, Democracy vs Dictatorship

[nuggz]

You know government would be more efficient without these elections.
Just give the people what you think they want and don't give them options for anything else.
Most people don't care, look at voter turnout.
No wasted times on approval ratings, election fundraising and whatnot. Just let the government govern.

Freedom isn't about efficiency, ease of use, learning or consistency. It is about being able to decide for ones self, and not being told what you can and can not do.

All this yammering about how the consistent interface of windows is so great. what about the fact that it doesn't work well.
Windows can hijack the window manager, you can't change much more then the colour of it. Still doesn't even have virtual desktops.

And the point is?

[iCEBaLM]

the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.

Sure, that's true, we already know that, so? We don't make software for the average user, we make software for us. If the average user wants to use it, that's up to them.

Re: every few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? Nice one, mods. Let's kill all attempts at intelligent discussion. Maybe I should have added some more "M$" and "L1nuX r0x0rs" strings to save my karma.

Single choice vs. single default

[Per Abrahamsen]

Part of the article is a bit confused, he complain that the IceWM site is too technical for the average desktop user who is not concerned with choice. However, why should such a user ever visit the IceWM site, appart from by accident? He will surely use whatever wm the distribution has choosen as default.

However, you can make a good case that a distribution geared towards non-technical users should hide the choices from the users, choose one window manager, one mail reader, etc., and hide any alternatives under some "advanced" configuration option. That will allow those who want to play to play, without bothering the people who just want to work.

You can further argue that there should be a reference GUI, and that there should be a reference version for most other application, to make "all work, no play" users more portable between GNU/Linux installations. I suspect this will happen eventually as the "market" mature, just as it has already happened for most of the older (server and developer oriented) applications, like GCC and the GNU tools or Apache, or the Linux kernel itself. However, this would be inappropriate for the LSB to decide, we need the market to figure out where to go first.

Snobs

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cubical monkeys"? So far I've seen a lot of snotty attitudes from folks like you. This is one of the reasons why Linux is lagging. "You loser, if you can't handle it, tough!" Problem is, the average user says "fuck you" right back and buys Windows.

Better app naming more important

[elliotj]

Red Hat has proven with blue curve that you can skin gnome and kde to look relatively consistent. That provides the 'single desktop' in a decent enough fashion for the moment.

I know it's been said many times before, but I think the bigger barrier is dumb ass app names in Linux. Sit down a Windows user and they'll be able to launch apps etc with out much trouble. Even if the menus look and feel a bit differenent to what they're used to. The bigger problem is that they wont know what to run.

How are they supposed to decode all the archane app names? OpenOffice.org is a word processor? Emacs is a text editor? vi? gKrellem? galeon? konqueror? xchat? gtop?

They'll run screaming!

Sure, somebody will say that Excel isn't intuitive, Safari doesn't say anything about the Internet etc. Fine, I don't disagree. But to be fair, you can afford to be more obscure if you're already famous.

If Linux wants to compete, it needs a distro that changes the names of all these apps to be descriptive.

The thing about home users

[StewedSquirrel]

I see everyone here arguing that Windows changes look now and then and that removing the "choice" is the simple solution.

I see a major problem with that.

Part of the appeal of a unified GUI, is that Bob can call his cousing Jane from across the country and say "I have this window that says 'network components', which of the two icons do I click?"

You can have simpled instructions on hardware setup "click the control panel, choose add-new hardware, click next".

When you try to discuss the myriad of GUI options available for Linux, you can't even get away asking "what distro do you have?" Depending on which GUI you're using, the controls are quite different.

I guess the point to be made is that most users can handle a single thread of divergence. It's simple enough for an average home user to say "what version do you have?". The simple answer is "oh, I have version xxx".

It becomes insanely more complicated when it comes down to more than one thread of divergence, as Linux often does.

"I'm having an issue. I have kernel 2.4, Redhad 6.0 running KDE 3.1.3." That's not to mention the graphics libraries that need to be installed, nor does it bring into account that each distro that uses KDE has a somewhat different default desktop layout.

Most home users would be hopelessly lost by the time they had to say more than "I have RedHat 6 or something like that".

The final point I want to make is this: Linux does not have to position itself to dominate the desktop market. It has no motivation to "take over" the entire segment. HOWEVER, it MUST compete against Microsoft in a meaningful manner in order to prevent Microsoft from abusing it's Monopoly power.

Stewed
~~~
Squirrel

Re: every few months...

[tomhudson]

You're right that people are reassured by seeing the same thing all the time, and that a "default" might be ok - but I think we already have that: The common default right now is a login screen where you put your name, pw, and select the gui you want (and there's one marked "default").

Mind you, if I had my way, the default interface would be tty1, but I'm a bit of a prick this morning :-)

Re:corepirate nazi execrable vs. the facts

[quinine]

Can we get rid of Katz and replace him with this guy? Please?

Isn't that what Lindows is for?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I can tell, the Lindows distribution is doing just what this guy suggests: taking linux and making all of the choices for you to the point where everything seems seemlessly integrated. And they are doing quite well at it.

choice is not the problem

[akeep]

i don't think people mind making choices, when they know what they are choosing... in the morning i like my coffee... i get it with a choice of milk or no milk and a choice of sugar or no sugar... it is an easy choice because there are 4 possible out comes, i've drank them all and i know what i like... (no milk, no sugar for me)...

the core problem with the new user coming to linux as a desktop machine, is that you are asking them to choose between one unfamiliar environment and another... and if they are not very technically saavy, there is usually not an easy way to try each out and decide later...

just my 2 cents.

The problem is "Linux."

[AntiOrganic]

Everyone would love to believe Linux is a wonderful, robust and powerful application environment on the desktop. But, really, why do we have to refer to both Gnome and KDE as "Linux?" Call Gnome "Gnome," call KDE "KDE" and that's the end of the confusion. We don't see Joe User confusing Mac OS X with Windows with OS/2 terribly often. Just consider them entirely different platforms like we do Windows and Mac and let the power users handle Linux and interoperability between the desktops like they've been doing.

The problem with graphical Linux...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is that the grahical interfaces all look like SHIT.

Please, could someone dig up a single screenshot of a Linux desktop that doesn't look crappy? I have yet to see one.

(This is a troll if you like, but I'm serious about the issue).

Network effects dominate the computer business

[rsheridan6]

If everyone else is using Windows, you're sort of stuck with it yourself. I'm running a Linux desktop and the problems with it are strictly related to the fact that so many people assume you have Windows - I can't get support from my DSL provider, can't reliably open a .doc, and can't run the CD that comes with a textbook (unless it happens to work with WINE - an iffy proposition).

Also, a few websites don't work (they were tested on IE only). If MS gets much more market share we can expect them to subvert HTML/Javascript with IE only features, which will mean that you have to have IE to access the web. With the demise (finally) of NS Navigator 4, that seems possible to me.

But if we get just 5-10% market share, we cannot be ignored. Only a website run by morons would shut that much of its potential audience out, and people would stop using .doc as a standard, more games would be made for Linux, etc. That's why it's important that a certain number of Joe Blows switch from Windows.

Re:Network effects dominate the computer business

[Beatbyte]

But if we get just 5-10% market share...

Here's a catch (sort of), the 5-10% of the market-share that the linux users have are generally:

1. in the position to setup other people's computers (terminals at work, grandma's PC, etc.)
2. developers for products that you say can be pwned from Microsoft


...the point being, we (myself being a linux user) generally have more control over the market situation than the grandmas that play with outlook express.

Re:Network effects dominate the computer business

[cerberusss]

can't reliably open a .doc

I'm sorry if you heard this before, but CodeWeavers sells a product called Crossoveroffice, which is basically a specialized Wine version to run a quick/stable MS Office. Costs $55 and works like a charm.

Aqua Human Interface Guidelines.

[cryptochrome]

Apple's been doing this forever, with the latest incarnation being in the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines. Apple has put a TON of money and effort into creating computers that are easy to use. They've tried to promote good interface paradigms and discourage bad ones, both in house and with their developers.

Here Linux developers are confronting one of the prime insights of GUI design - a consistent interface is essential to the user's ability to use different applications. There's no need to rack your brain over learning and remembering every different command in different programs, if they follow a consistent, organized, and intuitive pattern. That's why themes aren't built into the OS or even encouraged. That's why there is countless arguing over how metal-style iApps are bad, and ought to go with the less-eyestrain-inducing pinstripe default. And that's a big part about why Mac OS users are so loyal.

Re:Aqua Human Interface Guidelines.

[nutshell42]

There's no need to rack your brain over learning and remembering every different command in different programs, if they follow a consistent, organized, and intuitive pattern. That's why themes aren't built into the OS or even encouraged

Talking about a non sequitur.
The important thing is *consistency*. All apps should behave the same way as much as possible (the same tasks in the menu bar in the same position, consistent dialogs etc.) but if I like my desktop to be different from the way Apple thought it would be best why shouldn't that be possible?

Yet another Pundit who doesn't understand.

[LMCBoy]

Linux is not a product, it is a community.

...the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.

Who cares? The user can either join our community, or they can stick with their OS product. Yes, it's a shame if they choose the latter, but I want to make this very clear: it's that individual user's loss, not our loss. We gain nothing from users who consider Linux a mere product, we need active community members, not "customers". Why should we kill everything great about our system just to attract some MS customers, who may very well be perfectly happy with their current OS? We are not in competition with MS, even though they may be in competition with us.

Well, that's my opinion anyway, I could be wrong.

freedesktop.org

[mrroach]

This blathering is getting old. The KDE and Gnome guys are already working together to increase interoperability between the projects.

If you are interested, go to freedesktop.org. If you are just a whiner who wants to tell others how to spend their own time, write a long uninformed article pretending to be some sort of "expert"

All the desktop projects are not going to merge behind "one true vision" because they have different goals. period. How complicated is that?

-Mark

Great Idea , the command line needs to be junked

[Anonymous Coward]

command line is so old fashioned and un-userfriendly its beyond a joke, there is nothing worse, more complicated and asthetically displeasing as a CL compared to clicking a few boxes in a gui , makes it so much more intutive, i dont want to see a console in an OS same as i dont want to see the wires and electronics hanging out of my cars dashboard, people can understand things better when presented a problem/task visually

so come on people ditch the old 20th century baggage (and im saying that as an old mainframer) and get with the new, do you think windows would be so successful if it was command line based ?

GUI's are great when done right but then Xerox knew that back in the 70's (as Apple/MS/Atari/Amiga are no doubt thanking them for it)

Gui the problem?

[ciupman]

Is windows UI the problem??????? I don't think so.. i'm seeing lot's of people bashing windows for the wrong reasons .. but the lesser reason for it to be bashed it's is UI ... it's just wonderful.. Everyone is used to it, it's fast. Why not apply one of that things to linux .. like using the best of one in the best of the other .. And please don't tell me that linux various UIs are better .. Here are various reasons:

1 - Having to mount manually all removable devices, or incoerence between GUI automounters and kernel automounters (aka KDE AND GNOME)

2 - Network neibourhood (arg .. bad spelled maybe), In linux we have a nautilus uri that
does this .. "but" it is very slow, and not intuitive. I use a samba browser made in TCK/Tk
thats is way faster "but" not very pretty

3 - Multimedia framework. This rocks in windows. In linux work is being done with gstreamer and Xine.. "but" still very very buggy

4 - Graphics card drivers .. well Xfree is modular
but driver instalations are not very intuitive, although nvidia has made lately some kind of instaler .. "but"....

5 - Software instalation .. hughh .. APT? RPM?
- Comon Joe - "huh!! what the heck is that???"

6 - Too many Gui APIs .. I already posted about this .. so i'll save my words here

7 - etc ..

Solution .. Solve all the "buts" behind and maybe, maybe will have a decent UI in linux

Outlaw mouse-over focus and button copy and paste

[b1t r0t]

Yes, I know you X-windows old farts love your mouse-over focus and mouse button copy and paste to death, whine about the lack of it when someone tells you to try the Mac, and get extremely defensive when someone suggests that it's less than perfect. But it's confusing as hell for those who weren't forced to use it from the start because that's all there was.

Steve Jobs was right about a one-button mouse, although a second button for pop-up menus is arguably useful. But when Ma or Pa slips on the mouse and suddenly they can't type any more, or suddenly this big chunk-o-text appears in the middle of what they were typing, do you think they're going to laugh and say "but it's so convienent to have the paste button right under one of my fingers at all times!"?

And the best reason of all is: because that's the way that the two most popular consumer window-based operating systems work.

Im not saying there can't be some config panel which you can use to enable mouse-over-focus and mouse-copy-paste in your WM, but IMHO these two "features" should be disabled by default on any window manager that's going to be for "mainstream" users.

Holy Crap Finally!!!

[thePancreas]

This guy may sound contrarian on SlashDot but this makes ALOT of sense to someone like me. I WANT to jump in to a LINUX distro, but the elitism and zealotry is keeping me away and is keeping a common desktop from being available/widely accepted, so I can interact with Newbs like myself instead of trying to get help from someone who keeps telling me to "RTFM"... ETC..

Scare'em, maybe they'll never try it

[damas]

Really - boyz an girlz and aliens reading slashdot - this is a really interesting piece. What major distro nowadays doesn't let you choose/change window manager in a user friendly way?

I'm using Debian (which btw isn't a major distro) and I know I can (I use kdm to login into IceWM).

For the rest I say that if cut'n'paste works all I need is a systray (that spans all workspaces) (IceWM for me, probably GNOME and KDM for you guys) for my IM==Gaim needs.

what the real problem is

[Anonymous Coward]

The author claims the problem is lack of a standard GUI, but his arguments center around the end-user experience of installing and running applications. I agree with him completely. What the community really needs is an application distribution format that is architecture-neutral.

The fact is that this has been the promise of Java, .net and Mono and dates back in my memory all the way to OSF and ANDF. If an application can be distributed in such a manner that it doesn't matter what processor, what kernel, what windowing system or what GUI you use, the world would be a much different place.

It's not clear that standardizing around a GUI is the right place to spend the effort even if people were willing to do so. Most efforts are made to simply minimize the pain. Solving the problem a different way is more interesting but is a huge mountain to climb.

You are right! KDE it is!

[hoggoth]

Throw out the others, everyone must use KDE now.

Which choice?

[skandalfo]

"...the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on, and that they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any applications they might want to use."

A lot of people don't realize the fact that there's no choice being forced, actually.

Since major distributions (RedHat, Mandrake, etc...) began unifying the look & feel of the two main desktop environments (GNOME, KDE), and the developers of these environments began working together in order to improve the interoperability of the programs developed for both of them, I think things are getting better and better.

Users may run at the same time programs developed for GNOME and KDE and they'll work flawlessly together, so there's no actual need to choose.

Look & feel is the easiest issue to address; perhaps behaviour of widgets and applications (at least for these two major desktops) will keep converging; current efforts on HIGification and freedesktop.org seem to provide hope on this.

Unless someone writes some other abstraction layer that sits above both GNOME and KDE libraries, it's the developers the ones that are forced to choose... but this shouldn't be a thing to jeopardize desktop acceptation, however.

Only the main office applications (OpenOffice) remains, but Ximian has already done some work on it. It may be true that the issue isn't yet fully resolved, but we may be sure that, at least, the problem is fully understood and that there are competent people addressing it.

To be short... I'm convinced that we are on the right track, and that a home GNU/Linux desktop won't be a strange thing in some years.

missing the point

[aggieben]

I never thought the purpose of linux was to bring the masses away from using windows on the desktop. Linux was never intended to be a desktop for the masses like windows was. The strengths of linux lie in being UNIX-like and open source, meaning that ultimate tweakage as well as learning are possible.

Why, then, is it so important to standardize a GUI? To accommodate the stupid (e.g., not familiar with UNIX) end-users? Why not just make a high-quality and user-intuitive GUI that stupid end-users can use rather than create a standard that panders to them? I think Gnome and KDE as well as several others are prime candidates --- they need a little work, but they're already there. There's no need for a standard.

Re: every few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell cares? This is not a MMORPG you know, it's not like you'll level up if you get modded "+5 insightful"...

Re: every few months...

[tomhudson]

My original point wasn't that change is a bad thing.

My original point was that the article wanted to limit choice, and claims that M$ hasn't changed their UI in 10 years, which is a SCOism (the diff. between 3x and 95 was like night and day, and that was 8 years ago. The diff. between 9x and 2K wasn't as much, but there were still diffs, and the diff between 2k and XP is significant).

So my original point was that the article itself was wrong in one of its' premises, and thus we should take its' conclusions with a grain of salt :-)

Jail those programmers

[gallir]

So, he is more or less proposing:

- Someone so smart as him select Gnome or KDE.
- Forbid companies to deliver in their distros other desktops, libraries and applications that aren't develop in that "right desktop".
- Jail to any programmer who develops in the for the other desktops.
- Start an injunction against any user that don't use "the desktop".
- World domination.

What a genius this guy. Typical rubish.

You are right! GNOME it is!

[hoggoth]

Throw out the others, everyone must use GNOME now.

Yes, the author's view is the problem

[truthsearch]

Exactly. The author (DevX's Executive Editor) is obviously only writing from a corporate Microsoft-only point of view. DevX used to be only for Windows developers and only recently added open source information. It's always catered to only corporate developers and corporate IT. I get the impression the editor has only used Microsoft software and learned about OSS recently, and has probably only looked at it from the side without actually getting his hands dirty. It's his perspective that's actually mistaken.

Re:Yes, the author's view is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right...

It's silly to focus on corporate developers at "regular" companies.

After all everyone who is somebody works at:

- NASA
- A University
- A Software Company
- An Internet Startup of some sort

Those shlubs working at:

- GM
- Exxon
- Boeing
- Citibank
- etc, etc, etc.

don't really count do they?

After all Microsoft Visual Basic (which I see maligned so much on slashdot) doesn't have much of a user base right?

Seriously. Do you get dizzy from the rest of the world revolving around you? There are other "developers" who are trying to increase efficiency, reduce costs, or just get some damn data for a report. Just becuase there not part of the "revolution" doesn't mean they should be ignored.

Re:Yes, the author's view is the problem

[truthsearch]

Hahaha... I'm a Visual Basic developer for a major financial institution. So DevX is trying to cater exactly to me. And I still don't fall for their bias. I don't listen to someone just because I'm the only one their speaking to. I ignore the Microsoft-centered view of the universe even though I use Microsoft products to pay my bills. You're confusing my choice to ignore short-sightedness with a choice to ignore Microsoft.

So?

[Capt_Troy]

Install redhat. You pretty much get that bluecurve thing by default. To get KDE installed instead, you have to do some extra work durring the install.

Isn't this what the guy is asking for?

Troy.

Re:So?

[Loosewire]

annoyingly with redhat you have to do a lot of work to get rid of bluecurve :-(

I think there is a misunderstanding

[gers0667]

As far as I'm concerned this isn't a problem. Last time I checked, we weren't trying to take over the desktop, we were just making something nice for ourselves, and those interested in the linux world just have to dive in. It's been up to the vendors to make a solid desktop if they want to. Look at Ximian and RedHat and SuSE for examples. They create a desktop package from linux. It's not the communitie's decision on standardization, it's the vendor's.

Priorities: Getting them right.

[HiThere]

If catering to the average user means giving up the ability to choose how my system will operate, then I know which I find more important.

OTOH, I see nothing wrong with having a set of default choices that are standardized. Provided that it doesn't become too difficult to change away from them. I want my menus to list application name, not purposes. It matters to me whether I'm using Mozilla or Konqueror. I'm not just using "web browser". And if you hide which program is being used, how are people supposed to learn more about the system? What does man say when you enter "man web browser"? Nothing useful.

There's nothing at all wrong with having a "simple mode" where all you get is functional descriptions. But if that's the only option, I want to go somewhere else. The recent problems that Gnome had with it's menu editor were sufficient to cause me to switch to KDE. I like to customize my menus! (Well, and I have no deeply felt preference for one system over the other.)

How about fvwm95?

[Anonymous Coward]

The typical Windows user is quite happy with the Windows GUI, and why not -- it is easy to use and pretty consistent. Not to mention good-looking (while Gnome is ugly as sin, and KDE and WindowMaker are just gaudy and confusing).
Make fvwm95 the default on mass-market Linux distros and you'll score big points with the Windows crowd (and with Linux users like myself who happen to think the Windows GUI is better than anything native to Unix).

Re:How about fvwm95?

[Rhone]

Make fvwm95 the default on mass-market Linux distros and you'll score big points with the Windows crowd (and with Linux users like myself who happen to think the Windows GUI is better than anything native to Unix).

Really? Fvwm95 was the default window manager way back in Red Hat 5.2, and I don't recall it causing any mass conversions. In fact, it just so happens that RedHat 5.2 was my first Linux distro, and I hated fvwm95. It popped up looking like Windows95, so I told myself "Hey, this should be easy." And then I found that even though it looked like Windows, it didn't work like Windows, so I found it frustrating.

I ended up downloading and compiling QT + KDE (which were in their 1.x versions back then). Kinda funny, really--as a complete newbie I had no trouble getting KDE compiled and installed, while in fvwm95 I had trouble figuring out how to do simple things like moving a window when the titlebar was off the screen (I had a crappy monitor at the time and X wouldn't run in any resolution higher than 640x480).

Especially now, KDE seems to be what newbies coming over from Windows are most comfortable with (perhaps Gnome as well). For those who have old computers that might run KDE/Gnome too slowly, and who want something with a Windows-like start menu and task bar, I would recommend IceWM over fvwm95.

This person just doesn't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> One of the major roadblocks for Unix was the lack of one single standardized platform for applications.

Errr, no. It was the vendors actively working to keep anyone's product except their own from running on their hardware and forcing vendor lock in that fragmented the UNIX market. Vendors restricting choice.

>> 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.

Already done. You can choose the distribution of your choice and never expend a single brain cell over their defaults.

>>by A. Russell Jones, Executive Editor
>>During the recent LinuxWorld conference, Linux proponents loudly celebrated Linux' increasing importance in the world of software. It's true that Linux has made great strides in becoming a standard part of the computing landscape, but it has made far more inroads into the Unix space than into the Windows desktop space. Despite that, there's simply no doubt that the desktop--and Microsoft--are the current target of many open source software projects. These projects are conceived, executed, and extended to compete with Microsoft's desktop applications.

Most Linux developers could care less about Microsoft. Microsoft has been playing catchup for the past 2 years behind Linux, if you ask me. Their radical GUI changes in XP are a direct result of trying to look like Gnome and KDE.

>>They're making progress, too, particularly with early-adopters and in IT-mandated vertical application environments, but as these projects mature, they're going to have to compete head-on with their far better funded and user-tested Microsoft counterparts on average users' desktops. To compete successfully, Linux needs a standardized platform and robust installation mechanisms so that users can choose software on its merits, without worrying about whether the software they want works on their particular Linux flavor or GUI choice.

I never worry about if software will work or not, it just does. Linux is great that way. KDE, Gnome, Windows, whatever, I can run all that software at the same time in the same screen on my Linux box.

>>A GUI Decision
>>Linux is a kernel, an operating system--not a complete operating environment in the sense that Windows is a complete operating environment. The tradeoff is one of choice. Windows has a single interface (true, there are variations between versions, but those are largely transparent to users). In contrast, Linux has no built-in GUI interface. Users are free to choose among many commercially available or free GUI X-Window interfaces, such as Gnome, KDE, and Motif, each of which provides a different look and feel.

It's a funny thing to wrap your head around, but this choice thing... GOOD IDEA!

>>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. Because the interfaces are slightly different, application developers generally target one or two primary GUI programming models. Supporting many GUIs isn't just a simple process of including one set of libraries or another; it's often a frustrating and error-prone exercise in writing GUI-specific code. While these applications may run on non-targeted GUI interfaces, vendors often guarantee support for only one or two.

No developer ever has to make this choice. KDE apps work just fine under Gnome and visa versa. The GUI is all the X Window System, just everyone can choose their own window manager. You really want to freak people out, kill the window manager that you are running, and start another one and watch your apps all go from one desktop, to being embedded in the screen, to a new desktop.

>>The multiple-GUI problem illustrates a basic difference in Windows and Linux. Windows has one gener

X?

[fuqqer]

Seems to me that this is moronic. A window manager to me is like the style settings in windows. You can choose single or double click, the style of windows borders, the format of text.

What should be standardized is the interface between window managers and the X servers.

What I'm worried about is all the backdoor forx of X, directfb, and xouvair (or whatever it's called).

People should have the choice of lots of different window managers. It's the reason I moved to Linux years ago. I don't see a reason to change that. I do see a reason to make sure that the X servers are:

a) Not forked
b) Guaranteed compatible with window managers

I personally think all window managers should be created without toolkits/bloatware libraries. eg. -gtk, or qt. I like simple window managers that can be compiled without downloading and compiling crap bloatware.

My personal favorite window manager is fvwm. If people want a choice of WM's, give them the choice. If people want to standardize, let them use RedHat Bluecurve GUI or Lindows I guess. Anything other than Win2k is a better choice for me.

It gets harder and harder to create a custom sig without using the sig field everytime.

Re: every few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

well, duh, that's the whole point. Linux WMs are different and change, as do Windows among versions. Though I don't really see the point of arguing it like it means something...

Stupid argument

[BenjyD]

As a first step, open source proponents should band together to create a standardized Linux/GUI combination as a single platform...

Why do so many people think that there is some sort of "community" with a single voice that produces open source software? All there is is a bunch of people writing projects. How are they going to enforce development on one standard GUI? Send RMS and ESR round to developers' houses with baseball bats?

Open, free software has no ruling class, no control. Everyone does what they want, and if somebody else finds it useful, or wants to help out, then that's great. But trying to enforce standards? It's impossible to acheive and not even desirable if it were.

thank you, and ....

[argoff]

I was just thinking, when I was a kid there was this raging debate about capitalisim and communisim. At the time the communists seemed to have bigger more advanced steel mills, the communists had the first satelite in space, the communists guaranteed a living standard, and etc etc etc ... How ironic that the issue wasn't about which system had the most miscelanious features, but which offered the most controll. When you have that controll, the overall health of the system is better, more flexable, more able to adapt change and grow.

Today, when it comes to Microsoft vs Linux, everyone is arguing about this little feature or that little plus, or this little usability issue, but once again what they should be arguing about is controll. Without the proper controll, all the other issues are irrelavent and just serve as distractions to what's really going on in the industry. At this point, only a fool would bet the farm on Microsoft - they are like a big fat juicy cow going to the slaughter house. The fact that they're so big isn't going to help them in a multi trillion dollar economey.

Re:Linux: It's not for the stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey if it wern't for Windows users, there would be no tech support industry.

Kill the Usability bugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, in Gnome, when something goes wrong, Gnome tells you to type some command on the command line! Its insane! You should NEVER EVER have to go into the command line to fix GUI problems, what happens if the command line screws up? It dosen't, because the command line has been stress tested by the geek majority. But the GUI hasn't for example.

Sometimes when Galeon (or its lesser fork epiphany) crashes, gives you the following message.

Galeon can't be started right now, please type bonobo-slay into a command line!

WTF? I never seen any other browser say that. Who is bonobo? Why do I need to slay him? Remove ALL messages that tell the user to a command line (and fix the problem automagiclly) and you won't need to worry.

I wonder if its even possible to build a comandlineless distro at the moment?

Re: every few months...

[antiMStroll]

Except for the most rudimentary aspects of the core desktop (taskbar, start button and right-click video properties), there's very little in common between the 95 and XP desktops. All the configuration menues have moved or changed. 95 didn't jump you through hoops to print a graphic, My Computer and the other desktop icons are gone by default in XP, 95 didn't use dynamic or hidden menues, didn't default to view the local file system as Web pages, the list goes on and on. IceWm is as close to W95 as XP. Why was this modded up?

Consumers want reasonable choices

[Chuck Chunder]

However they do not want to be burdened by excess minutae. As a vendor (of anything) part of your role is to use your knowledge and skills to provide value to the consumer.

The article correctly points out that end users don't often care about toolkits or window managers. He somehow misses that no-one is really asking them to. All they need to do is pick a vendor to take care of that for them.

Stagnation

[TheAncientHacker]

Let's not forget that (IMO) the "competition" between KDE and Gnome, for example, helps to drive innovation in both; Who the hell wants the Linux Desktop to stagnate like some others?

But in reality, the Linux desktops are stagnant.

The only time any "innovation" occurs is when either Microsoft comes up with changes to their desktop and then, as if by magic, KDE and Gnome "compete" by rushing to see which of them can "innovate" by making an exact duplicate of the Microsoft innovation first.

It's sad that in all these years of Linux, this topic comes up each year or so and the debate always becomes a fight between:

• We should have a single standard desktop that looks exactly like Windows - oh, and Microsoft is evil
• We should all be Free to choose between multiple desktops... that all look exactly like Windows - oh, and Microsoft is evil

Perhaps if somebody would actually offer a BETTER desktop than Windows - you know, one that was easier to use but more flexible - there'd be a reason for actual users to switch to something other than Windows. But that would require innovation rather than blindly following the leader while chanting "I'm an individual" and we know that never happens.

Re:Stagnation

[Anonymous Coward]

``Perhaps if somebody would actually offer a BETTER desktop than Windows - you know, one that was easier to use but more flexible - there'd be a reason for actual users to switch to something other than Windows. But that would require innovation rather than blindly following the leader while chanting "I'm an individual" and we know that never happens.''

But that innovative user interface would be slammed in the press as not being the same as Microsoft's. Linux desktops that do anything that isn't a clone of the Mac or Windows are labeled as ``weird'', ``non-standard'', or ``quirky''. Then the GUI development community adds a feature similar to something found on the Mac or Windows and people like you berate them for being merely copiers. So do you have any constructive suggestions as to how this innovation is going to take place? Or did you just want to take pokes at the OSS community as having the ``Microsoft is evil'' mentality that you made a point of repeating (several times)?

Sheez!

Re:Stagnation

[twistedcubic]

Normally I don't cuss here, but why the hell was this modded "Insightful"?????

But in reality, the Linux desktops are stagnant.

This is bullshit! Maybe you have evidence that KDE and Gnome are stagnant. I wouldn't know because I use neither.

Perhaps if somebody would actually offer a BETTER desktop than Windows... But that would require innovation...

Clearly you don't use Linux regularly. And obvously you've never used Fluxbox because it would make your head EXPLODE! There is no comparison, dude. Fluxbox stomps all over Windows XP or whatever it is that you use. There is no comparison-- it is not even close. But what about "drag and drop" and this and that lame-ass useless feature these artless dweebs in the media are whining about? Who cares? If you want Windows features, then dammit, use XP! Back to work...

Re:Stagnation

[TheAncientHacker]

You miss the important part of the point so I'll bold it for you...

Perhaps if somebody would actually offer a BETTER desktop than Windows - you know, one that was easier to use but more flexible - there'd be a reason for actual users to switch to something other than Windows.

Different without being better is not an incentive.
A clone is, at best, no better.
A clone is, usually, not as good.

Is that really too hard for you to grasp?

Re:Stagnation

[TheAncientHacker]

Ah yes, another posting from the "if you don't care about the exact feature set I like you're an artless dweeb" crowd is posted.

Here, I'll say it slowly. If the Linux offers less of what the users want then they'd be idiots to use it. Telling them that they shouldn't want what you don't offer is not only arrogant and abrasive, it's also a great way to kill any interest in them using it.

Now, we're all happy you've found a tool that you think is so perfect that everybody who doesn't use it is an idiot who should change everything in their life to be just like you so they'd appreciate it. Good for you. On the other hand, bad for Linux.

Re:Stagnation

[twistedcubic]

I guess you feel that Insightful mod increased your street cred. It was a mistake. Your 15 minutes is almost over. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Ah yes, another posting from the "if you don't care about the exact feature set I like you're an artless dweeb" crowd is posted.

Like, ummm, no. I was responding to another posting from the "Linux GUI = KDE or GNOME. KDE/GNOME copies Windows. Therefore the LINUX GUI is stagnant" crowd.

I don't think the tool I use is better (for everyone). But you clearly think it's worse. However, you don't even realize it exists, and make lame generalizations about it. This is highly unfortunate.

Re:Stagnation

[Ice_Balrog]

Ever heard of multiple desktops? Sticky? Windowshade mode? Tabs?
I don't recall those things ever being in (vanilla) Windows.

There are plenty of things that KDE, GNOME, whatever have that Windows doesn't. Don't sprough the BS that they don't, I'm tired of hearing it.

Re:Stagnation

[TheAncientHacker]

Wow. A couple of things were stolen from Windows shareware and MacOS. Gee. How innovative and compelling. Again, if it isn't better then it is worse.

Re:Stagnation

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at ROX (http://rox.sourceforge.net)

Re:Stagnation

[TheAncientHacker]

ROX is indeed an interesting UI similar to some very clever work done 20 years ago on PCs that never got acceptance. With any luck, maybe people will actually use this implementation. Now, how do we get a major distribution to use it as the default desktop?

Re:Stagnation

[Anonymous Coward]

First, let's get rid of the notion that KDE and Gnome are _exactly_ like Windows. There are plenty of differences that makes each three stand out on its own. Unfortunately, while some differences are improvements, a lot of them will actually confuse the average home user.

Second, there are actually "BETTER" desktop than windows. There has been for years. The problem is that mass acceptance of alternative desktop environment isn't going to happen until there is a need to re-adapt the market.

Let's not talk of "innovation." After all, Microsoft isn't known for innovating, but rather taking credit for its "innovations." If MS can take over the 90%+ of the desktops in this world by merely copying other's success, the Linux community ought to be able to do the same, and maybe better.

There is a perception that Linux operating environment has duplicated certain window features. The Linux community has recognize the importance of offering a "Windows friendly" environment for a while now (think fvwm95). I don't doubt that the KDE and Gnome developers purposly simulated a familar environment for the average home user. In fact, I applaud them for keeping certain interfaces so recognizable. What better way to initiate the new Linux user than to present them with something that they are used to, and at the same time letting them understand the configurability of every element on the screen!

And I would hardly call the DEs "Stagnant." For many windows users, the "innovations" that you speak of are already present in the Unix OS for a considerable amount of time, and is continually evolving. (If I'm wrong, point it out. That's why we post.) In fact, I suspect that for the novice computer user, "innovation" comes in the form of changes in default settings and stylistic changes in appearance.

There is so much activity in the Linux community regarding DEs that I suspect this is one of the main reasons for the authoring of this article. While the branching of certain software development projects may prove to be helpful, to modify user interfaces (and thus deviating user behaviour and experience) is not something that will help Linux on the desktop.

I rather agree with some of the other posts, that there needs to be a merging of style and functionality amongst the major DEs. This will bring a consensus between all levels of users, and a united front bring Linux to the desktop.

Oh, and yeah, Microsoft is evil.

Why chose?

[Wolfger]

Install all the WMs that come with a distro, and try 'em all out! Then the user can make an informed decision as to what he likes best. That's what this former Windows user did.

Thong have changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Open source comunnity" concept changed a lot. Some people seem not to understand this.

The Community is no longer just a few technical experts having fun and changing the world. They are still its heart, but now things got bigger and bigger. Even big businesses like IBM are part of it now. The community needs people who think towards real users, not hobbists and technicians.

Today, fragmentation (also knowk as freedom of choice) is becoming a limiting factor. Even for savy users is difficult to assemble a really working desktop, because the apps are made not only for desktops, but also sometimes for distributions. This is not freedom of choice. I once had a hard time trying to run GnuCash on KDE, not to mention "dependency hell".

There is one sacred rule, agreed: Free Software is about freedom. If one wants to start a new desktop environment out of fun or learning, she in on her rights. No one has anything to complain about. However, if one's goal is help establish Open Source as a viable platform for the masses, please stop thinking themes are more important than transparent printer setup.

The amount of work already spent should have been enough for a well better desktop than we have now. The bigger players like RH, KDE, Gnome, SuSe, etc are not anymore coding for hobbists. The fragmentation, at their level, is a waste of time and does no good. Only slows things down. And even if we consider that companies have to make money, standardization is proven to be good for everyone. Businesses and users. Why not to make the leap?

If you are a hobbist, don't worry. Just code and be happy.

Re: every few months...

[tomhudson]

I agree about the config utilities. But there's usually more than one way to do things (oops, sounds like perl).

For example, to change resolutions, try CTL ALT + or CTL ALT -. This has been pretty stable across releases.

To change look and feel, look for a submenu called "Look and Feel" (in Mandrake/KDE, its' under COonfiguration | KDE | LookNFeel :-)

What 'interesting things'?

[n1k0]

What does GNOME do for you that can't be done on KDE? My experience has been much the opposite though - there is a great deal that KDE can do that GNOME can't insofar as UI is concerned. I'm not building up to contradict you, I'm curious because I want to like GNOME. In fact I really want to like GNOME. As a software engineer I'm attracted by the use of CORBA for IPC and language independence and I hear the architecture as a whole is an interesting, original design. As an idealist, I'm attracted by the use of Gtk+ (free) over Qt (less free).

But as a user, I ran away screaming. Speaking strictly in terms of UI, GNOME seems to be lagging behind KDE on the order of years. KDE is almost annoyingly flexible, but GNOME is frustratingly static. That's not to say GNOME will always be this way, but in its current state, I can't make the GNOME desktop behave in the ways I require.

GNOME doesn't seem to be there yet for folks who demand a good deal of functionality from their GUI. Perhaps its more attractive for those married to the console, I don't know. (Not that I don't like the console - I spend 90% of my day there.) I guess hacking my 'missing features' into GNOME would be time better spent than whining about them on Slashdot. ;-)

-Nick

Re:What 'interesting things'?

[pyros]

I find GNOME much easier to customize than KDE. What did you have trouble adjusting? (When was the last time you used it?)

ps - I don't remember anything I couldn't do in KDE, I just like the general layout of GNOME better.

Re: What 'interesting things'?

[n1k0]

> What did you have trouble adjusting?

The panel was most annoying. Can I make my GNOME panel look like this?

In general, GNOME's UI is just barren compared to KDE's. When you view the properties of KDE components, there are generally lots of configurables. In my experience with GNOME, I found the opposite to be true. Walk through KDE's control center, and then through GNOME's. I hope you'll see what I mean.

Another issue was how badly Konqueror kicks the crap out of Mozilla when it comes to speed and responsiveness. I'm not knocking one or the other, I like them both and I realize Mozilla's design as a cross-platform application framework contributes to this. But Mozilla has tangible performance problems, and GNOME integrates Mozilla. This is a problem for me.

> When was the last time you used it?

I used it about a week ago and went back to KDE after a few hours. I was pretty disappointed because, as I said, I really want to like GNOME.

-Nick

Re: What 'interesting things'?

[roybob]

Konquerer does kick ass. After all, Apple has used it's code base in Safari, no?

Re: What 'interesting things'?

[pyros]

You would just use multple edge panels on the same edge. You could then put any combination of launchers and panel applets on each panel to your liking. If you're looking for specific applets, I think the main ones should be there (tasklist, workspace pager, sound levels, command-line applets, lock, logoff, etc) but I would expect that each has some the other does not.

Regarding the wealth of config options, all the advanced stuff is available through gconf. I forget where it is on the menu, under System Tools I think. That's acutally one of the things I don't like about KDE, is the huge config panels. To be fair, though, I wish GNOME and KDE opted for an Advanced tab or button to accessextra settigns which aren't commonly changed.

Regarding Konqueror, you can run that in GNOME, just install the KDE libs. It will start super slow the first time while it loads all the libs and DCOP servers and stuff, but after that should run normally.

Re: What 'interesting things'?

[n1k0]

> You would just use multple edge panels on the same edge.

The panels always seem to overlap when I put them on the same edge. Am I doing something wrong?

> Regarding the wealth of config options [...] gconf.

I didn't know about this, I'll definitely check out gconf.

I actually like KDE's control panel. Options could be organized better, but on the whole I like having your options laid out in front of you. When I start KDE for the first time, I know exactly where to go and what to change to get my desktop looking the way I like it. Its not the UI that's important here, its presentation of information. I would be just as happy if instead of a control panel KDE provided a hierarchically arranged, well-documented configuration file. The presentation of topically organized functionality can appear in any form, so long as it appears. ;-)

> Regarding Konqueror[...]

Sure, but coloring the picture here is my desire to step away from dependence on KDE and towards ideological purity. :-)

Thanks for the help,

-Nick

Re: What 'interesting things'?

[RedBear]

I think the point really is that for some odd reason, people like myself and n1k0 have trouble figuring out how to do all those things in GNOME, yet knowing just as little about KDE, we can wander around the panels and menus and very quickly get something set up to our personal specifications. Something about GNOME just isn't intuitive to us. I couldn't tell you where the difference lies, but it's huge. If generally intelligent technical users are unable to get GNOME set up how they want it, there's something wrong with GNOME.

It's not like we have anything against GNOME. Like n1k0 said, I'd like to like GNOME, I really would. It just doesn't give me what I want, and KDE does, despite possibly being slower than GNOME. Although personally I've never noticed a real difference between the two, speedwise.

Re: What 'interesting things'?

[The Revolutionary]

I had been a fairly long-time Window Maker user before I came to GNOME, and while I certainly thought I needed my desktop just how I had it, with all of the gizmos and technical (read: overly complex) look, I did not, and now the user experience is simpler.

Looking at the screencapture of your desktop, I have some recommendations if you try GNOME again:
1) Use only a single edge panel at the top of the screen. Why, when to control everything else - a window or an application - you look up, but for the desktop you look down? You'll get used to it quickly.
2) Eliminate the tasks list.
3) Give yourself 10 virtual desktops. I promise you that if your usage is at all similar to my own, if you get rid of that task list and start ordering your use around virtual desktops, you will soon be asking yourself why you ever used that task list in the first place.
4) You can drag/drop windows across virtual desktops by selecting and dragging the miniature version in the virtual desktop selector.
5) Check your Metacity bindings for moving between desktops, and moving windows between desktops, etc. I like the defaults.
6) Ask yourself whether you really need to see CPU and Mem/Swap usage. If you really believe you do, add the applets to your top edge panel, but I suggest leaving them off. Will really miss them?
7) Add the dictionary applet if you think you need it frequently enough that you can't just go Applications->Accessories->Dictionary.
8) Add your "quicklaunch" icons (or a drawer of icons).
9) Add the audio controls, if this is something useful to you.
10) Do you really need to have always visible the volume level of all of your audio devices? Just add the Volume Control applet, and when you need the full listing, it's just a matter of a right click to bring it up.

Perhaps there are non-stock applets that wouuld be useful to you as well, but to be honeset, I have never looked because the need has never arisen.

Re: What 'interesting things'?

[n1k0]

> 1) [...]
> 2) [...]

I'm pretty happy with my taskbar and task list setup.

> 3) Give yourself 10 virtual desktops.
> 4) You can drag/drop windows across virtual desktops [...]
> 5) Check your Metacity bindings for moving between desktops, [...]

I used all of these features on Window Maker for several years (in fact I used Window Maker + GNOME throughout 1999/2000). I still use other desktops for applications like GIMP and Boa Constructor that use an SDI interface, but otherwise I haven't found much need for more than one desktop.

> 6) Ask yourself whether you really need to see CPU and Mem/Swap usage. If you really believe you
> do, add the applets to your top edge panel, but I suggest leaving them off. Will really miss them?

I could do without memory usage, but I like to keep an eye on CPU usage. I would surely miss it.

> 7) Add the dictionary applet if you think you need it frequently enough

Boy, do I need the dictionary applet.

> 8) Add your "quicklaunch" icons (or a drawer of icons).

Would work, but I still want another panel. ;-)

> 9) Add the audio controls, if this is something useful to you.

Yep, I need them.

> 10) Do you really need to have always visible

In fact, I usually have only four channels visible. The screenshot is a freshly configured desktop and I haven't yet removed the excess channels.

Thanks for the tips,

-Nick

Re: What 'interesting things'?

[n1k0]

You make several interesting points, the foremost showing how lazy my stab at GNOME really was. ;-) Had I not posted here it would be months or years before I looked at it again, and from what I'm reading there are solutions to most of my problems.

> despite possibly being slower than GNOME

KDE seems to take longer to start up (hopefully this will be addressed for the next release - I hear Qt's next major release has taken steps towards increasing start-up performance). Beyond that, KDE seemed much faster and more responsive than GNOME (see my earlier comments on Konqueror and Mozilla).

-Nick

Re:XP FUD

[dylan_-]

Alter network settings: Control pannel, Networking, Right click, Properties, Click on TCP/IP, adjust values.

This isn't correct for Windows 2000.

Standardized API's first, before standardized GUI

[Sleepy]

The fact that there is no clear and obvious choice for "which" desktop a newbie will use is not the biggest problem with Linux.

(I use "problem with Linux" generally... personally I use one desktop environment, but do not want to see the other go away).

A bigger problem is the difficult of application developers SUPPORTING BOTH (gnome and kde) DESKTOP ENVIRONMENTS WELL. By that I mean registering with both environments, object/component re-use, drag & drop and other events, etc.

Because this is so difficult, almost no one does it.

Freedesktop.org has been good at *gradually* pushing for a merge of "standards" (like clipboards, shortcut icons etc) but not so quickly for my taste.

If I develop and install both KDE and GNOME applications, there should be NO REASON for me to care about petty things like file dialogs, for example. Microsoft sorted this out *years* ago... common dialogs take the appearance of the OS version you are on. I should be able to easily write a GNOME or KDE application (doesn't matter), and conform to some "file dialog API", and then it works best with whatever the end user wants.

Why do people get so caught up in trying to bash the other desktop, to the point where "cooperation" between GNOME and KDE is lip service (individual exceptions made here.. I'm saying there's no big push to cooperatively develop API's).

There is no point in talking about which desktop is "better", or "if there can be only one it should be X". No one is going to budge and everyone has good reasons for preferring one environment over another. If you NEVER want to see standardization, keep fighting over this point. I'm convinced that some folks against standardization actually advocate "all or nothing" approaches because they are unpopular ideas with no risk of getting what you wished for...

Another opportunity for very close work between KDE and GNOME is internationalization. One team could span both desktops and probably offer some valid suggestopms and complaints to developers on how the desktop interfaces could be tightened and made more alike (without sacrificing the individuality that both desktops currently embrace). I could be totally ignorant on translation projects... it may well be that there are many people doing translation for both desktops.

There is just no much that could be standardized: file dialogs, toolbars, installation utilities and front ends, "services" (admittedly a lot of this belongs in INIT but we have some in the desktop and login managers anyways...), interfaces to device drivers (some KDE apps use "formerly GNOME" library gPhoto.. there's a success case), and so on..

Just because you feel your side is superior does not excuse one from working well with others who do not share your views.

Just my $0.02. Flame away if you like.

Nobody f***ing Gets It

[xant]

Choice isn't good for the user, it's good for the market. It's true that no user wants to make a choice they don't have to. To paraphrase Marvin Minsky, "The more similar two choices, the harder it is to choice between them, despite the fact that the choice is less important by the same degree." This is indeed the case when presenting the user a choice between Gnome and KDE. But that's not what "choice" really connotes in this case. Gnome and KDE are competing for mindshare, and competition is what makes both of them get better and better.

Each one of them continually tries to one-up the other, to support more and more features that the other is trying to implement. It is the competition between KDE and Gnome far more than the competition between Linux and Windows that drives the goal of finding the Next Big Thing for desktop environments. And both of those environments have introduced features that other desktops did not have, including Windows! Windows XP users: notice how Windows XP puts links to recently used applications in the Start Menu now? KDE has had that for ages. Without the competition between Gnome and KDE, the discovery and implementation of those features would slow down drastically.

As to the ridiculous claim that everyone has to be presented with an interface that's familiar to them, if that were true, Microsoft itself wouldn't revamp the look and feel of Windows with every major revision. Furthermore, if that were true, no invention on the desktop would ever happen! Wildly different approaches (OEone, to name one) must be tried so we can continue to seek the perfect interface, and approaches with minor differences are practically going to be absorbed into the user's mental framework as soon as they're encountered.

Users are willing to learn. They all understand that, when sitting in front of a new environment, they're going to have to learn something new. Some people (in general: younger people) like to learn new technology and welcome new environments as a chance to try new things. Other people resist the idea, but they will still do whatever's necessary to learn to use the tools they have available; that is, whatever's in front of them.

That means that minor differences between Gnome and KDE--and they are minor, when you compare the time to learn them to the lifetime of a typical workstation installation--are irrelevant, and therefore the user's choice between the two environments is irrelevant. Choose for them, it'll work out in the end. Most Linux distros already do this, giving a default which the user can change.

And stop kicking this horse corpse about applications. Every modern Linux distro includes the libraries necessary to run both Gnome and KDE apps, regardless of which environment is on the desktop.

Re:Nobody f***ing Gets It

[sahala]

As to the ridiculous claim that everyone has to be presented with an interface that's familiar to them, if that were true, Microsoft itself wouldn't revamp the look and feel of Windows with every major revision. You are making the false assumption that Windows has a stellar UI. It's a pretty good UI, but the lack of visual consistency from release to release has been pointed out as a flaw, just because common users have to re-learn interaction metaphors, etc. Ideally a user interface is designed once to some degree of perfection and changed conservatively. To make a programming analogy, how would you like it if someone shuffled API calls and interfaces every few years. Pain in the ass, right?

Furthermore, if that were true, no invention on the desktop would ever happen! Wildly different approaches (OEone, to name one) must be tried so we can continue to seek the perfect interface, and approaches with minor differences are practically going to be absorbed into the user's mental framework as soon as they're encountered.

Innovation is a good thing, but we shouldn't be drag the general public through "experimentation" at our whim. Things in fact do not get "absorbed int othe user's mental framework as soon as they're encountered". People learn by recognition and repetition, and when something is learned it's typically hard to unlearn.

Re:Nobody f***ing Gets It

[heavyVoid]

I agree with you.
And I also want to add: if there were only a single Desktop, a single look, Microsoft
would have a single company to pressure and lobby and sue, and you_name_it.

Please, KDE and GNOME, keep up the good work, and don't ever put all the eggs in the same basket. If I have to bet which one will win or be better, I'd bet none of them, I'd bet both. That way we'd always win :)

Re: every few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 95 gave you the option of using the 3.x GUI -- the old look and feel, file manager, program manager, the whole nine yards.
I actually used that for a while, because I didn't like the 95 look, but I finally gave in because I preferred the 95 feel...

The Big Dummy

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

No news, just more of the same FUD.

[twitter]

Micorsoft is trying to influence those they consider influential. They would brainwash their developers to keep them enslaved and have them to scare off newbies. There's nothing very new here. It's really all the same bullshit, "freedom is just too hard."

Russell Jones starts with the same tired arguments that choice is bad and that free software developers can't make an easy to use interface. You can change out "easy to use interface" with "operating system", "kernel" or "quality software" to realize that this is a very old argument. It's been BS before and it's BS today. Someone makes a choice for the neophyte, and there are free intefaces just as easy to migrate to as the next crappy M$ interface.

Bob's twist on this is aimed at stemming the flood of developers asway from M$ junk by turning reality on it's head. He tells us that developing applications for multiple window managers is just too hard. That's silly. Why would anyone continue to pay Micrsoft licenses when there's many free GUI deveopment kits of equal or better quality available? He complains, "Supporting many GUIs isn't just a simple process of including one set of libraries or another; it's often a frustrating and error-prone exercise in writing GUI-specific code," as if Microsoft's interface were any better or less frustrating. He admits that programs written for one window manager run on others, can he say that for Win32 crap? No, he can't. In fact, you are lucky if your MFC program will continue to run from one version of Windoze to the next and even low level API calls are known to change. The whole "including libraries" FUD is a baseless projection from Microsoft DLL hell. When you open your eyes, what you see it that the more you rely on Microsoft the more painful your world is. When you get away from M$, you see how inadequate their tools really were.

Keep on comming, windoze developers, the water is fine. Freedom does have it's drawbacks, but they are nothing like those encountered in the Windoze world. You will never know just how easy and rational things are in the free software world unless you try it out. The fact is that Marketing morons can not and do not make software that's easy for their users of their developers, they make software that screws both.

Re:No news, just more of the same FUD.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tone down the tirade friend. Yes, open software has many benefits.

But MS does provide decent stable APIs - I just ran Quake II on Windows XP - it was originally written to run on Win 95 and Win NT 4.0. The IDEs are top class as well - MS has a lot of smart people working for it.

What we need is choice, competition. And rule of law of course - to keep MS's evil side in check, and to enable us to exercise free will.

Speeking ebout speeling...

[TheMidget]

Then again, I always thought changing the verbiage from "Infammible" to "flammible" to appease the ignorance was a profoundly idiotic move...

Especially since it's spelled inflammable (i.e. "which can be inflamed").

Re:Speeking ebout speeling...

[Joe Tie.]

Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
-Dr. Nick

Dude, mods are easily suggestable.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you hadn't mentioned Flamebait, you'd be at +5 Insightful now.

standardized desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

standardized desktop? Someone just wielded my hood shut on my car.

domination vs. freedom

[lone_marauder]

The article seems to suggest a unified desktop as a means to provide a stable target for application developers, so that the application suite can overcome Microsoft's desktop domination.

The problem is that I just don't see a good case for taking away the user's freedom in order to accomplish that. Most of the Linux converts I've directly dealt with are attracted by the choice of different window managers, web browsers, e-mail clients, etc. In fact, the biggest reason I insist upon using Linux at work is because I can choose a set of applications that work for me. Indeed, I booted Red Hat as a distro because I didn't effectively have that freedom.

I think it is more important that Linux be free (in the RMS sense of the word), rather than dominate.

Re:domination vs. freedom

[TheShadow]

Then create one single GUI API that is highly customizable through plugins.

Window managers should manage windows... not the API needed to write applications.

Package management handles most bullet points

[spykermj]

Of the five bullet points given by the author, three of them should be handled by package management:

* have an install program that automated all modifications to the target machine and provided reasonable and intelligent default settings

* have an uninstall program that removed the software but would not affect any data produced with the software

* would include the ability for users to manually or automatically upgrade their applications to the latest stable release version

Re: every few months...

[xmda]

I don't agree. I have been using Windows since 3.1 and though there have been some large leaps in interface design (Windows NT 3.51 -> NT4 was a HUGE one and Windows 2000 -> XP SEEMS huge but isn't really if you go back to the classic theme), the interface is quite the same really.

Don't misunderstand me, I run only Linux at home, and have tried several window managers and stuff (lately I've been using Ion quite much though) but I agree that it would be nice with some sort of "standard" for the Linux desktop. To free the world from MS's monopoly.

Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

...be realistic. In all honesty we _all_ want to destroy Microsoft through Linux. People are in denial stating that's not the case.

MacOS X has solved the Unix GUI problem

[Get Behind the Mule]

A number of people have already pointed out the flaw in this article: Most people buy their Linux installation from one of the distros, and the distros all install a default desktop -- Gnome or KDE or whatever. As the author himself states, casual users rarely change their interface defaults, so these people will just stay with their default setup. And if they never know or care that they had a choice, then so what.

But I want to add something about the subject of open-source Unix and GUIs. Just a few weeks ago, I finally got my first box with MacOS X. I know, I'm way late saying this, but ... a Unix kernel and a Mac GUI, the perfect computer! Absolute fucking paradise. For the first time in my life, I can work with a sophisticated, well thought-out user interface, and at the same time pop up a bash shell and exploit all of the technical power of a Unix command line.

I'm a big fan of the open-source efforts to build Unix systems, but I must say that they have struggled badly and unsuccessfully at their efforts to create good user interfaces. Sorry, but Gnome and KDE and all the rest really do suck (and don't even get me started on proprietary offerings like CDE). Then along comes Apple, big ol' proprietary closed-source look-n-feel-lawsuit Steve Jobs & Co., and puts them all to shame.

I think this guy with the article may be misunderstanding his own point. The trouble with the GUIs of open source Unix systems is not that there's too much choice. It is, unfortunately, that the open source developers have proven to be very, very bad at building GUIs.

Some of the posters so far have stated quite bluntly that open source developers just don't care about GUIs. So OK, score a point for honesty, I guess. I for one am certainly technically capable enough to deal with the likes of Gnome and KDE, but gawd, why would I want to if I can use something as good as MacOS X? Why make your life any more difficult than necessary? MacOS X is the proof, you see, that a Unix interface doesn't have to be so second-rate; if you try, and you know what you're doing, then you can make the user experience with Unix into something thrilling.

I think there's something else besides lack of developer interest that holds back the user interfaces in open source Unix. There's a whole class of people working a field called usability, who spend all their time figuring out how people work well with computers (and other devices). They've built up a whole field of research, and even run empirical experiments to test ideas, giving test subjects an interface to work with and observing what they do with it.

It seems to me that open source developers and the usability people live in almost wholly separate universes, hardly aware of one another's existence. Apple, on the other hand, has been working with these people for years and it shows. I would like to see Gnome & KDE and the rest succeed, but until they start taking usability issues much more seriously than they do now, corporations like Apple will remain way ahead of them.

Re:MacOS X has solved the Unix GUI problem

[Get Behind the Mule]

So you are basicly saying that we should dump all other unixes and unixlikes and all go to Apple.

No Bunky, that is precisely what I did not say. If you like, you can try reading my post again, especially the last sentence, especially the part about how I'd like to see a certain something or other succeed.

BTW, I don't know why you talk as if "unixes and unixlikes" are something different from "Apple". MacOS X is Unix (BSD to be precise).

Re:MacOS X has solved the Unix GUI problem

[blueforce]

Unix kernel and a Mac GUI, the perfect computer

Perhaps.

Except that OS X only runs on Apple hardware which is prohibitively expensive. >=$1300 for a PowerMac G4 1.2Ghz/256MB machine vs. =$800 for a 2.6GHz/512MB Pentium 4 machine? Just for a whiz-bang gui just doesn't compute ;)

Re:MacOS X has solved the Unix GUI problem

[tgd]

It computes just fine if it makes me more productive. Speed isn't everything, and most people would never notice the difference between a 1.2 ghz and a 2.6ghz processor.

Re:MacOS X has solved the Unix GUI problem

[Jon Abbott]

If you want an entry level Apple, you can get an iBook laptop for $950 (education price), or an eMac for $749 (also the education price). That isn't too cost-prohibitive for what you are getting, especially considering that both of these machines will run OS X faster than my 1.5 year old Powerbook G4...

Re:MacOS X has solved the Unix GUI problem

[Trifthen]

Holy shit, man... I couldn't have said it better. Mac OSX puts every linux GUI to shame, and makes development easier with a common API. But I guess that's just a crazy idea we should never impliment, because Linux is "better than that".

Re:MacOS X has solved the Unix GUI problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with much of what you said, but at the end of the day, where has it gotten Apple? They're not greatly increasing market share with that beautiful face which is OS X. The reality is, it's just not happening. If the arguably best gui can't take market share from microsoft, then making a great gui for linux is obviously not the answer. Clearly, the cost and the limited hardware are big factors here with respect to OS X but I don't think that tells the whole story. The real hurdle for linux is the difficulty in interoperating with the overwhelming desktop king which is microsoft. That's a situation that will only change gradually.

Re:MacOS X has solved the Unix GUI problem

[blueforce]

You're probably right about the speed but I bet most would notice the $600 deficit in their checking account.

I guess my point really is, for me personally ( and I'm sure many people ), I have a significant investment in 8*86 hardware - a dual Athlon desktop, an Athlon-4 laptop, and a PII machine. I am able to use multiple OSes with the exception of OS X. There's no way my wife is going to understand, or buy into, why I need to spend another ~$1000 or more so I can run OS X. I'm sure the average person, particularly the subjects of this discussion, aren't going to understand why they need to spend twice as much money to get Aqua especially when they've got a great little P3 600 under their desk that only needs a simple OS upgrade from Windows 98SE.

Re:MacOS X has solved the Unix GUI problem

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't.

It's not BSD.

The kernel isn't a unix kernel.

The Open Group is on the verge of suing them for even calling it "unix." Notice they stopped that campaign?

They've got a proprietary kernel, a proprietary GUI, proprietary hardware, and some BSD userland apps. Whoop-de-fuck, but I'm not impressed.

Re:MacOS X has solved the Unix GUI problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya get what ya pay for dude. If ya don't wanna pay crap, crap is what ya get. Enjoy ur x86 boxes. Computers do exist outside of the wintel arena and in most respects, the quality is _so_ much better (trust me - I have used both).

Re:MacOS X has solved the Unix GUI problem

[dododge]

a Unix kernel and a Mac GUI, the perfect computer!

There's a big assumption there: that the Mac GUI is actually something the user would prefer.

Personally, the Mac GUI drives me batshit, for much the same reason as the Windows GUI: it won't let me interact with partially-obscured windows. And yes I do find myself wanting to do this quite often (and unfortunately am reminded of it the hard way whenever I use one of the Windows machines in the office).

The single-menu-bar design that the Mac GUI has pretty much mandates the "current application" concept, so it's not like they can trivially add a focus-follows-mouse option like most X11 windows managers have.

<rant>
But wait, it gets worse! Mac users will sometimes tout how great Apple's support is for multi-head systems. And it's certainly true that from an OS viewpoint it works quite nicely: the monitors don't need to run the same resolution, or even at the same color depth, and you can easily adjust their relative positions with a configuration panel.

But have you ever tried to use a multi-head Mac? A friend had a dual 1600x1200 Mac, which I did spend quite a bit of time with. The second display was almost useless, because the "single menu" implementation only put the menu on the top of one screen. So if you were working with an application on the "other" screen, getting the pointer to/from that damn menu was a major trek. I asked several folks who were much more familiar with the Mac GUI if there was any way to get the menu to appear on all screens, or perhaps follow you between screens automatically, but none ever had a solution. Mac GUI enthusiasts will talk about how Fitts's law makes the menu easily accessible, but frankly Apple's multi-head implementation completely b0rk'd any benefits from Fitts.

And don't even get me started on the hardware. Take for example the Studio Display (tube) monitors, which are PC VGA compatible (well, mostly; apparently they don't like certain Shuttle motherboards), but can only be adjusted for things like screen size and position via USB -- and Linux doesn't seem to even see them as a device on the USB bus, much less have a driver to talk to them.
</rant>

GUI standardisation is irrelevant.

[David Gerard]

Windows' massive market share is based on corporate adoption. Linux's increasing market share will be based in the same thing, and will be driven by license costs (including BSA annoyance); the users will follow.

KDE or Gnome doesn't matter - it will be all about the money.

Re:GUI standardisation is irrelevant.

[vorpal22]

The natural question that follows from your comment is why Linux isn't more widely selected as a desktop platform in an industry setting. Perhaps this has something to do with usability and standardization? I can't possibly know the answer to this question, but as it stands now, I see a vicious circle in place; industry doesn't choose Linux as there aren't enough applications or support, and industry doesn't write more applications / add more support to Linux due to the fact that they don't use Linux and due to the lack of standardization in Linux (i.e. how can a company possibly hope to offer industry level support over two or more desktop environments and 10 distros?).

Re:GUI standardisation is irrelevant.

[David Gerard]

I don't think it's anything to do with 'usability'. It would be because Microsoft is the safe choice. However, OpenOffice and Mozilla Firebird do pretty much the same as MS Office and IE, for a lower price. Look at Munich for an example.

I still consider the last two critical pieces of the puzzle to be:

1. A drop-in replacement for Outlook, and that includes the calendar/meeting stuff.
2. A drop-in replacement for Exchange, that talks to MS Outlook.

Re: every few months...

[tomhudson]

And it was still there under 98 as well (as were the old file manager, etc.) Just that your EULA only allowed you to pick one or the other, which was kind of funny, because you could run progman.exe just by clicking on it, or doing "Run|progman.exe" and have both the Win9x and Win3x shells running at the same time.

But Why?

[KrispyKringle]

It's pretty often that I see an article about what changes need to be made in Linux for it to take hold among mainstream desktop usage. But I really have to wonder sometimes why I should really care.

I don't recommend to my friends and family to use Linux if they don't have some good reason to. It doesn't suit their needs. And I really don't care how much market share Linux has among desktops. It wasn't made as a desktop, and for the ordinary user, no, it isn't a very good one. But why is this a problem?

For me, the lack of choices would be a bad thing. RedHat's Bluecurve is annoying--what happened to being able to choose 6 different window managers on startup? I can certainly understand why RedHat made that decision, and for their profits, it may have been a good one. But RedHat's goals are not my goals; I don't make a buck--or even derive some sort of vague emotional satisfaction--from other people using Linux. So why should I sacrifice my choice in window managers just to make Linux on the desktop a possibility, when I have little or nothing to gain from Linux on the desktop?

I'm not trolling. I simply think that this is a bit of a silly focus, when Linux's greatest strength--and greatest chance of success commercially--is as a server and high-end development workstation.

well...

[Tom]

"In this article [...] makes the case for a repressive regime for our country. He argues that the promotion of choice of GUI as a positive feature of using Democracy is detrimental to its chances of attacking (Terrorism|Communism|Enemyism)'s grip. From the article: '...the open society community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of speech, and freedom to vote, are not the goals of the average user.' In particular he argues that the choice of presidents between (all those choices), is not one that a former oppressed men, even a fairly politically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on, and that they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any government they might want to use."

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Freedom is a scary thing, so let's take it away.

not fair, but close.

[twitter]

Would it be fair to say then, that Red Hat has the right idea trying to make a standardised GUI using the bets bits of (predominantly) GNOME and KDE?

It might not be fair to call it "right" but it is fair to say that it can be done with free software. Of course, Red Hat makes plenty of tools available for working with what they have done so that it's just as easy to make things work in the Red Hat world as it is in the Microsoft world. the whole article is just FUD to scare off developers

+1, elite

[Anonymous Coward]

wwwwwwoooooow you are an elite *niX d00000d P

Linux GUIS and the Seldon Plan (ranty)

[timothy]

H. Seldon himself could not have come up with a better way** to improve Linux GUIs than the rivalry (mostly friendly) among the various approaches to Linux GUIs. (And though there are other Free Software desktops, I'm going to ignore them for part of this comment ;))

KDE's approach looks a lot like Windows, is very well integrated down to having a "burn data cd" (with k3b) option in a menu reachable with a mouse click on any file. Neat. (I'm typing on a KDE desktop right now, appreciating how much more I like KDE now than I did a few years ago.) (Knoppix comes with KDE, this machine's installation was from the Knoppix HDD install script ... )

GNOME is IMO slightly slicker graphically, and -- in ways that are not easy to pin down -- a little more user friendly. No accounting for taste (and I certainly have questionable taste), but I happen to like a lot of GNOME apps more than their KDE equivalents ... mostly a "so what?" since most apps I use don't care one way or the other ;)

The Seldonmost part of the KDE/GNOME "battle" (in which actual developers mostly get along well, share beers in pubs when they're not coding) is that their [conspiratorially arranged?] back-and-forth wrt feature lists and ease of use distracts people from, for instance:

- enlightenment
- blackbox (old) / fluxbox / etc.
- icewm
- and windowmaker / afterstep

The point being, KDE and GNOME may be the most complete / comprehensive approaches to Free Software desktops, but they're far from alone. Fluxbox and Afterstep in particular I like for defaulting to extremely clean desktops, making apps easy to get to through menus available with a mouseclick from anywhere. We're not all in the same gang, because we're not in gangs, gong long a gong a gong a long long fee phi pho fee phum.

Whenever people talk about "standardizing" as if this was an obvious good thing, I wonder if they feel the way to end illiteracy is to settle on one accepted book as The Standard, and making sure people know *that* book. Architecture, too, would be a lot less confusing if we didn't have all these different *types* of housing or approaches to engineering large buildings -- let's just settle on the right one, dammit!

Having only one choice in a given context might make sense -- but it depends on the context.The owner of Amalgamated Consolidated Products, Inc.* is free to declare that Windows 3.1 is the only acceptable desktop standard for his company's employees while they're at work: Fine. Dumb, or maybe it's smart for that company, but fine. Likewise, if NASA decides its billions in tax dollars would contribute the most to the commonwealth if some of them went to creating a standard GNOME-based desktop and ignoring KDE, well, that might make sense in that context.

When I hear lots of 1st-person plural handwringing about how "we" ought to adopt a standard *anything* though, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, and I get a little defensive. 1st person plural is always annoying when someone seems to be speaking on my behalf but without my consent or agreement. What if I *like* the standard you don't? Think Low-flush toilets as a mandated standard. Think building codes that make inexpensive legal housing a legislated near-impossibility. Building codes, of course, are standards imposed for the good of all, and if you don't like it, you can stick it your ear, fill out this form in triplicate, and wait for the county inspector, who is currently on extended leave in Botswana. Citizen.

To the extent that actual programmers voluntarily combine their efforts, it's nice to see some convergence, even a lot of it. But there's no g

Here's why it matters

[jettoblack]

Let me start off by saying I've tried to use Linux a few times, but always switched back to Windows. Why? Because there was always some technology I need or want that isn't supported well enough in Linux yet. Just look at the sad state of USB support in Linux. I never did get my PDA (Sony Clie), MP3 player (IOData Exrouge), or printer (Epson PM930C) to work. I'm not switching to Linux if my purchasing decisions are going to be limited to a few of yesteryear's inferior devices.

The problem with this "who cares about the masses; Linux is for us geeks" attitude, is that Linux will be in a perpetual state of falling behind, both technologically and in market share. For example, I personally know 3 people who switched back to Windows because of the poor state of WiFi (especially 11g) in Linux now, not to mention a horde of current and upcoming technologies which will never see Linux support.

Maybe you don't care about Linux's market share, but when everyone else in the office is surfing the net at 802.11xxx speeds and you're stuck at 802.11b, or when everyone is watching the latest Blueray HDTV movies and you're stuck with DVD, or when they're printing out 60 megapixel digital images from their smartphone on their 24-color inkjet (none of which will run under Linux), you'll be tempted to give up Linux too.

Without competitive support for new technologies and innovations in use by the masses, Linux will suffer from a shrinking support base and die a slow lingering death. The way to prevent Linux from falling behind in new technologies is to ensure that it has a large, stable user base which hardware manufactureres and driver authors CAN'T afford to ignore.

No matter how devoted the Linux gods of geeks are to their cause, there's no way they can keep up with rapid industry progress, unless Linux has a large user base of "Joe Sixpack and his unwashed masses." It doesn't mean you can't have Linux the way you want it, but it does mean you can't make it a "geeks only club" either.

Re:Here's why it matters

[advocate_one]

I never did get my PDA (Sony Clie), MP3 player (IOData Exrouge), or printer (Epson PM930C) to work. I'm not switching to Linux if my purchasing decisions are going to be limited to a few of yesteryear's inferior devices.

What the heck are you going to do then when the next must have gizmo only has support for Longhorn??? and they ain't gonna roll any XP drivers.
What about all those poor folks who had to upgrade to XP cos this or that gizmo or must have application was only available for XP???

Manufacturers are now noticing Linux... and if they've got any sense, then they will start providing "out-of-the-box" support for it. Printer manufacturers are getting it together by providing cups definitions on their disks... it's only those shortsighted ones who're making faux printers that only work with ms-windows who've got it wrong.

Re: every few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but most people browse at 2+, not -1. Posts that are relevant to the subject at hand should be seen by as many people as possible to foster discussion, not buried away by trollish mods. No skin off my back personally, just trying to keep quality at large off the ground.

Windows Versions

[TheAncientHacker]

There have been 5 versions of the Windows UI in the 18 years that Windows has been around:

1. Windows 1.x - initial UI
2. Windows 2.x - Overlapping Windows
3. Windows 3.x - Program Manager shell
4. Windows 4.x - Windows 9X - taskbar/Start button
5. Windows 5.x - Windows XP/2003 - Simplified UI

All the other changes have been minor tweaks or optional enhancements like the IE4 desktop integration of web content. (There actually IS a reason for those Windows version numbers)

Choices

[aliens]

Going along the lines of giving a person the ability to change things... There's another comment about giving people too many choices. I think that's the catch, just how easy do you make it to customize your default desktop?

A low level user might want to change their background, but do you just have a dialog for changing the background? Or include it with a bunch of other display options? Then you got the high-level user who wants to change everything, window decorations, sounds, this that and the other thing. Striking that balance has got to be very difficult.

How bout a 10 question quiz the guage what level of desktop a user should start out with? Maybe one of the questions would be.

Do you read /.?
A) f1r57 p05t!!
B) What's /.?
C) Only when at work.
D) CowboyNeal does

Linux without choice

[Anonymous Coward]

We should make a single standard Linux that removed all of those annoying choices. Then we could join the big leagues with devestating worms, viruses and other neat exploits. We Linux users could then enjoy the same prestige as the straight out of the box crowd.

Seriously, the differences seem to be one of the greatests strenghts. I know my mother-in-law can't use Linux. That's why we bought her a Mac.

Linux is Better that Windows

[zorro28]

One there are companies who deliver optimized distros. RedHat and SuSe have done a good job at this for a cheap price. Of course if you want the free versions than your gonna have to do the optimizing yourself. Two the average user uses Windows for internet browsing and MS Office which mozilla and OpenOffice are good counter parts to. It all comes down to exposure. Linux with a standard install is pretty close to Windows and suitable for an average user but the advantage is that people do have options in Linux where MS is starting to take the options a way from users. The next release of Windows(Longhorn) will be even more restrictive I find that Microsft is releasing more and more half assed products while focusing more on the desktop environment. This really shouldn't be the way to go. Active Directory is a farce, really buggy and the potential to cause major problems. Windows may seem easy on the outside but on the inside it's a huge mess. The registry is cryptic, and the fact that a 5 year old with a hacked copy of vb 6 can right viruses for it makes windows a joke. With each release of windows u need to double the ram and ghz of your computer to run it. The only thing really holding back linux from taking over the desktops across the worlds is video games. If the number of video games on linux were as plentiful as on Windows then Windows would die. The only reason why i keep my windows box up and running is for a couple of games i like to play otherwise i't would be a linux box too.

Re:Linux is Better that Windows

[vorpal22]

Wow... I don't think you gave us a single reason backing your thesis as to *why* Linux is better than Windows. You sort of state that Linux is almost as good as Windows on several levels, but you completely ignore some of the reasons that Windows is almost as good as / better than Linux (e.g. vendor support, standardized GUI, application selection). I fully acknowledge that both Windows and Linux have their strengths, but which one is a suitable choice is fully dependent on the audience. Personally, I used Linux for years, loved it for the most part, and yet I simply won't go back because I found that I had to engage in far too many sysadmin tasks in order to keep it working properly. My grandmother can hardly manage a mouse much less a command line prompt, and I don't think she'd ever be able to grok Linux. Both KDE and GNOME are indeed spiffy, but have some severe usability issues that need to be addressed before your average user's gonna feel comfortable working with Linux.

So yeah... I'd say Linux has some definite strengths over Windows, and Windows has some strengths, most notably usability and vendor support, over Linux. I think Windows usability does indeed suck, just not as badly as Linux usability.

Linux != Windows

[Seanasy]

I've always had the impression that, as far as the desktop goes, it's not a question of Linux vs. Windows. I think it's Red Hat vs. Windows or Suse vs. Windows. Linux is just an underlying technology. Nobody talks about Mach vs. Windows -- it's Mac vs. Windows.

Linux is a technology. So are KDE and GNOME. People who will use Linux when it has a mature, suitable-for-the-masses GUI won't need to know or care that Linux runs their computer. And they won't need to know or care if it's the KDE desktop or the GNOME desktop. In fact, such information will probably only confuse them. They'll identify their experience as Red Hat or Suse or Mandrake. Not Linux. Not KDE. Not GNOME. Because they won't care and shouldn't care.

Maybe a Red Hat program will run on Suse. Maybe not. It'll be a lot like OS X compared to other Unices. An average OS X user only uses Aqua apps. But, the more adventurous have the means of running X11 apps and other CLI utiltities. It could be the same with Red Hat compared to other Linuxes. An average Red Hat user might only use apps designed for Red Hat. The geeks will know that they can install extra libs and run all the Suse apps, too.

Standardizing desktops isn't really necessary. One may come out dominant. Natural selection will decide that. What the Linux desktop is waiting for, I think, if for a company to take one of the technologies and brand it. They could make some essential apps a la Apple iApps, drop all reference to Linux, KDE/GNOME and present a single coherent experience to the user.

I think coherent experience is the key without the bother of what libs do I need? That's not the job of the Linux developers or even of KDE/GNOME developers. They're just providing raw materials. A coherent desktop experience should come from someone who can synthesize those technologies and present something new, unified, consistent, unique.

Best of both worlds?

[acousticiris]

I understand the "usability" issue, having just recently started using Linux. But at the same time, the beauty of having a choice of multiple distributions lends itself to customizing a distribution that is "right" for each type of user. I, personally, like the choice, but I'm a geek. My mother probably would be confused with all of these options...she wants an icon on her desktop that says "e-mail" and "word processor"... and she doesn't want to login to her PC, either. But just because she doesn't want to, why should I not be able to? So while I choose a distribution that gives me a great deal of choice and options out-of-the-iso, I would expect--if she were to run Linux--she'd purchase a PC running a flavour with the usability of Lindows or something to that effect.

Re: every few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful, bollocks.

The differencies between the NT/95 versions and XP/2000 versions are huge. Forgetting the cosmetic changes. What the fuck did they do to the control panel? Why do they keep migrating applications they dont want you to use deeper into submenus? Where is command prompt these days /start /programs /accessories or has it migrated further? It may still look similar, but all the tools have either moved or vanished. And dont get me started on the filesystem. If I didnt want to view my files I wouldnt have opened explorer would I!! Damn it!

come on back hitch

[twitter]

Bloat? What bloat? I've got Elightenment, KDE, Sawfish, TWM and Window Maker installed on this machine along with all sorts of other goodies. My system files take less than 1.5 G of drive space. Oh yeah, it all works well together and is beautifully managed and kept up to date by apt-get. To get that kind of functionality from Microsoft, I'd need many more gigs of hard drive space, hundreds of reboots, virus protection, rebuilds and all that hastle. When I stack that kind of trouble up against the occasional KDE to Mozilla or Enlightenment clipboard hastle, well, the choice from a user perspective is obvious.

Re:come on back hitch

[Hitch]

you miss my point. I'm not saying it doesn't work. I don't have any "problems" as such, and I MUCH prefer it to the Microsoft option. Or the mac option. or most any other option. But at the same time, it's frustrating to have so much EXTRA stuff installed that I don't need. it's like buying groceries - say you want to broil a steak. simple, yes? not if the meat makers set it up that you have to buy the whole cow when all you want is steaks. Over time, you'll probably use it (assuming there's no rot, but this is a methaphor, so we'll ignore that). But what about the people that just want steaks over and over again? it's a lot of extra junk.

Re:come on back hitch

[moncyb]

My system files take less than 1.5 G of drive space.

You missed the part where he said "Understand, this was back when I had a 1GB hard drive".

Re:come on back hitch

[twitter]

My system files take less than 1.5 G of drive space. >You missed the part where he said "Understand, this was back when I had a 1GB hard drive".

No I didn't. Back then such a system would fit there because it still can. I could easily trim enough stuff today to make the fit and would not lose very much.

Pseudo-FUD.

[dentar]

I choose choice. If we were to "standardize" on the desktop it would most certainly be the bloated Gnome or KDE. Nice fast slim desktops like IceWM would most certainly not be in the bidding for "standard" desktops.

two things to notice here.

[LifesABeach]

i'm in the process of organizing a table of comparisons of windows/mac/linux programs. the goal is to show what each product is and does on each operating system.

things i'm noticing are:

PRO:

1. free software is a great way to be known.

2. users of your software will hire you to enhance your work for them.

3. if users don't like your work, they can do it themselves. a couple times for me they've called up to bail themselves out.

4. global problem here. people are trying to re-invent the wheel when there is an open source solution ready to use. not using an open source solution slows down project development time, and increases the project cost.

CON:

1. there is no 'rosetta stone' that compares open source products, and method to comparable products for the windows/mac/linux solution set.

2. to have the working software solution is great, but not have examples, or tutorials makes the product useless. trial and error learning is cost prohibitive.

3. 'man' pages are great, but without examples on option usage, only cures insomnia.

4. the only way that open source can beat their 'for profit' competitors products is to show HOW it can be done with the open source solution submitted.

5. the 'for profit' competitors marketing guys can sing the sirens song to the great unwashed. which will always sound better than the ignorable quote, "my product is just as good, or better. trust me". this may be a true statement, but it doesn't sell. i don't have a siren's song you can use to sell; BUT, if an open source developer wants to easily convince even the most die hard mac/windows user of their solution, THEN the developer is going to have to show a process by process comparison of the other guys product.

A modest proposal

[PapaZit]

Obviously, everyone should use $MY_FAVORITE_WM. It has $OBSCURE_FEATURE, which is far less developed on $OTHER_WM. Sure, $OTHER_WM has $OTHER_MAJOR_FEATURE, but newbies don't need that.

Seriously, It really comes down to what your distro maker wants to support. The people at Redhat, SuSE, etc. are not stupid. They're worrying about the same things. Technical superiority doesn't matter. Ease of use and GOOD DOCUMENTATION counts for a lot. "Look at the source code" is not a valid response to a question from a non-developer. The desktop environment and window manager that focus on ease of SUPPORT are the ones that'll triumph.

I work at a university, and we offer our own Linux distribution. We wanted to upgrade our WM last year. We looked at KDE: it didn't compile properly in our environment. We looked at GNOME: the documentation was unusable. Our final choice: FVWM2 without either GNOME or KDE. Well documented, easily customizable (with TONS of examples), stable, and easily understood. It doesn't have the latest bling-bling like anti-aliased text, but it's a whole lot easier to support.

Hobbyist columnists

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do they come from, all these "hobbyist" columnists blurting out their pathetic mixture of the bloody obvious and the outright wrong, acting as some kind of self appointed prophets whose mission it is to tell the sheeps in the open source world how things should be? I'm so sick of it, so utterly disgusted.

I don't give a damn if we take over the entire world of the desktop. As long as the open source community is large enough to be a creative force that can sustain itself I'm perfectly happy. We dont have to be on every desktop in the world for this.

By all means, make it simpler for those who want to cross the border into our land (refugees are very welcome). But if they want to play, they have to play by our rules, and choice is one of them, a willingness to learn at least a little bit about computers and programs is another one. If choice is bad, well the only choice they have to make is to keep away.

Hell, soon we will be hearing word like "integrated" and "enhanced user experience", uughh.

My issue with Linux vs. M$

[cheeseSource]

Look, I love the idea of linux. It's a movement that has a chance of improving not only technology but the way people interact with each other. In so far as it leans hard against the greed factor. I tried to switch to linux when the msblast worm hit. I had a copy of madrake and it installed fairly easily but that was where the ease stopped. I can run basic apps, star office is great and I can get to the net without issue but I'll be damned If I can get anything I download to install. I haven't found a manual yet that clearly says how to do it either. What the hell is get tar ball.gz, do I put on app on top of another to get it to kick off. I'm using KDE if that makes any difference This may sound like a troll but I am dead serious and would appreciate it if anyone could point me in the right direction, aside from google. As for now the ideals of M$ may suck ass but It's darn easy to get anything to run.

You know...

[phorm]

Configuring linux initially tends to dull usability. It can be a pain (finding drivers, etc). However, in my case after I finished setting up my desktop system, installing the programs I wanted, etc etc... everything runs nicely. I think that most semi-intelligent windows users could find their way around my system (iceWM with an XP theme, dfm for desktop).

Now, getting the thing set up was a pain, and I went through many desktop distros that were difficult to use, but now I do truely find my 'nix desktop more convenient to use (except for games). Morphix/Knoppix make the initial configuration/detection easier too, and apt-get is great for installing software (unstable being much nicer for desktop than stable though). Why do I need windows? For all the common day-to-day stuff I do, either desktop works the same... though my 'nix is better at a few things and windoze at others, in the end they come fairly close.

Sigh

[pmz]

freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.

Nor of the average citizen.

Why is Linux different?

[rnturn]

The good editor asks ``Windows has one GUI. The Mac has one GUI? Why is Linux different?''

Hmm... good question. Maybe it's because each has a single company enforcing a single product design and using a marketing department to convince the public that their way is the only way to do a GUI. Linux appeals to the people who know that that is a bunch of garbage.

And if the home user's emphasis is on running applications, what's this got to do with the desktop of window manager anyway. It doesn't make any difference whether I'm running Open Office under Gnome, KDE, Enlightenment, or whatever. The application looks the same (aside from the decorations that the windowing manager places on the windows), works the same, etc. (Granted that some ``drag-n-drop'' functions might work a little differently but that still, IMHO, boils down to ``our's is the One True Way'' attitude.)

So why is he bitching about having multiple GUIs/desktops? Because it might make the developer's job a little harder? [insert sounds of violins playing sorrowful music] But I thought this was all about the home user. Our friendly editor ought to give the home user a little bit more credit for having a brain that works and can figure out the minor differences that a change in the computer's desktop might thrust upon them.

Uniformity in computer desktops might make sense in a corporate environment where the support people have to move from system to system on a regular basis fixing problems. This would be (probably) slower if every user had a different desktop. But how many home users are running over to their neighbor's house, using their computer, and complaining that the desktop is different?

I agree...

[herrvinny]

I don't want to be flamebait here, but he does make a good point. Almost every day, someone (computer-illiterate) calls me up and asks some stupid question on computers, because they know I'm the computer geek in the area. For example, you know the online ads that sometimes look like Windows error message? I have had so many inquiries concerning whether they were real that I had to write up a paper debunking those things and distribute it to everyone I work with.
And to all the people who say it doesn't matter whether -illiterate users use Linux, it really does matter. Whether we like it or not, lots of decisions are made by computer illiterate people, and they have grown up on Windows, and know no other way to use a computer. Linux has to become as easy to use as Windows. And yes, for all those Win-haters out there, you have my sympathy, but face it: Linux has to start making serious inroads into Windows market share, and to do that, Linux has to appeal to the -illiterate people of the world.

The often-ballyhoo'd "WASTE OF TIME"

[andy_geek]

Yet again, people are really spending energy wringing their hands over just how we can have a Linux desktop overtake Windows and thus solve the world's problems and blah blah blah...

What a total waste of time and energy. That ship has sailed. Linux-heads should use whatever GUI or shell they want, but focus on creating the GUI for the next killer app. Micro$soft already has established itself as the (albeit majorly flawed and utterly ugly) standard in this arena. Again, I sound like a broken record here, but Gates and Ballmer are not worried about Linux (or anyone else) chipping into their desktop dominance (server and enterpise dominance is, obviously, a whole other story). Instead, they are spending time R&D'ing (or, more likely, deciding on what other companies' technologies they are going to cherry pick and prey upon for themselves) the future of the computer or the 'net or what have you. Yup, they will do a shitty job. But if they're spending their energy on tomorrow and we're spending our energy on yesterday, who do you think is going to "win", exactly?

Input devices are where it's at right now...

[Trolling4Dollars]

...don't miss the boat folks!

I completely agree with you on this. The real issue is that computers are STILL not "easy to use". It doesn't matter what OS is on the box, there is a simple fact:

To get the most complete use out of your computer, you really need to interact with it on it's level. This means CLI and scripting.

Conversely:

To get the most ease of use out of your computer, it really needs to interact with you on your level. This means a user interface that is based on faulty human communication (verbal, facial expressions, gestures, posture, etc...) We're not there yet. However, this is what the Linux crowd should focus on instead of trying to imitate what's already been done.

1. Create new input devices that take advantage of these "human" modes of communication
2. Create support within the base OS for these new input devices

Will this be easy? No. Will it beat the pants off of all current OSes? You bet. Isn't that what we all want? Yes.

Re:Input devices are where it's at right now...

[Anonymous Coward]

The power of choice is needed, and goes far far further then all the article or this comments go... To give you an easy example, to the visual chalanged, the best Operating System is Micro$oft Windoze, and, hey, I completely hate Windoze... The question in all things is: what can -YOU- do about it, besides ranting? Easy... Picking, again, on the example of GUI's, if you think that GUI's should be standardized, you just have to simply choose what's the best GUI for you ATM and help it's development, make it the BEST GUI... and the choice is automaticly done. There are three major (realy good) GUI's, and the reaction to that by, for instance, Mandrake, was to include the three of them in their instalation... IF one day KDE and GNOME grow really really well and mark a great difference, Mandrake will probably include only those two, and most people will probably use one of those two... If you prefer, let's say, KDE, help them, help KDE to be THE BEST, reactions about that will do the rest... This is the power of choice, my friends, and people will tend to choose the best.

Mind Booster Noori

Re:Input devices are where it's at right now...

[gcalvin]

First project -- when you deliver a sharp verbal "NO!" to your computer and smack it with a rolled-up newspaper, it should stop whatever it's doing, whimper, and try something else. The AI community hasn't made nearly enough progress in the rolled-up-newspaper-recognition field.

"Desktop Linux Standards Commitee" anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody well respected in the linux community should start a sort of "Desktop Linux Standards Committee" where a standard is defined for how the user and the computer interact with one another in a home or office desktop/laptop environment. Standards would range from how the GUI works, to configuring ones system, to refining command line switches that most console apps use.

Re:XP FUD

[oni]

Install printer: Connect printer, wait, print.

10 seconds of google revealed this:
http://www.psy.vanderbilt.edu/staff/jody/co pyroomp rinter.html#Win2k

Steps to install a network printer under XP:
Go to your printer control panel
Double-click the "Add Printer" icon
Select "local" rather than "network"
Click on the "Add Port" button
Select tcp/ip as the type
Type in the ip address 129.59.231.119 and click the "Next" button
Click on "Finish"
Select the "HP Laserjet 1200 series" printer
Click "Next" or "Finish" through the remaining steps

Steps to install network printer under 98:
Choose "Specify the network printer by address" and then click Next.
Select "IP address" and type "129.59.231.119" into the space provided, and click Next
Choose "Configure network settings for me".
Choose "Install a driver from a printer installation disk or driver file". Browse to where the .inf file is located (most likely "c:\lj1200n").
Type a name for the Printer and click "Next".
When presented with a summary click "Install".
Click "Finish".

Those instructions are nothing alike. I stand by my assertion that the UI has changed sufficiently between 98 and XP to make it confusing for users.

Alter network settings: Control pannel, Networking, Right click, Properties, Click on TCP/IP, adjust values.

right click the network neighborhood icon in 98 and select properties and you go right to the dialog box you mention. Right click it in XP and you get the "Network Connections" box. Select local area connection and then you get the dialog. There's an extra step in XP. So again, I stand by the assertion that 98 and XP are different.

You and I might not be confused by these differences, but average Joe is. Let's not lose track of the point of the article. It said that people do not adopt Linux because the UIs of the window managers are different. My point is that this is also true of Windows and so the article is kind of irrelavent.

Exactly

[RAMMS EIN]

``...the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.''

True. There are some developers who care about this, and write software for the average user. There are other developers who write software for themselves or for a third party, and they can completely ignore the average user. The open source community consists of both types of developer.

"In particular he argues that the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on, and that they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any applications they might want to use."

Which is why I hate it when apps depend on GNOME or KDE so much. Many (especially KDE) applications make good use of the extra functionality these desktop environments provide, but others require the GNOME or KDE libraries to be installed for no good reason.

Re:Why do we need to conquer the Home Desktop, aga

[richg74]

You know, I've always wondered about this.

And I think you are right to wonder. Articles along the lines of this one come out pretty regularly. And I agree that, for the home user (call her "Grandma") who wants to regard the computer as an appliance, a standardized environment is necessary. (I find it useful to remind myself that this is the AOL market.) My personal experience is that these users can't do much of anything, in Windows or (probably) any other environment, without hand-holding.

However, I'm not sure that going after that market is the best way to advance Linux. The original adoption of home PCs was by people who wanted a machine like the one they had at work, or at school. And, I think, that dynamic still applies, which makes much of this standardization issue moot.

I was working as an IT Director when the original PC appeared. People came and asked what they should get in order to have at home the same capability that they had at work. We were happy to tell them; in fact, we had a ~3 page writeup (or mini-HOWTO, if you prefer ;-). It was certainly a hell of a lot easier than setting them up for remote access to the mainframe.

Of course, it would be a Good Thing if there were a common API for the windowing environment, which the different window managers implemented in their own ways. (By this I do not mean a common API to the exclusion of anything else.) I think, though, that the place to focus for advancing Linux is the corporate / business desktop market. I'd love to see Linux get a significant piece of that market.

Remember, Grandma didn't get her PC because she thought it would be cool to have one; she got it because she wanted to have E-mail and pics from the grandkids (and they probably set it up for her).

Rich
SCO delenda est.

MOD PARENT UP

[vorpal22]

I couldn't agree more. If developers were more usability-savvy, I think Linux could have some serious potential to make an impact in the desktop market. As things stand now, Linux is written by geeks from a geek perspective, and I don't think geeks know how to dumb it down enough for your average user, nor do they have the patience to sink down to that level and cater to the mentality of the computer unaware.

Best quote is another lie.

[twitter]

The general public cares as little about computers as "we" do about how our cars operate. We just want to get in them and drive.

You can just drive free software as easily as the next M$ junk.

Bob's main argument was that it's just too hard to develop free software GUI aplications because of the wide variety and choice of free software tools. This is the same lie taken up one level. It's not any harder to use KDE tools for software development than it is to use Visual Studio and the free tools are beter than the expensive and restrictive one the same way the restrictive and expensive interface is inferior to the free ones.

Microsoft is desperate to keep people enslaved to developing for their platform. Wben they can't get there by making soemething worthwhile, they simply lie. Microsoft's standing is so low right now that their representatives have to conceal who they work for. I don't know if this poor Russell Jones is bought or just ignorant, but what he says makes no sense and fits the general M$ FUD pattern.

Re:Best quote is another lie.

[westlake]

I don't know if this poor Russell Jones is bought or just ignorant

How wonderfully convenient life becomes, when everyone who disagrees with you is either foolish or corrupt.

Oh no, not slashdot, too

[Cyno]

I just read this on osnews.

GNOME or KDE?

Pepsi or Coke?

I think we should standardize on Coke. Everyone agree? Alright then.

One has to ask..

[DarkDust]

do we really want Linux to become mainstream ? Do we really want that Joe Average avoids Windows and uses Linux instead ?

I personally am happy with the Linux culture as it is: we aren't lacking anything important (except good games, but even here we can use emulators and binary compability layers (WINE)).

The Linux culture consists mainly of people who can use their brains and understand at least the main principles of how computers work. Having Joe Average in this culture would make it less nerdy and thus not a place I'd feel home :-)

I don't think the average user ...

[Savage-Rabbit]

... is quite as galactically stupid as Microsoft/Apple seem to think. Microsoft for one has been very reluctant to introduce new features on its desktop. Just for example it has Microsoft years to finally produce a usable virtual desktop manager and even then it is not a part of the standard Windows XP installation. It is hidden on an obscure webpage deep inside the Microsoft website under the label "Power toys". I have introduced quite a number of "average Windows users" to the MSVDM and none of them took more than 60 seconds to grasp the concept of Multiple desktops.

Re:I don't think the average user ...

[Dot.Com.CEO]

You are very correct about the multiple desktop thingy. It is one of the things I love in Linux desktops. I cannot understand why the hell they don't install it as standard...

Re:I don't think the average user ...

[buckinm]

Just for example it has Microsoft years to finally produce a usable virtual desktop manager and even then it is not a part of the standard Windows XP installation. It is hidden on an obscure webpage deep inside the Microsoft website under the label "Power toys". I have introduced quite a number of "average Windows users" to the MSVDM and none of them took more than 60 seconds to grasp the concept of Multiple desktops. Actually, the resource kit for windows nt version 3.1 (1.0 in microsoft numbers) had this feature. That was what, 1994?

Is this really a problem??

[Dastardly]

Ok. Maybe I am dense and have not delved into the depths of what works with KDE what works with Gnome and what doesn't. But, in my experience which desktop I choose doesn't change which applications I can run. Gnome programs will run in KDE and KDE apps will run in Gnome as long as both are installed and hence libraries installed.

About the only thing I can think of that is needed is an installer that will put a program you install into both desktop's menus. Otherwise a distribution maker can decide to standardize on one desktop and still have any program run just by installing the right libraries.

If I have missed something please let me know.

Dastardly

Re:Is this really a problem??

[tomhudson]

You got it right :-) There were problems concerning interoperability between Gnome and KDE, but the 2 groups are ironing them out (which is a good thing, and pretty muck kills off the main thrust of the article).

Of course, these are only 2 of many window managers that area available, but it seems to me that in most of them, the user can add an item to the menu if he/she wants.

This article gets it right.

[clifgriffin]

I know Windows inside an out. My first computer had 2mb of RAM and a 200mb hard drive with Windows 3.0. I had to everything in DOS of course because Windows 3.0 would crash if you tried to add more than the minimum amount of Program Groups or do anything productive.

I've climbed the windows ladder and I consider myself a very advanced user. I understand how computers work and I've spent the last 2+ years repairing them as part of my job. Basically: I know windows inside and out.

This article really hits home with me. I have a friend who has been pushing me to switch to linux. He's an uber geek who's been using Linux since Red Hat 1 and now uses Slackware 9 and OpenBSD. With his influence, and my love of adventure and something new I explored several distributions of Linux. Starting with Red Hat, Mandrake, Lycoris (yuck), Debian, and finally Slackware.

All of the reasons I was told I'd love linux didn't ring true for me and really harmed my tolerance for it.

Here are some reasons that I was told I would love Linux.

1. Freedom from MS.
Well that's all well and nice, but as a competent windows user, I personally am indifferent with MS. I don't like their bullying tatics and screwing of Java, but I like their OSs and Windows XP Pro hasn't done me wrong...in Beta, RC, or RTM. Freedom from MS sounds like "Freedom from the occult." and isn't going to win over very many competent windows users. The users that may be lured in by this are the people that don't know how to use their computers, and consequently blame MS for every computer related problem they have. What they really need is a nice etch-a-sketch.

2. Free as in free speech, not as in beer.
For me, my experience with Linux was based on it being free...and free as in beer. Here again, the marketing seemed to target me similar to how TV evangelists do. Linux isn't a religion, but I'd be darned to tell the difference from the rantings of most Linux enthusiasts. I don't really care what kind of "free" it is. I'm willing to pay for quality, that isn't the issue with me.

3. Freedom of Choice
I like freedom of choice, but the choice offered by Linux is freedom of doing whatever you want with whatever you want whenever you want. While that may make the true uber geek's heart race with excitement, for me it is an obstacle...especially as a new Linux user. What boot manager do I use...Lilo or Grub? What Window manager do I use? Besides the standard KDE and Gnome there are 13,000 other glorious choices for you! This doesn't make sense to your average windows user. For many windows fans, the standard interface is a feature. I can write software and know without a shadow of a doubt that Windows will run it. I don't have to support a variety of popular window managers all with non standard features. As I began my journey with Linux I was parlyzed by choice, not freed. Most users want consistency, not an Operating System that begs you to choose between 100s of possible configurations.

3. Open Source
I was told that Open Source was fantastic because if I found a bug I could actually fix the source and recompile. How great is that?! Well to most users, that is meaningless. Even though I have development experience, and have a few pet projects I do on the side....there is no attractiveness to the idea of fixing someone else's code. If Linux users were smart they'd portray Open Source not in a "you can fix the bugs" light, but in a "you are freed from stringent licenses and can truly use the software to YOUR benefit (be that modifying to your delight or whatever)" light. I love Open Source software, but it has little to do with being able to fix someone else's coding problems.

4. Lastly, Those Hidden Suprises
My first linux outing was with Red Hat, Mandrake, and Lycoris. After using these 3 I was ready to dump Linux forever. All of the things I'd been told were so great about Linux had been meaningless to me and all I was left with was an Operating System generally harder and more confusing to use than

These people keep making the same mistake

[kfg]

Thinking of Linux as a "product" of a "developer."

It isn't, although the evidence suggests this is a hard concept for those trained as consumers of software to grasp.

As I'm just a few years younger than RMS hisself I'm old enough to still find the concept of "consuming" software rather hard to grasp.

OK, here's something for these people and the Linux folk to find hard to grasp. When Linus says his goal is "world domination" it's a joke.

What's more, freedom of choice not only precludes a standard GUI, but includes Windows as a relevant choice.

Linux will only replace Windows as a major desktop platform when people wish to use it more than Windows. That includes its built in panoply of choices.

Everybody just get used to the idea.

KFG

Artical Misses the Point

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of GNU software is about freedom to do what you want. There is no GNU corp (R) that is competing with Microsoft. It dosn't matter who has more market share or which is better. GNU software exists on its own. That said, who cares if there are two window managers! If we give up our right to do what we want (ie two windows mangers) we will just become polrized to microsoft, GNU software will be pointless. If joe six pack is confused by two window managers he will never understand /dev and a million other things. He is better off with windows, and I don't think GNU lost to much from this.
-James

Re:Artical Misses the Point

[jtev]

Ok, anyone who's been reading my other posts is going to think I'm being inconsistant, but stick with me. WE WANT JOE SIX PACK. Joe Sixpack brings developers for all sorts of interesting toys to us, like games, it brings us greedy developers, which IMNSHO is a good thing. Greedy developers put out apps that sell, Greedy Developers in the Linux world will have to compete against GNU software, so think about how their need to make a buck is going to drive the software development. That said, we shoudldn't destroy Linux/the Unix Philosophy to get Joe Sixpack, we should teach Joe how cool Linux is on his terms, these are the people for whom "HEY! WATCH THIS" is a part of the everyday vocabulary. they like flash, they like speed, they like polish, basicaly they like chrome. Windows has gone to a pussy sickly interface, the mac has gone all most modern on us, we need to strike while the metal is hot, people are having to chose a new interface, and the metal will get even hotter with longhorn, MS is breaking their own backward compatablity. Why pay $200 for longhorn? I'll give you Linux for FREE and we'll buy a keg for what you would have spent on Longhorn. I've never seen ANYONE have trouble with Linux interfaces after being shown how to use them. and these same people needed to be shown how to use Windows. I have trouble using windows and I use it every day, On Linux, no troubles, everything just works the way I expect it to. Of course when I get a new install, the first thing I do is set my system up so it works the way I expect it to, but hey, what can you do?

Linux IS a monoculture with no choice

[TheAncientHacker]

Choice is bad. Monoculture is good. To beat windows you have to become like windows etc. etc. yada yada yada..

And that is precisely why Linux isn't taken seriously for users.

There IS no choice in Linux and it IS a Monoculture. The "choices" are between one half-finished clone of Windows and another half-finished clone of Windows. Given those choices, users will pick the finished original version of Windows. And they do by the millions while Slashdotters repeatedly debate whether one half-finished clone is better than the other half-finished clone or whether being "free" requires you to use both half-finished clones along with two or three other quarter-finished clones.

To beat windows you have to become better than Windows rather than "really just as good for all the things I think matter". But that takes innovation, thought and disciplined design rather than wasting huge amounts of talent cloning the Windows UI and pasting it on a cloned Unix core.

Re:Linux IS a monoculture with no choice

[Jondor]

Half finished depends on what you use. Since all the tools I need are supported more than adequate for my needs linux is finished enough for daily use.

More, linux is beter than windows in a number of aspects which matter for me. First of all, for now virusses and worms are hardly a problem.
I hardly ever have to reboot, uptime measured in months are no big deal either.
When I do get an error at least I get something which I can copy into a message, post in a newsgroup and actually get an answer.

The biggest mistake open source can make IMHO is to follow MS in their "usefriendly equals stupid users".
When I want to learn to ride a bike it will take me a few days. A car? a nice number of lessons. And still MS wants the world to believe that using a computer is a matter of turning on and everything will be obviouse.

Linux/kde (my personal favorite) is more than ready for everybody who is realistic about learning a different environment. And take it from me, after working with different interfaces for some 25 years now, kde and gnome are not "difficult" or "not ready". They are just a different environment with some of their own pecularities.
Considering that windows is in it's 6th incarnation now (not counting windows 1 and 2 who hardly anybody ever saw: win3, 95, 98, me, 2000 and xp) and still needs a new and improved interface with every new version AND still has a nice amount of inconsistencies, I think KDE3 is quite nicely humming along.

But he, if you're happy with windows, please use it. After all, I want choice, so why would I deny somebody else his or her preference..

He's right!

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is absolutely right!
Here is how we are going to fix things:

I _demand_ that all gnome developers immediately transfer to kde development
I _demand_ that all application developers immediately port all there apps to kde/qt and from now on only use kde/qt
I _demand_ that fluxbox, waimea, icewm, ratpoison, and all those other window managers get wiped off the face of the earth

I, am one last thing:

I _demand_ that all command line support be dropped from linux

true but.

[dash2]

This guy is completely right, but it's not as bad as he thinks.

First, there are serious efforts being made to interoperate between the major desktop - e.g. freedesktop.org.

Second, Linux's first desktop target, according to industry analysts, is very large corporate desktops - where Linux's security, the ability to have defaults set by a sysadmin, and low TCO are winners. In this space, Linux doesn't have to be perfect - nor does it have to allow users to install "any old application". It just has to be good enough.

I suspect that as Linux desktop developers' experience grows from these initial big installs, they will develop the capabilities to move into the mainstream home market - which is much more picky, has user demand for much more varied apps, and also doesn't make much cash. But even if this doesn't happen, I don't mind if Windows maintains market share here. So long as its total monopoly is broken, that is the main thing.

i think we're missing the point...

[TheJOsh!(tm)]

of the article, here. nowhere in his writing does the author advocate the dismissal of choice. I believe the intended message was not for "one gui to rule them all" but to come up with a basic set of standards so that in the event of a user, who is familiar with IceWM, sitting down in front of a gnome/kde setup, said user will be capable executing simple tasks, like (supposedly) installing a program.
It also suggests that there should be a basic framework for the development of and/or for any given gui, so IF you decide upon an alternate gui, you are garunteed that the applications you prefer will just plan work. now, IANAP, at least not at the level of P'ing a window manager, but I would assume that this type of deal would include such things as a standard path for where documents should be saved as default, where menu items are to be placed, application look/feel, etc.

remember, the idea is not to limit choice, for that is the foundation of GNU/linux's greatness. the idea is to allow a user some amount of familiarity/interoperability across distro/GUI.

Always and Forever,

I don't see your point.

[twitter]

What's my point? The basic home Windows user would just give up at this point. ;)

Have you tried putting XP on that poor PII thinkpad? Good freaking luck.

Is there any good site with detailed comparison's of them that the average joe user could find?

Do you really want to read a detailed book about GUIs? Next time, try CD distro like Knoppix or Suse Live. Both of these CDs will run from your CDROM and give you an idea of what you want. Give it a shot in that old thinkpad, in time you might even rescue it.

The average home user does not install OSs. By the time they get to that point they can go free just as easily as they can go Windoze.

Thank-you Thank-you...

[SerpentMage]

If I had any mod points I would give them too you.

Could not have said it better myself...

I always found it wierd too. People want choice except when it comes to computer programs... WIERD...

Re:Thank-you Thank-you...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had any mod points I would give them too you.

If I had any spelling left, I would give it to you.

skinning stupid interfaces

[Anonymous Coward]

i've seen a lot of stupid incompatibilities.. for example, the browsers. if you want to access the preference/options window, in IE, it's tools > options. in Mozilla, it's edit > preferences. in Opera, it's file > options. for the address bar/location bar -- for IE, alt-D. for mozilla, ctrl-L. for opera, F6 or something. why make users hunt-and-peck? i like skinning not just because "it looks cooler", but also it has a potential of one day letting the user choose how the software behaves. this will reduce the learning curve if i can make the new software behave like the old software through skinning.

Interoperation

[Li0n]

It's not the non-standarization of the GUI what bothers me. It's the fact that copy/paste, drag'n'drop and other things that you can take for granted on Windows, do not work quite right most of the time.

Re: every few months...

[tomhudson]

I don't get how imposing a "standard" desktop is going to help things. Look at games. No standard interface, and a standard interface would actually detract from the final product.

I also don't see why we keep hearing this argument every few months (oh, sorry, this is /., where dupes are a way of life :-)

We actually do have a "standard of sorts", it's just a "multiple-choice" standard. A login window with a selection of UIs. The end user will try them all out (just like under Windows they try all the theme packs) and pick the one they like the most.

Getting tired of this comparison

[brettlbecker]

I don't know about anyone else (and from the amount of Linux vs. Windows articles here, it seems I'm in the minority), but I am getting sick and tired of having Linux compared to Windows. I'm tired of the "battle for the desktop"; I'm tired of "Linux needs to be able to be used by my grandma". I'm tied of "Linux needs a single desktop so it's more friendly to new converts".

From the beginning, Linux has been about choice. That is one of the main, major features of the free software movement. I hate it when people constantly say, "well, we need to make it easier for people who use Windows to switch to Linux..." No we don't. I used to use Windows. I got sick of it. I switched. I wasn't all that tech-savvy... I didn't even know about the different desktops. I just picked one, tried it, look at another, tried it... went back to the first one. Along the way, I've learned about all of this stuff, but at the beginning it was the idea that something was out there that did things *differently* from Windows that was appealing.

Linux, the whole free software movement, has come this far on the merits of stability, cost, scalability, and user *choice*. We don't have to bribe people from Windows by making Linux look and feel the same way--I hate how Windows looks and feels. This community just has to keep on with what got it here in the first place, and people will continue to switch.

And if they don't, well, fine. Because it's a choice. And, frankly, I couldn't care less if your grandma can use Linux or not. Same with Joe Sixpack, whoever that moron is.

Stop with the articles that try to tell the free software community that it's better to be like Windows, that it's better to unify this and unify that and make everything all even-keeled and solidified. The antithesis of a single answer, the opposite track of Windows is what started it off on the road upon which it has come so far.

B

Re:Getting tired of this comparison

[kryptkpr]

Where are the mod points when you need them.. amen brother.

two words:

[gsfprez]

Microsoft Office.

There has never been in the last 15 years a platform which survived without it.

I'd dare say, forget MS Office. I'd cut it off at Microsft Word.

this is not an endorcement of Word, Lord knows those who've ever worked near me in a cubicle could attest to the terets (sp?)-like totally random "FSCK!" or "MOTHERFSCKING PIECE OF SHIT!" that spews from my office/cubicle over the years.

But i've supported labs, sold computers at Computer City (the shame), and have gone against the grain installing Macs on networks all by themselves when I was told there was no way it could be done (which was totally bogus) - and the first, deciding, and vectoring question is, has been, and seems like it always shall be...

does it have Microsoft Word installed?

and until there is a form/fit/finish application called Triclosloth Werd for Linux (or anything else, for that matter) - you have no possibility of survival in a PHB-powered environment.

i am damn scared and petrified at the prospect of Mac OS X 10.3 and its ability to read/write .doc files.. because Microsoft only has to get the HINT that Apple is going to "go it alone", and all of us Mac users, in my very pessimistic opinion, are totaly and completely fscked.

i'm not saying i like it - i'm saying tell me i'm wrong, and prove it to me.

He is wrong.

[Captain Rotundo]

Well thats a little harsh, since I havent read the article. But all I can say is that my GNOME desktops are vastly more "usable" than any windows machine I sit down at. First off the windows widgets are so ugly that every 3rd party developer make their own pretty skin (which mean you can never figure out how to use app app based familiarity) just look at Norton AV, McAfee AV, Nero 6, Zonealarm for four different apps with for different widget sets, that all suck. (notice how the only apps I even run in windows are firwalls and anti-virus scanners :)

now add to that the absurdity of the dialog layouts and you have a mess. Invariably when someone wants to "tweak" some feature it involves finding a control panel icon, then clicking on at least one tab, then diggin through a scrollable list with checkboxes and radio buttons intermixed, or perhaps an "Advanced" button and a second or third dialog each with six tabs, it goes on and on. (don't even get me started on the registry editor if god forbid you have to fix/change something in there.

I am absolutely dumbfounded that people call windows "usable" when it has these major faults that make it confusing and annoying at every turn.
here is a little example a coworker wanted to re-associate PDF files with acrobat today, so I had to:
1) open a folder
2) click "view"
3) click "Folder Options"
4) click the "File types" tab
5) search through a list, only to NOT find an entry for PDF files
6) remember that you can Shift-RightClick a file and choose what to open it with.
7) close all those windows and find a PDF file, then shift-click it and choose acrobat, and check the "alays use this program..." box.
8) click OK, then close acrobat.

I just did it on my machine to see what it would take:

1) Click "Applications" AKA "the foot menu"
2) select "Desktop Prefs->Advanced->Filetypes"
3) Select from a simple list "Documents"
4) under docuements I choose "published materials"
5) BINGO next I see "PDF document" and select that
6) Click edit.

All my choices for PDF files are available right there. And I have never edited a file association in GNOME before, yet after doing it many times in windows I still had to try two different methods.

Good idea NOT

[SmallFurryCreature]

Elections are a waste of time. I am sure that if I got to gether with some smart people I could easily select the perfect leader with the right policies that certianly any rightthinking person would want for this country.

For some reason however dictatorships are not welcomed. Odd really according to this articles reasoning people would enjoy having their choice taken away from them.

Yes there are a shitload of windows/desktop managers for linux. The two major ones Gnome and KDE (in no particular order I prefer enlightenment). It is a little thing called choice. I am sure there are plenty of people who prefer windows who say why are there so many different OSes? Wouldn't it be better if everyone worked on one?

You like KDE you say. Great for you. Now do a little history check. Was KDE the first desktop manager for linux? No? Then you mean that KDE yourselve broke that people should select 1 standard and stick to that. But no KDE came about because some people thought they could do something different and better then what was already out there. This is how things evolve and change. By people trying something different from the already established.

People who complain about Linux not being able to compete with windows because it is not windows enough alike for me are missing the fundamental reason for linux existence. Freedom to thinker. Linux, blessed be his name, did not write linux to overthrow Bill Gates. He wrote it because he thought "what the hey, lets see if I can do this" The orignal post

Linux was a unix for the intel platform. Mmm, kinda like minix then. So should according to your reasoning he simply have put his efforts in this project?

Freedom means allowing people to do things that ain't neccesarly in your own best intrest. Or for that matter their own. Every single invention ever made was made because somebody was not satisfied with the status quo and went outside the accepted solutions to fix it.

For those worrying about Linux not competing with MS, get a life. MS tried and failed with xenix. It then took them a decade to finally get accepted in the office and until a few years ago if you had suggested putting windows in server room people would be telling you that those make it way to easy for burglars to enter.

Is the goal of the free software community to force everyone to use Linux/Gnu/KDE or is it to allow people freedom to work with computers in their own way without being told by somekind of central authority what is best for them?

I now use gentoo, why? Not because it is faster or easier. But because it at least still uses the same boring old text mode bootup that tells me what the fuck MY system is doing. I use enlightenment because it manages my windows without wasting space on taskbars I don't want. My computer, my linux, my freedom. Rememeber in soviet russia/corporate america/gutless europe your desktop is chosen for you :)

choice

[hetairoi]

Mr. Blackitt - That's what linux is all about. That's why it's the OS for me. That's why it's the OS for anyone who respects the individual and the indivudual's right to decide for him or herself. When Linus released his code in 1991, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but 12 years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas, ..... and, linux doesn't stop at the simple window manager! Oh, no! I can use Debian if I want.

Mrs. Blackitt - You what?

Mr. Blackitt - Debian, RedHat, Mandrake, Lindows. Distributions that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the user experience.

Mrs. Blackitt - Have you got them?

Mr. Blackitt - Have I got them? Uh, well, no, but I can get on the internet any time I want and log into an FTP site and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, "Harry, I want to download a distribution. In fact, today, I think I'll have Debian, for I am a Linux user."

Mrs. Blackitt - Well, why don't you?

Mr. Blackitt - But they -- Well, they cannot, 'cause their OS never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of Microsoft's proprietary supremacy.

Narrator #1 - But despite the attempts of linux users to promote the idea of programming for pleasure, windows desktops continued to multiply everywhere.

with respect to MP

Maybe look at it this way...

[theskipper]

bool idealworld = true;
{
Imagine guis/window managers didn't exist. Then, as authors of "Linux GUI 1.0", could you argue that it would make sense to generate a set of interface standards for ease-of-use? Would it make sense to publish application guidelines for "File/Save/.." for developers to decide whether they want to follow or not? Then, what benefit would there be in not following them?

If the above are accepted as worthwhile by a group willing to expend time on the effort, then it doesn't matter whether it happens to be competing with/copying Msft or Apple or any other reason. Implicitly, it would abide by the Linux philosophy of just doing things right.

If not, then life goes on and the answer was derived without outside bias.

Disclaimer: As a Windows developer by day, I happen to prefer using Bluecurve at night.
}

idealworld = false;

the real problem is one of program design

[lordcorusa]

And you have hit upon a major problem in the software world today, one which is not really getting better.

All program functionality code should be totally insulated from the user interface code. For example, take the Evolution PIM. Theoretically, all of the functionality should be written in a fully portable manner with a completely documented functionality-to-UI barrier. Think the bridge design pattern. This way, anyone who wished to make KDEvolution would merely have to fire up a Qt/KDE GUI designer and then link all of the event hooks into the libEvolution backend. The same could, in theory, be done for Windows, the MacOSX GUI toolkit, etc... That way, libEvolution itself would not depend on Gtk or Gnome, but at most Glib, while Evolution could depend on Gnome and KDEvolution could depend on KDE, etc... The Gaim project seems to be on the right track with this, as the major goal of the 1.0 push seems to be the complete separation of GUI and backend code. Also, Ximian is redoing the OpenOffice UI, so hopefully they will keep this in mind and do it in a modular way.

There are several barriers to this software design methodology actually reaching widespread adoption. For one, proper separation is difficult, and it requires a lot of thought and design before coding begins, or else it is very painful to do after the fact. The easier path for the naive coder is to mingle UI and functional code, ergo we have a big problem on our hands today.

Another problem is that people have vested interests. For example, Ximian, which controls the development of Evolution, has a vested interest in the Gnome desktop, and would probably not rearchitect Evolution merely for the benefit of KDE users. A fork could happen, but that would probably just end up making things more complex rather than less.

Finally, our infrastructure is not really ready to fully allow for this. Right now, it would be technically possible to separate Evolution functionality and UI and make a KDE version with the same featureset, but KDEvolution would be likely to feel very different from Gnome Evolution, which is a bad thing for end users. We really need a middle layer, between the raw functionality layer and the UI presentation layer. Basically, we need a layer which specifies the abstract program layout, without specifying any concrete GUI widgets. That way, KDEvolution developers would not have to redo the GUI from the ground up, but would simply implement the specified abstract interface in Qt/KDE. To my knowledge, such a middle layer does not exist, but this is what we really need to create and standardize on.

Re:the real problem is one of program design

[Hitch]

this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. a note of interest - the IM client I was using (Everybuddy) has ceased updates to their main body of code and is going back to the drawing board to do exactly this (without the middleware part). Because I was so used to the "is it gnome? is it kde? what?" issue, I was afraid (since I saw the first frontend they were writing for it was Qt) that I was going to have to go get all the Qt stuff - and then read on and realized what was happening. very nifty. Thanks for illustrating (very clearly) what I was trying to say (very clumsily)...

Re: every few months...

[pmz]

I have not met one person who looks at an XP desktop after using Windows for years and gets lost. Ever.

Really? Lots and lots of non-cosmetic thing have changed in Windows over the years. Windows is only superficially consistent, and people just poke around until they find where something has been moved. Saying that Windows 95 was the only real change is generalizing a bit too much.

Linux is a kernel not a windowing system

[Dewin Cymraeg]

Surprised I have to say this, but Linux is a kernel, not an OS. Standardising the GUI for a kernel would be like an engine designer specifying a car's shell shape. The problem is precisely in trying to market 'Linux' as an OS rather than as an OS component. However, I think the biggest problem has more to do with the suitability of Linux (as a kernel) for desktop machines. I read somewhere that changes have been made for 2.6 for providing better UI response - only time will tell whether this improves the user-perceived performance, which is what users (including myself) are interested in. Excellence on the desktop means performance as much as it means usability. When I start Mozilla or Firebird, I want it to appear immediately, not have to count to 10 first. Where are the latencies? In the app? the GNOME environment? X itself? Is X really a good model for fast performance? These are the questions we should be asking.

sorry about you being the target for this

[jtev]

The car analaogy people use is utter and complete bullshit, people talk about it as a unified interface, however only one part of the interface is standardised, the petals and the steering wheel. past that every car is different, some are manuals, some are automatics, some shift in the floor, some in the steering column, and don't even get me started on the types and placements of headlight controls. The hood release is in different places, the radio works differently, some have power locks, some don't some have power windows, some don't, some have remote keyless entry some don't, some have power sliding side doors, and the list goes on. CARS ARE NOT CONSISTANT.

That said people still buy cars, in fact they are one of the most popular consumer goods in the world. I think we should take CHOICE from cars, and marketing from cars, but looking at cars as an ideal of consistancy is utter and complete tripe.

Re:sorry about you being the target for this

[jlechem]

Yes but anyone who has a drivers licencse can sit down in a car and just drive it. Barring of course the difference between automatics and stick shifts. The placement of switches is irrelevent. People can sit down and go somewhere with very little trouble because all cars have the same basic parts needed in almost the exact same place. Has this destroyed the competition in the car industry? I think not, I think that's the kind of thoughts the author of the article had.

Duh.

[Gryphon]

Predictability in interfaces is a key component of good usability.

Apple knew this and made it a reality in 1984.

Windows and Windows applications try for it but fail miserably.

I haven't used Linux and the various GUI environments lately, but the lack of a standardized GUI, bottom line, is most definitely a problem for the average home user or corporate user. Period.

Re: every few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

``I still end up spending too much time figuring out where to go to change themes or resolutions.''

Maybe it's just me...

But why the heck are you changing your themes and screen resolutions so frequently that this is a problem? Many people do real work on their computers. And then there are some people who spend their day changing themes, wallpapers, etc.

``Ooh! It's 10:30! Let's try 1280x1024.''

Sure wish I could stick around but my RAIDset build is done and I've got files to move. (After I switch themes, of course. ;-) )

Why I disagree with the author

[Lysol]

First off, Linux is a kernel. Nothing more, nothing less. For him to say it is an OS and not an operating environment is half true. It is neither.

Now, to the choice vs. standardization.

Choice:
----------
This is important, like he says, to two types: end-user companies and developers.

Companies, because a lot of the time, they can leverage in-house talent and avoid costly toolkits and APIs. Simple. You complete the project and save money, everyone will probably like you in the office. You might even get a bonus. ;)

Developers because they can code in and for the environment that are most used to. Simple. I've done a lot of coding in Java and while I like it for some things, it's really too complicated for more simple jobs that Perl, Python, or PHP can do well.

Standardization
--------------------
This is only useful to end-users and end-user companies. While standards are important a lot of the time for developers to code to, there is ample proof and example that this is not adheared to as much as it maybe should be. And there is plenty industry noise about why integrated propreitary is better.

For end users, yes, they want something familiar. For home users, the browser is irrelevant - a browser is a browser and anyone, even my parents, can figure out Mozilla or IE.

What else do home users use? Well, AOL, Quicken, Word, Excel and maybe a few others. Mind you, I'm talking aobut the end-end users, not business or power end-users.

I would also argue that if they used GnuCash instead of Quicken or OpenOffice vs. Office, that there would be a little bit of a learning curve, but it wouldn't be traumatic. They just need to be able to get the data from one platform to the other, which that, though, can be a problem. Open file formats are much more important, to me, than GUI standardizations, but that's a whole other issue.

As for company end-users, they have training sessions specifically to educate them on how to use an app. If it costs a company less to use GNU/Linux distro and re-train vs. pay for another product and os upgrade, then they'll do it. And all those people will go to class. And then they'll get back to work.
I've set stuff like that up before way back when I had to send people off to learn Office when we switched from DOS based 1-2-3 & Wordperfect. And guess what? The company survived and the world went on.

So what it really seems is this guy's point is for the home end-user, i.e., my parents. And yah, they'd benefit from what they already know. And really, GNU/Linux is not there yet, so that point, to me, is irrelevant.

However, for the business market it is entirely relevant. And I feel that businesses will choose flexibility and saving money and having stability over usability.

Now, if some developer want to write for the two most popular GNU/Linux GUIs - KDE & GNOME, then that doesn't have to be impossibly hard. They just employ MVC. Separate out the view and the rest should not be much of an issue.

Just because M$ does it one way does not mean it's the best way. And just because people think one size fits all does not mean that that's the case for everyone. Sure, let companies that want to use Windows keep using it. They probably have a lot of time and money invested in it. A lot of money.

But I really believe that if you give a customer/developer/end-user a choice, then you leave it up to them to decide what works for them and doesn't. User interfaces are pretty trivial in the whole grand scheme of things. If someone had to and your business depended on it (like many still do) you could require someone to use a Curses/DOS based interface to get the job done. And for most businesses, it's about getting the job done.

It's like this guy is more wrapped up in the aspects of what the user sees instead of the solving the problem. I personally believe there is a tool well suited for each specific task. With that said, why would I want to pound a nail in with a drill or cut a hole in a wall with a hammer just because one construction company adheres to those rules?

Installation = Main deterrent to non techie users.

[Death Owl]

I am relatively IT literate but the installation routines that come with Linux distributions vary from average to shockingly bad, compared with say Windows installation processes. I feel that more home users would be attracted to Linux if they could stick in the distro CD and make a few choices (GUI, non standard applications (e.g. Wordperfect)) and then watch it install the operating system and applications automatically, and load the relevant drivers for plug and play hardware. I trashed my painstakingly installed SuSE system last year, and couldn't be bothered to go through the pain of reinstalling it with that ghastly YAST tool, when instead I could ram in a Windows CD instead and have a working operating system with all my drivers back installed etc within 2 hours. So I don't think we need a 'standard' GUI (in fact that would suck). But there should be an express installation routine available with each distro that requires MINIMAL user input beyond selecting the GUI and applications they want.

Re: every few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why standardise on a single WM and toolkit when you *can* have your choice and make it?

Are you saying you can right-click any toolbar in GNOME, choose "Configure toolbars" and get a toolbar configuration dialog identical to the one in KDE? Is it even similar? Do you even get a dialog? Do you even get a popup menu? No. Is this because they use different APIs for toolbars? Yes.

But they do care about the product.

[nuggz]

Pick your analogy, driving a car, building a home, operating a microwave or television, etc... The general public cares as little about computers as "we" do about how our cars operate.

Yes but they do care how the product performs. They want different sizes, colours and intefaces. Fridges are split left/right, freezer up top, freezer at bottom, or no freezer at all.
Let alone all the other features. This CHOICE matters.

Re:But they do care about the product.

[blixel]

Yes but they do care how the product performs. They want different sizes, colours and intefaces. Fridges are split left/right, freezer up top, freezer at bottom, or no freezer at all.
Let alone all the other features. This CHOICE matters.

BS analogy. Like with a refrigerator, people can choose the external appearance by choosing among Dell, Gateway, Sony, Compaq, etc. They can have a full size tower, a mid size tower, a desktop box, etc. And just like the function of the refrigerator (to keep food fresh and cold), the computers all have a similar function. (Check e-mail, surf the web, play games, write a document, etc.)

People couldn't care less that beneath the plastic interior of the refrigerator there is a 22" copper cooling coil instead of an 20" copper cooling coil.

Don't limit choice, but had a standard DEFAULT

[2toise]

What about commercial releases agreeing to standardise on a default setting, that it would ship with? Anyone who wanted to could mess with it, but anyone who didn't know better would see something familiar?

choice/freedom as a goal

[bninja_penguin]

I have said it before and will continue to say it, Linux has been ready for a long time for the Desktop, the applications are ready and even a lot of users are ready to use it, but the main goal of Linux is also holding it back: choice.

Okay, this statement, coupled with the main link to the article, which states "freedom of choice, freedom of source, etc. etc. is not what the average user wants..." says to me that Linux is progressing just fine. If the average user does not want freedom of choice, then they should look elsewhere. If my freedom of choice is taken away, then Linux is no different than Microsofts offerings, because Microsoft targets the lowest common factor of computing. By "standardizng" on one desktop, one word processor, or what have you, how is that different than Microsoft? Before you say well download and install the GUI you want, or AbiWord instead of OpenOffice, or whatever, that is already an option for those running Microsoft offerings. At work I have OpenOffice running on Win2K, and not MS Office, but will the average joe do that? I think not. If the average joe wants an average OS, with no choices to make on how it acts, then stick with Microsoft, that is what they excel at. If, however you want freedom of choice, and you do care about how it acts, then by all means use Linux. Linux is NOT about displacing Microsoft from the number one spot for desktop OSes, it IS all about empowering the individual user!
Linus says all the time he's out to make the best OS for his use, NOT for the average joe. If you or the average joe wants to use his stuff, fine, but it's no sweat off his brow if you or the average joe doesn't want to. Linus understands the fact that these machines should be our tools, not the other way around.

Re:choice/freedom as a goal

[Anonymous Coward]

If the average user does not want freedom of choice, then they should look elsewhere.

It's certainly what I want. But it would also be wonderful if the Linux community could see the value in having a unified default configuration common to various distros.

By this I mean not only a default GUI and set of applications, but just as importantly, a system configured to a common standard of security by default.

This way, we get the best of both worlds. The default installation is (from a hacker's point of view) relatively boring, but also very stable, very predictable, very secure, and very easy to deploy on a massive scale. Of course, each distro will also want to promote all of its features that diverge from the default capabilities. So this model should include a standard location in which specialized distro features can be easily enabled and explored.

Re:choice/freedom as a goal

[bninja_penguin]

WTF?!? An AC who makes a reasonable, understandable point with no flame?? There may be hope for /. after all;)

Yes, I could see how a unified default configuration would not take away choice, unless it is forced, and other options are not available. If each distro were to say on install "Do you want to install the default distro?", and then install just that, it might be okay; but if there were only that choice, and not the choice of custom install, with all the options currently available to pick and choose from, then it would be no different than Microsoft.

Re:choice/freedom as a goal

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are advocating for is not an operating system but a toy. Just because some kook might like to have all his light switches flip left to right and be 2 feet off the floor doesn't mean the capability should be built into houses.

Re:choice/freedom as a goal

[Anonymous Coward]

Your wants don't count, byteboyz -- not when I'm PAYING ( p-a-y-i-n-g ) for RedHat support. So stick both thumbs up yer azzwhole and go back into the closet -- grope yer fav electromechanic blo-up dolly in private and those of us with real work to do will get on with it.

Re:choice/freedom as a goal

[Oper Sorcerer]

When all is said and done, GUIs will have little to do with it. People will choose a desktop that will run the applications that they want/need. The GUI is just a preference (like MS or Apple now). We need to educate people not to send emails in proprietary formats (.doc comes to mind). Developers need to be educated that Linux can run their product better and make money. So long as developers think free means no profit, there's no incentive to write the kind/quality of applications that will make Linux a force to be reckoned with on the desktop.

Re:choice/freedom as a goal

[nfras]

If Linux is going to be anything other than a geek toy then it has to be useable by the average user. To say that you want the best OS for your use is fine. I want a flight that takes me to my folks door, but I don't expect that anyone is going to do that commercially. The best I can expect is that I can get a flight to the nearest airport and then get a cab. Am I selling out by lowering my expectations? Obviously not. I am simply acknowledging that as a commercial venture, having flights that only suit one person is not viable. Having an OS that only suits one person is not commercially viable. If you want it to be used, it MUST have broad appeal.

Microsoft targets the lowest common factor of computing
No, Microsoft caters to the people who most use their software, average joe, home user and business user. They know their market and they work at things that the average user wants. Linux on the other hand doesn't know what its target market is. There lies the crux of the matter. If Linux is for Linux geeks then that's fine, but don't then expect anyone else to actually use your product, and worse than that, don't bitch when they don't.

Why stop there?

[BlabberMouth]

The different major commercial distributions might be well served by creating a basic standard workstation distribution with a standard GUI. It would create a "face" for linux on the desktop and ensure common features that all work the same way. They could still do some personalization and add some of their own features if they wanted.

Linux is not Windows, Russell

[kermit6306]

Linux has a windowing system. It's a good one. It's the one Unix has. It's called the X Window System. It's not a really a GUI in and of itself. Open layers built on top of it provide nice looking interfaces. X is more "standard" than any other windowing platform out there especially Win32/MFC. It's open. It's multi-vendor. There are free implementations. There are commercial implementations. It's a standard. Microsoft Windows is not a standard.
The problem this author and most people who make this argument have is that they are so locked into one way of thinking about computing; they try to force things to go a certain way; The Redmond Way. The fact of the matter is, right now, Linux is a Unix work-a-like, not a Windows look-a-like. As for what users want; Linux users want the same thing and Unix users. Power and Simplicity. Sometimes that means a specially tailored system out of a base standard. If anyone tries to take that away then will probably be burned. Forcing a high level GUI standard under the notion of progress is dangerous. They probably need Linux to be more interoperable with the Unix system than with Linux. A successful "Standardization" will break that. Anecdotally, any users who dip their finger tips in a system comprised of a Linux kernel, a GNU userland and an X GUI framework want openness and choice, not monolithism and information hiding. Want more users? Keep doing what Unix and Linux has done. Keep building more powerful software. Users will come. I came. You came.

That's the distro's job

[Tony]

Most of what you talk about is the job of the distribution-- common installation no matter the program, etc. As far as things like IceWM being familiar to a Gnome/Metacity user, that's rather like saying, "I'm all for choice, but shouldn't my pickup seat 10, and shouldn't my sedan be able to haul a load of gravel?"

The importance of choice is twofold: first, it drives competition (as mentioned in another post 'round here); second, it provides diversity. Diversity in which everything is the same is not diversity at all.

Plus, it shouldn't matter to an average user whether or not IceWM behaves like KDE/KDEWM. Their distro is going to default to KDE (or GNOME, or....), and that is all they need to know. If they default to KDE, but the user wants to run a GNOME program, their distro installs the programs and libraries necessary, and the user doesn't even need to know that the GNOME libraries were installed; hell, the user doesn't even need to know what that *means*.

Anyway, just my opinion. I might be wrong.

Forget GUIs..

[Cassanova]

It's a complicated issue, the freedom of choice... ...choice is also scaring potential users away

Well said.

Not just GUIs, when it comes to a *nix __anything__ there is choice (and thus pain, sometimes). Take the plain old shell for example. A dozen of them? A simple "export blah=foo" works on sh and bash. But try it on tcsh and it does'nt. When I have to write scripts that I know might be run in a dozen different environments I have to make sure I write it using the least common denominator command-set. This simple example is good proof that "choice" is like those little cute snuggly "gremlins" (the creatures in that movie) which are cute and all fun till you forget that you should'nt feed them after midnight - if you do they turn in to killing monsters.

Coming to GUIs... wow, a billion people out there who use computer GUIs are just average joes. If the above shell choice is enough to drive u - a more-than-average-joe - nuts, imagine what it will do to them when all they want is a quick way in-and-out of their computers to do their everyday tasks (browse, check email.. u get the idea..) and they are presented with 10 different ways of doing it.

Somewhere else in this discussion someone said there will not be _A_ Linux default that will rival Microsoft's. Rather it will be "Redhat vs Microsoft" or "Suse vs Microsoft" or "Mandrake vs Microsoft". That is a very good observation and sadly it is only going to confuse "joe user" even more.

-- Metamoderators: Police to Police the Police.

New users

[nuggz]

Why can't I can copy text from my shell window into my e-mail app and web browser?

I spend too much time on IRC, so I have several responses.

1. Because you're a moron.
2. If you selected the text, then pasted it with the middle mouse button you could.
3. RTFM (yes X cut and paste IS documented).

The problem with a consistent user interface is that you have to pick one.
The great power of vi is it has an excellent UI, however not one I'd want to try and use in the gimp.

As simple as possible, but not simpler

[mwood]

(A hollow voice says, "fvwm!" :-)

There are several issues here.

There's a fundamental split between people who want to understand their tools and use them in innovative ways, and people who want the tools to tell them what is possible. The developer and professional computerist market is composed largely of the former, the mass market mostly of the latter. Microsoft and many Linux promoters are making the same mistake by trying to crowd the entire user base into one mold or the other. No matter which way you go, some of us won't fit. Let the distro.s each first decide whether they want to be consumer-grade or professional-grade. Then the consumer-grade distro.s can get together and settle on one default environment, and the pro-grade distro.s can continue giving the pros the control that they demand. This is a selling point against Windows, where important and useful choices are frowned upon while trivial choices are lavished with attention.

Remember that a lot of Linux instances are in server racks and don't really need a GUI at all. This is a selling point against Windows, which can't live without its memory- and performance-sucking GUI. Some of them don't have display hardware at all; they're run over a serial port or via ssh. "None" is also a choice.

Windows has the advantage that, while I'm sure there were competing models within Microsoft, they never gave us a choice; only one became a product. There's long been a choice on Linux and all choices now have their fierce adherents who will raise a ruckus if their choice is deprecated.

Left - Right switches are fairly common

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why, though.

Missing the point so bad he hit the dog instead

[HomerNet]

What the author of this article misses is that the various OSS groups (Like the *DM people) aren't a competing company trying to take over market- and mind-share. They are people who are doing what they want to do, (freedom of choice) what they have the basic natural rights to do, (survival and the pursuit of happiness) and what they're sick of others telling them they're not allowed to do. (Microsoft being a big violator)

<soapbox>

Irregardless of what you think of the state of the U.S.A. today, the founding fathers had the same basic idea, do what you want to do (freedom of choice), do what you have a right to do, (survival and the pursuit of happiness) and they were sick of others telling them they're not allowed to do that. (British crown and Parliment)

In both cases, had those in power actually *listened* to the complaints of those they were actively ignoring, and if the "underdogs" didn't have rable-rousers (Sam Adams for the American Revolution, Noel Godin of the anti-MS crowd to name just two examples), the entire thing may have simply come to a footnote in history. "There was a problem, it got solved, moving on."

The "American Englishmen" of the 18th century were in such a small minority compared to the rest of the British Empire that their complaints and way of doing things were completely ignored by the average British citizen. On the same token, the average Windows user couldn't care less what a bunch of weird geeks do, they just want to live their lives.

The average computer user has no idea what goes on under the hood, nor are they aware of the many times that their computer use has been compromised by those who hold the keys to their computer (the OS vendor). Those of us who do know better realize that by leaving these keys in the hands of a select few, those select few can (and have) become corrupted. You doubt? Take a look at the whole "Digital Rights Management" fiasco. DRM is all about the profit of a select few, NOT the real rights of the people who's "Digital" material is being "Managed."

On the plus side, the minority gets a victory every-so-often. Going back to DRM, most DRM schemes have failed miserably, for the simple reason that the uber-geeks (the tiny minority of computer users who read /. and similar services) have spread the word about the restrictive nature of these schemes.

</soapbox>

It's no wonder he doesn't understand why we (the geeks in the OSS community, yes even the "users") don't make Linux more Windows-like, because he's thinking in dollars and cents and mind-share. The whole point to OSS is freedom, not figures on a ledger.

Freedom of Choice

[n6kuy]

.. is what you got.
Freedom FROM choice is what you want!

This reminds me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I kind of think of the Linux window manager problem to be the same as the problem with the government in the US. The democrats and republicans are so certain that their way is "the best way" that most of the time they just end up arguing the same side of the subject. And nothing gets done.

KDE - QT - TrollTech - Canopy Group - SCOX

[worldcitizen]

To all KDE Supporters - You know KDE uses Qt. Qt is made by TrollTech which has considerable participation from the Canopy Group (the puppet masters behind the SCOX soap opera, maybe themselves a puppet of someone else?).

Qt is GPL you say? Considering their stance of "the GPL is invalid", there is still a risk that the rug could be pulled out and leave KDE in a pretty serious quagmire. I certainly believe that this "GPL is invalid" assertments are pure crap but this risk needs to be very seriously considered before any attempt to make KDE the "standard" desktop.

hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that this is a package management/ installation standardisation problem and not a problem with the GUI. In fact I think that the amout of different GUI's on linux is one of its strengths, and somthing that it has over mainstream OS's such as windows - a crappy but standard GUI which is skinnable and MacOS - a good but unskinnable(for marketing reasons) GUI that zealots like to use 'cause their elitest arseholes. In fact one of the reasons that I first started playing with linux years ago was because i could play with fifty different windows managers. What seems to be going on is people are trying to address the symtomes because to tackle the disease will uncover some disturbing truths about themselves, in this case the incompatablity between mainstream and open source philosophies.

Basically this dude states in his conclusion, the advantages of a standard being, i, guranteed to work on a standard platform, - ie not having to compile myProgram to work with qt + gtk + imagemagic. ii, have an install program, ie what windows + mac have basically had for years, >> you just double click on a icon and whatever is installed, without having to play with packages in rpmdrake, or dselect. iii, an uninstaller, see ii, iv integration, err cut and paste works v, an update wizard. These do not sound to me to be problems with having multiple windows managers.

The problem is when you what to install a piece of software on linux, you have to decide, stable or current?. do I compile or get the binary, if I what to get the binary do i get the redhat or mandrake or suse package, what dependancys do I need to statisfy, look i just fusked up and have to rebuild my rpm datebase, with, say windows, I just download the one package, and install it, Clearly this culture shock between Opensource and the rest of the world is what is at fault. Not that, if I was so inclined, I might what to change my window manager from KDE to fluxbox for the day.

O, and stupid names for opensource projects like Xovert, I mean seriously WTF.

A.C.

Is it slow-news Friday already?

[adrianbaugh]

Yawn. This is another tedious suit who doesn't get it. Does he think people are suddenly going to stop developing icewm, WindowMaker, AfterStep, enlightenment, mwm, 3dwm etc.? Of course not. And it doesn't matter. Most people don't need to choose between different desktops even today, because distributions tend to come with a standard desktop and other optional ones. I suppose different distros could agree on which desktop to have as standard (but they won't!), but that really doesn't matter; for the home user any of the usual desktops will be fine, and for people using linux at work they ought to be using the One True Desktop (ie the one their IT manager tells them to) anyway.

Re:Apple isn't all THAT good

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, Apple has relied on the ongoing and mistaken belief that the primary mode of interaction is the mouse. This might work for 67-year-old Gramma Bates, but for people who are interested in production and efficiency, it's a disaster. Apple's interface FORCES you to move between mouse and keyboard (to select options in a dialog, for example), when all they've needed to do was to make everything accessible via the keyboard (tab to each selection in the dialog, including the OK and Cancel buttons).

On the other hand, Linux still hasn't managed to pick up on the increased efficiency inherent in being able to select from a long list of items (a list of file names, for example), by typing the first few letters of the file name, and having the list jump to the matching entries. Why this has eluded the linux-based GUI's for so long is beyond me.

Right desire, wrong problem.

[Randolpho]

I'm late coming into this discussion, and I doubt this will get read, but I have to say it anyway.

The problem with GUIs on linux is not the look/feel of the GUI. Look and feel is nice, but it's to the point where every GUI works in roughly the same way; minor changes are easily caught by the average user.

No, the real problem, the real reason linux hasn't caught Windows is the underlying code that handles the GUI and IO. Part of that my be the OS (I haven't really looked very far under the hood), but I think most of the fault lies on the windowing system and the toolkits the various window managers use. Linux GUIs are slow. Buggy. Unresponsive.

Many people, when trying to compare how well linux performs vs. windows will, for example, time how long it takes to load, say, Mozilla on identical machines. Most of the time linux wins because the underlying OS, which handles most of the loadup, is very well written. But that's not a valid measure of the GUI performance, since, as I mentioned, most of the loadup is outside the scope of the GUI.

A better measure of performance is response to inupt.

How long does it take to, say, maximize a window? On identical machines, Windows will win every time.

How long does it take to, say, drag an icon? Again, on identical machines, Windows wins.

Why? Honestly, I haven't looked deep enough into the code to find out. Maybe it's the event model. Maybe it's too many layers of abstraction. Maybe it's that the code in the toolkits isn't optimal. But that's where the problem lies. Windows is more responsive; a faster, less buggy GUI. Sure, the kernel stinks, but the GUI on top of it outperforms X and anything running on top of it, every time.

That's what needs to be worked on. That's what will put linux on the desktop.

Re: every few months...

[another_mr_lizard]

The XP control panel changes ARE cosmetic. There is an option in Control Panel (and not hidden either) that allows you to use the "classic" view.

Just like every other change to the UI in XP, it can be set back to the original (95-2k) look.

Fixing the GUI isn't quite good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

There are more things that need to be standardized than just the GUI if Linux is to compete with Windows. I see the list as follows:

- GUI "look and feel"
- GUI operation
- Application Integration

The GUI look and feel part is actually the least important of the three, once you get past being a casual user just poking around the system. Windows XP lets you mess around quite a bit with the look, and even the feel to a certain extent (single-click to open, etc.), without any serious detriment to its usability.

How the GUI _operates_ is far more important; here, the best play would be to closely copy either the Mac or Windows paradigms, since people are already familiar with those. This is pretty close to what the better window managers do, and this should be as invariant as possible.

However, the tall pole in the tent, and the place where Windows, and to a large extent the Mac really shine, is application integration. Microsoft uses COM or its later descendants for just about everything in Windows, and it shows; you can drag and drop things all over the place. You can edit Excel spreadsheets from a URL in your web browser, cut and paste from almost anywhere to almost anywhere, usually in a way that makes sense, and it all works. That's what frustrates me most about using Linux GUIs; you can never tell what the heck is going to happen when you try to cut and paste, in those few places where you can actually even try. Some of the Linux office suites do an OK job, but don't try to cut and paste between them and some other application. For the average user trying to get office work done, this is probably the largest real frustration, once they've gotten used to a Linux GUI.

For me, being a geek, none of this matters all that much since I'm probably hacking something with a command line anyway, not messing around with a GUI application, but I think these three problems are the crux of the matter. Solve them well, and Linux on the desktop will grow.

Re:Fixing the GUI isn't quite good enough

[codepunk]

You forgot one, you can also lauch a virus more effectivly in windows. Linux is not windows and I hope it never becomes anyting like Windows. A Windows box cannot hold a candle to a Linux machine when it come to getting shit done.

I Didn't Get The Memo

[dasunt]

I didn't get the memo that linux's goal was to take over the world and crush Microsoft Windows.

I've been laboring under the impression that linux's goal was to make a nice operating system for technically minded people to use and play with.

* sigh *

Re: every few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Average" users aren't as stupid as you think. Its not that they can't learn a new UI - they just dont want to.

A PC is an appliance to a normal user - nothing more, nothing less.

Not the choice for home users.

[minion]

He argues that the promotion of choice of GUI as a positive feature of using Linux is detrimental to its chances of attacking Microsoft's home user monopoly. From the article: '...the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.'

What if the goal of the Linux developers is not to overthrow Microsoft? Has anyone considered that? We constantly talk about displacing Microsoft on the desktop, how we must beat Windows. I think the developers that spend their time developing the software are making the software for their own usability - not because they want to overthrown Microsoft. Granted some developers probably think about overtrowing, but I bet most of them don't. So all these petty analysts that keep writing shit columns on how we need to mobilize our efforts can take their conspiracy theory filled heads and shove them up their ass.

Good luck

[OrangeTide]

Good luck getting a big enough chunk of the Linux users out there to all agree on the same GUI. In the open source world if you don't like something, rewrite it. I think you won't get anyone to conform to a standardized GUI, it's way too subjective. Because it's hard to prove one is better than the other, people have a lot of personal bias when it comes to how they should operate their computer.

If windows were open source, I'd move things all around because I don't like where a number of things are. Other (I've asked) do not agree with me they they should go where I think they should go. Example: I'd eliminate wizards. I'd combine the control panel into a heirarchy broken down by software components and hardware devices. (it doesn't quite do that, it's close. of course WinXP went and change it all for no reason and didn't bother improving the organization).

If you want everyone to standardized. Then it's simple. Everyone install XFce. It's light-weight, quite powerful, supports "normal" features of a desktop environment like drag and drop. Comes with lots of useful tools (like graphical diff) without coming with a bunch of games and other silliness. And XFCe has a definite Unix feel to it. Almost as if it were CDE with all the crufty bits thrown out. GNOME and KDE try to be too much like Windows and old MacOS. Although I'll admit that XFce does have a somewhat MacOS X feel to it.

It's more than just KDE or Gnome

[SatanicPuppy]

One of the arguments I hear most from the linux community is that the windows "Software monoculture" is bad for security, bad for innovation, and bad for the user. Competition is healthy, competition makes you strong.

Sure Gnome beats the snot out of KDE, but does that mean KDE is serving no useful purpose? I frankly am completely unimpressed by an argument setting windows up as the standard to be emulated. What can really be learned from windows explorer? How to make your GUI more important than the underlying code? How to make sure you can't do any of that awful "customization" thing?

Adoption of the linux desktop relies on the same thing that the adoption of every other desktop depends on: familiarity, or the willingness to learn. Is there somethign about Gnome or KDE that would be hard for the average computer user to pick up?

The factors slowing linux's adoption on the average desktop really have very little to do with the fact that there are multiple desktop environments.

Just my opinion.

One and Only Truly Standard *nix Desktop

[DaveAtFraud]

I don't see what all the argument is about. There is a standard *nix desktop. It looks like:

#

or you can customize like:

[dave@fraud ~]#

When choice is bad

[ajs318]

Let me begin with a fable .....

There were six flavours of ice cream - and this was the proper sort, made with real full cream milk, not the vegetable fat imitation used in cheap ices - to choose from, and Nicki liked them all. Chocolate. Strawberry. Vanilla. Mint choc chip. Toffee. Tutti Frutti. Which one, which one? Chocolate ..... but Nicki had eaten a Twix earlier that day. So, by that reasoning, toffee also was out. Vanilla was available anywhere else, but this was special vanilla, and nicer than any other. Strawberry or Tutti Frutti sounded a bit "healthier" than the others, but even Nicki knew that they were all so processed and refined that it barely mattered. The mint choc chip was probably Nicki's least favourite, but not enough to reject it out of hand. After all, it was still ice cream ..... yet, even as Nicki struggled to make a decision, the six flavours of fresh dairy ice cream were melting into a lukewarm pool of unappetising gunge.

Now the moral. Choice can be a curse as much as a blessing, for some people. When you are in prison, you do not have to worry about where you are going to go. When you have to wear a uniform, you do not have to worry about that to wear. When there is a fixed menu, you do not have to worry about what you are going to eat. When you're married, you don't have to worry about ..... well, you get the picture.

Linux always has been highly customisable. For that matter, so is Windows. But Windows has a default look and feel which is mostly consistent across implementations.

The truly clueless {some of whom, IMHO, would be able to get their jobs done better without a computer} just want something that works. Many workers are conditioned to think that only managers are allowed to make decisions. But even managers, to an extent, don't really want to make decisions where there might be consequences to put up with. But the fact is, someone has to make a decision, and stick with it until it becomes patently obvious that that decision was wrong ..... and we all know what happens then .....

So the Community is {rightly, for the Community} extolling the virtues of choice; but there is a group of people outside of the Community for whom Too Much Choice is A Bad Thing. Cubicle-dwellers, Grannies &c. don't need the choice of operating environments, they do need something that works and is consistent. But the Community are by and large libertarian types, and the idea of imposing one's preference upon others is considered anathema. Introducing people to Linux is a special case. These people are not yet ready to make up their own minds about certain things. One day, they will be ready.

As horrible as it sounds, lack of choice can be a real benefit in some circumstances. We need a stripped-down-to-basics, introductory distribution that aims to get as many people as possible beginning to use Linux; it preferably should also, somehow, make it almost impossible not to participate in the Community. {This is going to require financial backing at first. As more broadband users come on-line, we can begin to use a more distributed model.} But right now, all we need are arses on seats. As the users we introduced with our special distro begin to grow out of it, then they can start making choices. Of course, our "inclusivityware" will be distribution-independent, available as a .tar.gz, .rpm or .deb. {Maybe there is room for a script right inside the .tar.gz that will automagically repackage it as an .rpm or a .deb?}

Listen to an "all request" radio show and I guarantee that the same songs will be played over and over again, because the people asking for them always ask for what they know. You will only hear anything fresh on shows where the

Exactly.

[imaginate]

What really bugs me about articles like this one are that they completely fly in the face of the reasons that I, as a *gasp* Windows user, would switch to Linux.

I *want* to be able to change my desktop, to modify my computer to work in the way that *I* want it to. For this reason alone (not to mention the security, stability, and other customizability), I really want to switch to linux, and away from a crappy interface-for-everyone promoted by Microsoft.

Unfortunately for me, it all comes down to software. I simply cannot do sound and video editing properly (or *remotely* easily) on Linux. Saying that saddens me, but I'm pretty sure that it's true. I'd be willing to put a huge amount of effort into learning to run linux, but, sadly (for me anyway), I just don't have time to learn the ins and outs of an entire OS if it won't even run the software I use on a daily basis. And please don't give me the "write your own software" argument - I am genuinely not trying to flame linux, and I am an avid computer *user*, but I just can't code at that level (and I shouldn't be expected to!).

So Linux, please keep your varied desktops and your multiplicity of options - it's what makes you great... I just hope that you can gain enough marketshare (or that WINE can work sufficiently well) to allow me to use a proven set of task oriented software in your sphere. Then I'll switch in a heartbeat.

Re:Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Unfortunately for me, it all comes down to software. I simply cannot do sound and video editing properly (or *remotely* easily) on Linux

Look for filmgimp, cinelarra for video.
For audio, here:
http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/planetccrma/s oftware /packages.html

Re:Exactly.

[imaginate]

Thank you... that looks to be a much better resource than the other stuff I've found. It looks reassuring enough to finally take the plunge and at least set up a new partition for dual boot.

It's hard, because it means learning a new OS, a new set of software (in many cases, incompatible with my old files), etc., which is a bitch when I'd often rather be just *working* on stuff. Still, I dislike microsoft enough, and I think I would be happy enough with Linux, that it seems worth going for it.

Thanks again...

Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I like having the choices. And since when did taking over the Windows market take a priority over being free and open and full of choices? Sounds like the capitalists are successfully taking over Linux to me.

Missing the point

[aelfwyne]

I think a load of people here are completely missing the point.

1) The issue isn't necessarily just getting noobs to start using Linux instead of Windows.

2) Making Linux more desirable to more people benefits Linux by encouraging hardware vendors to support Linux, which can never be a bad thing. (Guess I should check again to see if my 160gig UDMA 133 drive is recognized on a newer distro...)

3) Making Linux more desirable does not require making Linux less customisable or eliminating any choice.

4) The problem for many is what I call the "Hassle factor".

I'm no technical neophyte - I've used Linux in various flavors at various times since 1994. I'm in the camp with a lot of people though - I use Windows most of the time for daily use. Why? Hassle factor. It has nothing to do with a "standard GUI" or "choice" or "lack of choice". But fixing those things will reduce the Hassle factor.

Say a user follows good advice and uses a distro like RedHat or Suse (Suse 8.2 is my current favourite). They then install a KDE desktop.

It looks pretty, sure. Does some nice things. They're past the point of desktop choice, but the hassle factor is over.

What are the things the user is going to have a problem with? These are the things that need the most attention.

In my experience, helping neophyte friends get into Linux as well as my own experience:

1) Getting connected to the internet. PPP utilities still suck. They work sometimes, sometimes they don't. They aren't easy to find, as Linux still often assumes you're on a LAN. Many distros include more than one. Cut it to one, and put the shortcut in plain view on the starting desktop!! Or set it up during install, and put the startup link on the desktop!.. I will credit SUSE on one point - it configured my DSL connection via DHCP with very little effort. But I still had to login to the administrator mode on Yast to get it to do it. Why? Hassle...

2) Menus, menus, and more menus. *THIS* IMHO is where we need standardization. All WM's should share a central repository for basic "start" menu lists. Most WM's give such a menu - but apps on one won't find their way onto the other. I've seen mumblings about such ideas, but it never actually seems to work. When I install an RPM of an app, I don't care if the app is written in QT and my WM is Gnome, vice versa, or even if it's an old Motif-style app - I want the app to register itself on my menu. I don't want to have to hunt down the executable, which could be in one of twenty different places, and add it manually to the menu. Hassle.

3) Better desktop and menu shortcut creation. This has improved MUCH in the last few years. But I still discovered when using KDE that I can't just go to a folder, find an executable, and drag it onto the desktop or the menu. Sure, I can make a link to the desktop. But it's not an "application" link, it's a link to a file. So I can't set the same properties as if it were an application link. And customizing the menu isn't drag-n-drop simple like in Windows. Sure, I know how to do it. I create a new application link, and browse to the executable... set a bunch of values by hand, then I have a proper application icon. But why? Hassle.

4) Source archives. Yes, I know how to ./configure, make all, make install, etc. Many people don't. Even if they're able to read the README.install or whatever, it's a big hassle. I understand source archives - you can target much more varied versions of Linux with them, which is necessary since there's so much variation. Okay.... How about a good - and standard - system for installing these source archives? It should be as easy as installing any RPM package. No reason why those stops (configure, make, etc) can't be automated. In fact, Redhat does this with source RPM's to some extent. But first, it's not a standard that's adhered to much, and it's not flexible. Why not simply take the standard tarball, and add an installer script that can be detected and launched by

Re:FUD

[CommandNotFound]

If I want to run Konqueror without running KDE...If I want to run with remote X to a non-XFree86 X server, I should be able to without getting tonnes of errors...

FUD, FUD, FUD...

I can't believe people still try to spread this incompatibility FUD. I use XFCE at home, sometimes WindowMaker, but never KDE or Gnome. I regularly launch Konqueror with no problems. I sometimes run "nautilus --no-desktop" with no problems. GnuCash works fine. So does KStars. Sure, the task tray applets don't work, but I don't have a task tray, so I don't need/want them! If I did, I imagine I could just run kpanel or similar and get the task tray.

The KDE/Gnome libraries must be installed to run these applications, but KDE/Gnome do not need to be running. This is no different from any other platform; try running an MFC (very roughly analagous to Qt) app in Windows with the MFC dlls uninstalled and see how far you get. Ditto with DirectX.

I've also run all these apps remotely using Cygwin and XWin-Pro (now called something else... WinaXe?). If your X server is not working properly you should check with your vendor.

Ridiculous article

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a ridiculous discussion because :
1-Linux ain't windoze or MAC
2-There are two de facto standards allready
a)KDE
b)Gnome
3-No KDE user is willing to move to Gnome
4-No Gnome user is willing to move to KDE
5-We don't need to cripple Linux to please the morons.

What do people want in an OS?

[rossz]

Let's make a list of what the geek community wants. These aren't in any particular order and is far from complete, but is enough to make my point:

1. Stable
2. Secure
3. Cheap (or free)
4. Wide selection of applications

Now make a list of what the average joe wants:

1. Familiar
2. Cheap/free
3. Runs the apps he needs
4. Support readily available

The lists hardly correspond.

Windows is familiar to joe. Making the Linux GUI (whichever one is chosen) act more like Windows by default would be a step to attracting him.

Windows is free as far as joe is concerned. It was included on the computer he bought at Best Buy. We know that's not true, but you will never convince joe that Windows cost him anything, so don't bother arguing.

The apps joe wants to run are Internet Explorer, Outlook, Microsoft Office and games.

Mozilla beats the hell out of IE but doesn't support IE extensions. We know that's a good thing, but joe thinks it's a bad thing. No, I'm not suggesting we add IE extensions to Mozilla. This is an educational issue, but convincing people that IE extensions are bad will be difficult (if not impossible).

Replacing Outlook Express is not a problem, but in an office environment the full blown Outlook is essential (replacements are in the works but are not ready for general deployment). The bright side here is that Microsoft is our best friend in convincing Outlook should be replaced. Their lack of the most basic security and the proliferation of viruses (on a weekly basis) is getting joe to start noticing that security might not be such a bad thing.

OpenOffice is similar enough to Word that it is a viable replacement.

Unfortunately, games are a big problem for Linux. Most Linux games are written by amateurs and look it. Sorry, but that's the sad truth. Don't bother suggesting Wine. All too often the hot games do not run well under Wine. This is a chicken/egg problem. Joe will consider Linux when games are readily available. The game companies will write for Linux when it is a big enough market to make it a good business decision.

Support is another big hurdle. Besides being able to call up someone to get help, joe wants the driver for the new digital camera he just bought to be included in the OS (best) or installed by the setup disk included with the camera. Any effort beyond that is a bad thing. Getting direct hardware vendor support for Linux has been an ongoing battle that has mixed results. We MUST convince the vendors to include Linux drivers with the hardware.

I didn't have all day...

[cnelzie]

...if I did, I would have mentioned the myriad of other software that is also severely lacking on the Linux platform...

Games is a HUGE thing that ties me to Windows at home. That's just about all I use my home machine for.

Recipe software is another thing that also appears to be lacking, at least commercially that is.

There are many special and niche markets that the average Linux zealot simply refuses to accept. Much of this software is used to run the world and bring new things into the world. Until it all runs on Linux, a desktop revolution will simply be impossible to slam home.

Re: every few months...

[tomhudson]

poster wrote:

"Average" users aren't as stupid as you think. Its not that they can't learn a new UI - they just dont want to.

A PC is an appliance to a normal user - nothing more, nothing less.

Since you mention "average users" and "normal users", I don't think so. You're then implying that the "average user" would accept a fridge, stove, dvd or microwave that

1. Comes with an EULA that says you don't OWN it
2. Stops working at seemingly-random times
3. Constantly needs to be replaced/upgrades
4. Can be taken over by others (worms, viruses, etc)
5. Can be DoSsed (imagine someone doing a denial of service on your toilet, or your tv remote, or your washing machine)

Guess you have an "interesting" definition of "normal" :-)

So, stupid or lazy - the end result is the same.

Don't Confuse Linux With The Desktop

[g_goblin]

I like both KDE and GNOME, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. If I know I'm going to be developing software, then I install KDE, else if a friends needs to browse the internet and read e-mail then GNOME is my choice. And if they don't like either of them, then Windows is the final choice.

Previous responses are right, don't take away choices. No OS is right for everything and neither is one desktop.

What's great about the different versions of the *NIX flavors is you have a choice to install a desktop or not. I would much prefer if MS gave you the choice to install the desktop or not when it comes to their Server OS's. I don't need a GUI Bill, I'm not your average administrator - I am just fine with the shell and my database would enjoy it if you didn't take cycles away from it with your GUI

Just doesn't get it!

[ratboy666]

Reading articles like this boils my blood:

The first assumption is that ''Open Source'' competes with Microsoft. Of all the idiotic ideas! Redhat competes with Microsoft. Mandrake competes with Microsoft (etc.) Certainly not Open Source software. That just is.

If you like it, use it. Just that simple. And leave your pre-conceptions at how the ''system'' is supposed to work at the door, please (that's *not* your computer, btw).

Next, we need a single standard GUI for Linux. What a load of crap!

Let's see -- when I installed Redhat 9, (and 8, and Mandrake), it installed a desktop for me. It works. Happens to be the one I want, too, but that doesn't matter. NEW LINUX USERS JUST USE IT. Why? Because when you install Microsoft, you get a single GUI too. There are methods for replacing the Windows GUI, but the level of user A. Russell Jones is addressing won't do it.

Next item. If using RPMs with Redhat 8 or 9, things work EXACTELY like Mr. Jones is promoting. End of story. What a load of FUD.

Most of the software is supplied (that is, on the same CD set). There are exceptions -- like how to get mp3s playing (but there is a clear link, and download of an RPM to install). And that makes setting up a system very straightforward

Setting up XINE is a bit more difficult...

However, since Linux is *not* pre-installed, and the typical user does not install (because someone in the family is the ''resident geek''), it isn't difficult. The machines just work.

And that is the most important thing. That the computer does its job; easily and conveniently.

The key points for ''casual user'' are that:

1 - Linux is just as easy as Windows

2 - It's cheaper

3 - You friendly neighbourhood support geek is happier when you use it -- make remote administration easier.

4 - No more Outlook worms, MSBlaster.

5 - If you have teenagers that just NEED the latest PC games and elite 'net experience, you go with Windows (and reload your machine every 3 to 6 months -- I just ghost 'em).

As a hacker, I am happy to see people use my software. My commercial stuff goes into embedded systems (like DVD players). So I get paid. I don't compete with Microsoft! I *like* them. I own MSOFT shares.

As an informal family IT support person, I wish that MS Windows had sensible remote management. I still have to support Windows 98, you here? Actually, I use Windows 2000 Professional as my Windows test-bed at work, but I don't know any of the remote management stuff. All I know is that 98 doesn't have it. So, I prefer my ''users'' switch to Linux. It's easier on me (in the long run). If they have DSL or Cable (broadband), I schedule backups for them. If they buy hardware, I install the drivers for them. If they need a new application, I set it up for them. Just like a company IT person.

For my own hacker needs, I can choose what GUI to use (and what filesystems, encrypting or not, and vi vs. emacs. etc. etc. etc.). Doesn't matter to others -- they are going to use OpenOffice.org, not (vi|emacs)! They are never going to touch a configuration file (they CAN'T, because they don't have the root password -- well, they do, its in an envelope with instructions to open it if I die, or in case of emergency). And when/if they learn enough, or they just want it, they can have the root password, their sysadmin badge (or tee-shirt), and get into the meat of the Open Source Movement.

Ratboy.

- Family IT Admin since '95.
- 3 Linux, 6 Windows 98 boxes
- 1 server
- 5 locations (Sault Ste. Marie to Detroit)

Re:Just doesn't get it!

[Jon Abbott]

All I know is that 98 doesn't have [remote management].

Have you tried VNC before? It has saved my butt a number of times, it's free (both in source and in price), and it works on a lot of OSes (and doesn't require the server and client to be running the same OS). It's not automatic remote management by any means, but it does get the job done.

Dudes full of shit -- already done

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to be so blunt but I'm sick to death of this crap. And if he had half a brain-cell he would be able to recognize this as such.

Why am I being such a prick? Becuase I've seen what is happening to RedHat and ESPECIALLY SuSE and can only say that what he is suggesting is already happening.

Take a look as SuSE, they are an excellent example. They have an entire distribution, packaged and ready to go, that is very heavily, if not totally, based upon KDE. They do offer alternatives, but precious few, they don't work as well, and they don't integrate with what SuSE has chosen to provide in the software distribution

Because of the decisions that SuSE has made, the user is presented with a form of Linux which is:

• Well Supported as long as you follow the Default.
• Easy to use and easy to understand for a Windows User.
• Highly integrated and standardized.

My point being this. If you are going to make the choice of a Linux Distribution which is geared to the Corporate User or a user who is not interested tweaking Linux then the very moment that you make the choice, be it RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, you have defined and confined yourself into a default window manager with will provide a common, universal GUI interface for as long as you use that distribution. In a Corporation, if they choose one distribution then every desk will appear to be the same insofar as that user chooses to go with the defaults. This is not any different from Windows today.

It is only in the more varied and more interesting distributions that you have the variety and choice to make the GUI a complexity of life. But even those like Debian and Gentoo, which are less trivial to configure yet provide infinite variety, have basic default options which, within their own space of being Debian or Gentoo is universally common with everyone else and probably common with many of the rest.

What I have seen is that the people who do not care to learn the interface and want things brain-dead simple will always choose KDE. People who want things to be different for their own reasons: speed, resources, appearance, features, will choose one that best suits them beit Gnome, WindowMaker, or whatever.

But to think that Linux will become better by having only one WindowManager available to everyone is just Corporate DumbAss thinking. This variety is what is required for Linux to remain a viable entity, to EVOLVE there must be variety and not all of them will survive the next generation.

Addressing goals of the software writters

[ZippyWonderclutch]

In reading this reply to the article, I find myself wondering what the goals of the open source movment are, or more importantly to who those goals are aimed at. If I've understood the reply correctly, the open source programmers are writing programs with a programmer audience in mind. An audience who understands and can build programs and choose what libs to include or not, etc. This model works fine for programmers. People write programs to fill a need and give it to other people if they need it too. If everyone who was using that program was also a coder and understood the ins and outs of the system they were using, that would be fine. The problem this environment runs into is that the software people are writing is not being used by just programmers. I like to think that the Free Software and Open Source movements are not just about releasing programs for other programmers, or making an operation system to only be used by people who code. I like to think that the open source and free software movements have included the rest of the computer using world in thier goals to provide a free and accessable operating system for ANY computer user, not just one who knows what a 'library' is outside of a big building where books are kept. If all people using a linux based distro were proficent coders, I doubt we'd be having this converstaion. However, the popularity of 'Linux' is getting to the point were non-coders are becomming interested in it and want to see what all the commotion is about. It's these people that a common UI is targeted at. Now, I'm not a fan of the Windows UI, and I'm not inclined to see it replicated in a distro, but a common, good, interface that can be used reguardless of your skills with a text editor outside of Word would be of conciderable gains in getting the 'average' user more comfortable in a distro. If you purposly ignore that aspect, or say it's not needed because the people who 'matter' or 'use' the OS are coders, then your advocating the creation of an operation system made for and by coders and leaves everyone else out.

It's not the GUI that needs to be standardized.

[Eric Damron]

I really find the "Linux must have a standard GUI or it's not usable" argument very irritating. People will migrate to whichever desktop look and feel that they like. The distributions that default to a GUI that users can't tolerate will change or disappear.

Let's face it. There are two main GUIs that most people want. KDE and GNOME. Including the other GUIs for people who want something different will in no way hurt Linux. This is especially true if the default is one of the two popular window managers.

What could hurt Linux is a lack of software. Different GUIS tend to use different libraries. This leaves programmers in a situation where they must choose which library to use to build their applications. If they choose a library that isn't included in a distribution then the application that they build won't run on that distribution.

The important thing here is that the two main GUIs work together so that programmers can code apps that will run on either desktop. As for the less popular window managers, they probably won't be that well supported.

distributions

[Anonymous Coward]

that's why the distribution they choose chooses a default GUI for them

this discussion is lame

[ammoQ]

Let the Distros create the de-facto standards. On about all major distros, KDE programs run in Gnome and vice-versa. With BlueCurve, Galaxy and Keramic/Geramic, they also look identically. So why worry? Users who don't want to choose will use the default desktop of their distro.

Re:Why do we need to conquer the Home Desktop, aga

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so right. I'm sick and tired of people always talking about the Linux market share. Linux is _not_ a business. People can't seem to understand that. If somebody wants a Linux based unified desktop to compete with M$, then they need to start a company to do that.

Not again...

[kwiqsilver]

A couple times a year, somebody writes an article about a unified GUI. It's a bunch of crap.

• You don't have to choose a GUI with the distros that cater to these windows converts. Distros like Mandrake and Lindows install one by default, only advanced users can figure out how to get a choice.
• Companies using a GNU/Linux desktop will probably use the default as well.
• Many of us don't want to use KDE or GNOME: If I wanted a slow, bloated interface that looks like windows, I'd run windows.
• It's not possible. The nature of an open OS is such that you can't force somebody to use a particular component. Rasterman isn't going to stop developing Enlightenment, just because some journalist doesn't want his grandmother see it. And I won't stop using it.
• Screw grandma! Why cripple the rest of us, forcing us to run a UI designed to be usable with IQ of 50 (see comment about using windows above).
• Choice is always a good thing. It's nice that automakers standardized on the clutch-brake-throttle positions, but there's no need to have the knobs for the AC and stereo in the same spot. The people who are afraid of choice sit down at the computer thinking it's too complicated for them, and that's why it is. Choice is what makes GNU great.
• Competition in the production of interchangeable commodity components is a key element of capitalism. One size fits all design is socialism. One creates advancement, one creates stagnation. Look at the advancement of FS/OS browsers over the past few years, versus the advancement of proprietary browsers (i.e. IE) in that same period. If a similar movement made mozilla the only browser, do you think it would advance as quickly without konqueror, firebird, galeon, etc. challenging it?

Why is it GNOME vs. KDE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that the only two choices people think about when they talk about linux desktops are GNOME and KDE?
They're both meant to look/feel/act like windows. Are people really only capable of working with a system that looks like windows?

My vote goes to Enlightenment. It doesn't look like windows, it doesn't work like windows, but it sure looks nice, and works wonderfully.
Creativity and original thought are alive in the world! Seek enlightenment. (It's at enlightenment.org, BTW. :-D)

Re: every few months...

[Anonymous Coward]

guess what I'm lost with this new stupid XP interface... they made all things that I want to access as harder as possible...
This can help one or two newbies but broke all average users experience..
Believe me I have to explain every day on the phone where is this and that in XP..
Even many pro-windows fans admit this, and make them stay with 98 and 2000.
And for me I really hate this new XP look and experience. It is good I have to use it very rarely..

For me Gnome feels much much better..

I have one thought from a long time, that MS had fired many of their security experts and programmers and placed on their place graphic designers. I mean not ergonomic-designers but graphic-designers..

Technical support.

[edunbar93]

I've worked in the ISP industry for about 6 years now, and most of that time has been spent doing tech support for end users.

Right now, Linux is impossible to support over the phone. If someone were to call us up and ask for support for Linux, the only thing we can give them is the settings they need, and not where to put them. However, the vast majority of the people that need to call technical support for help (and that's the vast majority of the customers) need to be given more than just the server names they need. They need to have the entire set up process explained to them in fine detail. And that means that they need a standard user interface.

I think it would be great if someday a user can call up and say "I use Redhat" or "I use SuSE" and we would immediately know the exact steps needed to get their internet account set up. Quite honestly, you can give the user as much choice as possible, with a hundred different variations on the interface just so long as the particular interface that comes out of the box is complete, and has a name. The way it stands now however, practically every install is unique, in no small part because each user has to put it together themselves. You can't just install KDE and be done with it, because KDE doesn't necessarily have its own PPP program or mail program, or network setup utility. Certainly there's programs for KDE that do these tasks, but not every KDE user has them. The same is true for Gnome. And IceWM.

Re:Technical support.

[ajs318]

I have to do phone support sometimes too, and it's a mare when the person on the other end is using a different OS to what I'm using {Windows 98 SE usually; CRT for accessing the Linux servers; when re-install time comes around, or I get a new box, I'm going to dual-boot 98SE with Debian or maybe Slackware}. They are often using XP, and the user interface is subtly different.

I think the best thing an ISP could do to promote Linux acceptance would be to create a Linux distribution that would include all the relevant software to enable a new user to get onto the Internet via their servers. If we're going with KDE, then it should include Kmail, KPPP &c. with some interactive configuration scripts. If you build the setup scripts into a package which depends upon the relevant packages, then you can ensure that all these packages will get installed. If your package format is Debian or RedHat, then you should also make a .tar.gz version for other distributions. An end-user doing a from-scratch install would have the ISP access package installed by default. A more advanced user with an existing installation need only install the ISP-access package {and resolve its dependencies if necessary}. This way, you can be sure that your customers are starting from basically the same point.

Now that might sound like a tall order for one small ISP; but how about an alliance of small, independent {for that human touch you just don't get with big corporations} ISPs {in separate regions so they are not competing directly with one another}, sharing a basically common Linux distribution {with all the advantages that would entail} with just subtle differences in the config scripts? Each would also provide some space on an FTP server for their own boot CD and as part of a distributed mirror for packages, and maybe MySQL or PostgreSQL server space for a knowledge database.

It Could Happen. Certainly, working for an ISP, it is something I have thought about doing.

Cut and Paste

[jtev]

It's always Middle Mouse, That's built into X anything else is a Toolkit specific cut and paste. Not that the toolkiat specific cut and paste isn't good, but middle click ALWAYS works

Re:Cut and Paste

[Hatta]

I've had trouble getting middle click to work in galeon. Dunno why, it's screwy.

Re:Cut and Paste

[jtev]

Because when you obscure one of your tabs it unselects the info in that tab. which sucks. but if you use mid click to or from other apps it works

Re:Cut and Paste

[Hatta]

I see now. There are some other silly little problems with that browser. Like you can't run it on two different $DISPLAYs at the same time. Too bad, it's a nice browser.

Re:Cut and Paste

[jtev]

I didn't know you couldn't put it on two different displays, man that sucks, do you know if it works of two users are doing two different displays? Actualy I'll just try it out when I get home, I'll create a second user for that.

I think...

[tomkit]

...that is very imformative and it personally applies to me. I have been a Windows a user ever since 3.11 for Workgroups and now I currently use XP. I have recently installed Red Hat 8.0 as a dual boot on my laptop. But what made me choose this? I was unable to make any informed decision on choosing my flavor of linux, instead it came down to the brand name. The same goes for the GUI.

Distros

[Jagasian]

This is why we have distros. For example, people use Redhat because they pick and choose what they think the best software components are for the job. They also pick the default window manager.

I am using basically a completely default Redhat 9 install, and I never had to choose one window manager or another, in order to get usability. Sure, Nautulis kind of sucks for browsing files, but if you turn off all previewing, it is usable.

Anyway, it is the Distros job to make the tough choices. Some distros choose to make more of these tough choices than others. Redhat, Suse, and Mandrake make lots of choices for the user... while Debian, Gentoo, and Slackware make very few choices.

If a user wants an easy ride, they go with one distro out of the first set of 3. They are all effectively the same in terms of usability.

If a user wants freedom of choice, then they go with one of the other distros (actually there are hundreds of distros to choose from I just listed my favorites).

Re: every few months...

[nutshell42]

so you switch it back to classic and as soon as your Joe Average clicks on start he is lost because the start menu looked different back in (Windows)95.

waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really need to target "most people" ? I mean, most people use AOL, don't they? Shows how intelligent they are...

Freedesktop really is the way to go

[Nicolai Haehnle]

Since I don't have any moderator points to mod you up, I'll point out that I agree with you and add a slightly longer post in the hope to catch a little more attention for an important subject ;)

It's kind of sad that so many people rant on about problems of the Linux desktop without knowing about Freedesktop.

It's true: The biggest problem Linux has on the desktop is one of interoperability. There are still some applications that don't get Copy&Paste right (it's gotten a *lot* better though), and Drag&Drop across toolkits is mostly a disaster (but there are already numerous cases where it works).

Some people want to magically fix that by removing all toolkits except for one. Newsflash: This is never going to work. Even if you were to remove all toolkits except for one today, somebody would start writing a completely new one tomorrow.
The real problem is that there were no (or unclear) inter-application communication standards. That's what the Freedesktop project tries to fix - and it does so successfully.

The nice thing is that Freedesktop works through evolution, rather than revolution.

Choice is so overrated.

[Sarvagya]

First of all, WHO needs choice and WHEN do you need choice?

Lets look at the "when" first, you need choice when either you are installing the OS, or are installing an application which serves a purpose for the first time (consideiring you don't already have an app to serve that purpose yet). In most of the cases if you have an app which serves a purpose most people are happy with it, until an unless they find another which does the thing better. No one needs 5 apps to do the same thing to begin with. Does anyone here really think, that well I need an app to play mp3 files, let me install those 5 applications that are available and then I will use them all one by one. No, you look at the reviews, etc. and then pick the app which you like, if it serves your purpose, great, else you find another and maybe even remove the first one.

Secondly, "who" needs choice? Do you really think that ordinary joe needs a choice of 10 WMs, 15 mp3 players, 5 office suites, etc. etc. ALL shoved down his/her throat when he boots up a system. NO Sir, s/he does not.

So, the basic point is, that choice is good, but not initially when you are beginning, since even thought choice is good, you just drown in it if you don't know your way around and are just starting.

So, what is stopping from some company from taking the initiative and coming up with a distro with 1 (I repeat ONE) of each type of app and the tools by which a user can him/herself find what else is out there.

Show a man how to stand up and then teach him to walk, and give him the tools, and rest assured he can doscover the world for himself. my $0.2

You certainly haven't bowed...

[Anonymous Coward]

... to the rules of grammar and spelling. Bravo.

Red Herring

[qtp]

There is no reason for a "standard desktop" for Linux, and the choices being two of the most bloated, overly interdependant projects in the Linux (X11) spectrum should help to illustrate this.

Yes, there should be good apps that work well together.

And yes, there should be a good set of libraries that help to do this.

But to say that every distribution should default to the same environment doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I put a good amount of effort in keeping the Gnome and KDE libraries off of my computer, and when my friends who use Windows borrow my laptop, it might take them 5 to 10 minutes to figure out Blackbox, or a little less time to figure out WindowMaker on my desktop, but the only consistant problem I've seen is them asking which program to use, and this will happen whenever a person uses a computer that has different programs installed on it.

It's not rocket science, and users are capable of adjusting, like they do every time Windows (or office) is upgraded.

Different distributions "look" different, and this is how it should be. The choice is for the consumer, and if you are selling Linux to your clients, then sell them on the choices.

We already have a standard inteface

[Mark Bainter]

and as far as I know, ALL of the distributions have it. At least I'm not aware of one that doesn't.

The command line.

Absolutely! It's basic usability.

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user." What I want is applications where I don't have to guess what symbol they are using this time for the "close this window" button. I want a given icon to have the same meaning and occupy the same relative position on all the screens within that application. I don't want the same icon to have two different meanings ON THE SAME SCREEN!

Much of the percieved difficulty in using Linux is the lack of consistency not only between applications, but between parts of the same application. The user can't "learn" the system, because there are too many exceptions in location, icons used, etc. The benefit of having a standard interface is that the programmers can just use the standard templates and not have to come up with their own from scratch: it lets you get right to the fun part of coding.

It's perhaps time for the entire OSS/GNU/Linux movement to fork. Those who actually care about users can get together and develope a standard for the GUIs. Those who think that their freedom to program is being trampled by any suggestion that maybe their software is not as user-friendly as it should be can fork off.

We need a king!

[Arandir]

Several thousand years ago, the nation of Israel did not have a king. They were a free people. One description of their political system could have been "anarcho-theocracy". But all the nations around them had despotic kings. So the people went to their wisest member, Samuel, and asked him for a king. He warned them that a king would tax then, draft them, murder the best generals so he could sleep with their wives, bankrupt the economy by building guilded temples, instigate civil wars, and divert public funds for the promotion of foreign religions. But the people were adamant. So they got their king.

Skip forward to the modern day. The people of Linux look around them and see slavery, subjugation, domination and product activation everywhere but in their own OS. They started to grumble. "It's not fair that they live in squalor with MSDN subscriptions to tell them what to do. We need a king as well!" So they went to their wisest and said, "Place a king over us, to tell us what desktop we must use! The people of Windows mock us because we have choice. The people of Apple mock us because we are free. The people of Sun mock us because we don't meekly follow orders. Give us a king!"

And so the wisest relented and gave them a king. And the king sent his soldiers into the land to enforce his will. The new desktop would be Knome. Any who used KDE or GNOME would be banished. Any who used XFCE, Windowmaker or Blackbox would be arrested. Any who programmed for Qt, GTK+, Fox or FLTK would be pilloried. Distributions who offered their users a choice were stripped of the LSB certification.

"There is no Linux in Iraq." --Baghdad McBride.

[rice_burners_suck]

If newbies can't or won't make a choice of GUIs and other software components, it should be easy to make those choices for them.

Siemens' research found that GUIs dissimilar to Microsoft's are better for new Linux users than similar GUIs. Users approached the system without preconceived notions of how it should operate. GUIs cannot be made identical to Microsoft's, anyway, so it is clearly better to make the GUI different.

Who cares if there is a learning curve? Windows has been designed in such a way that users' brains are shoved into some little box and they can't think outside of it... Linux can be the opposite of that, causing users to want to get acquainted with the capabilities of their systems, so they can use them to get things done more efficiently. That doesn't mean that users have to learn how to write shell scripts or other geeky stuff like that, by the way. But it does mean this: Everyone who uses Windows knows how to point at stuff and click, right? So what's the problem? Give 'em a system that won't crash, that won't explode, that won't get viruses, that won't get crackers... and let 'em point and click anywhere they want. Suddenly, people will have imagination when it comes to using computers and the goals of free software will be furthered by that.

By the way, the point isn't to "convert" the existing 400 million Windows users to Linux. The point is to gain the support of the 5.6 billion other people in the world. (I read some quote to that effect in Linux Journal once.)

Re:"There is no Linux in Iraq." --Baghdad McBride.

[Anonymous Coward]

A majority of the 5.6 billion other people in the world have never even seen a computer. Most of the rest are running a pirated copy of Windows.

Choices should be

[MagicBox]

Between different platform only. You should not have to go through hell to find out what platform you want to use, then once you chose it, go through even more hassle to have to choose what environments you want to use, and once you have chosen that, go through even more hassle to choose the type of applications, and this and that...etc etc. It should not take you 6 months to finally purchase a Home Computer. The choices should be simple, clear and easy to make.

Re:FUD

[hitmark]

i recall kde comeing with a tray thingy lately that isable to swallow stuff you normalysee in afterstep and windowmakers warf (or whatever its called)...

GUI, what GUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

I work on the console, you insensitive clod.

Great!

[cnelzie]

Now just talk Sescoi into developing WorkNC and WorkNC CAD for Linux, then Faro to develop a Faro Arm Interface to run on Linux...

Then talk Brown and Sharpe into making PCDMIS into running on Linux and we will be closer to being in business, solely on Linux...

There will still be that problem that Microsoft Project doesn't run on Linux and the closest thing to it (Mr. Project) on Linux is like comparing a fully loaded luxury car (Microsoft Project) with a ten year old Yugo that is missing the driver side door and is just about rusted to pieces and is also modified to only run on Railroad tracks. I have used both, so I can make that comparison.

Hell... I use both...

[binary paladin]

Eh... I use Gnome, KDE, and I've found that I really enjoy Xfce4. What I've also found is this, there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to pick one. Right now the two desktops communicate well. When I open a KDE program in Gnome and vice versa, things pretty much work the same.

Each desktop has its polish and it's problems (KDE has a MUCH nicer save dialog and Konq wipes the floor with the ass that is Nautilus, but I MUCH prefer the Gnome panel so I use Gnome with the KDE file manager) and the ncie thing is, I can pick and choose to my preferences.

If some company wants to standardize with one, fine. I don't care. But don't try to get the "Linux community" to standardize anything. If it never takes over the desktop, I don't care. If I wanted a "one size fits all" solution driven down my throat in the name of taking over the desktop market I'd get a copy of Windows, you know?

And something people seem to miss is that these desktop projects span more than just Linux and if Linux standardizes on one it won't make a difference and the geeks that have made Linux what it is will move to something that they can play with and modify.

Too much standardization is going to kill off Linux's most devoted users.

There is No Monolithic `Linux'

[Bob Uhl]

The fundamental error this columnist makes is twofold: first, that there is no monolithic `Linux corporate entity'; second, that the goal of this non-existent entity is to convert everyone to Linux.

`Linux' (really, free software in general) is not a person; it is not a corporation; it is the emergent product of thousands of developers. There is no central direction. There is no-one to enforce any silly dicta which come down the pike. It's freedom, baby: everyone doing his own thing, and thereby producing something great and Free. Sure, it has rough edges, but it's truly Free.

Even if one looks at the `Linux' community as a self-directed organism, is its goal conversion from Windows? Is its goal dumbed-down software? No: the goal of the free software community is freedom--and we have that. It is for proprietary software users to come to us; not for us to come to them. If users wish to remain lusers, so be it: we will help them become better, but we will not worsen ourselves.

How would he--or any other person advocating uniformity--propose to enforce a common standard on all? By violence? The basic issue is that we do not all agree on what is good. I like Ion; you like fvwm2; he likes sawfish. Which would you choose? Each has its pros and cons. Each is infinitely better than the utterly loathsome metacity.

As long as there is freedom, there will not be uniformity. Since freedom is the highest good of free software, free software will never be uniform. Particular collections might be (witness the GNU Project, whose tools mostly follow the same conventions), but the whole will never be.

This is a good thing, because freedom is good, and choice is good, and people are different. To those with brains, freedom and choice are exhilarating--who cares for those without?

BTW, WTF's up with /. not respecting &dash;?

Windows Usability?

[mstieg]

I find it terrifying that someone would be Windows for usability. That's an oxymoron up there with military intelligence!

I use Windows and it works fine, but usability was definately NOT one of the reasons why I use it. It was a reason why I DIDN'T use it for about 10 years.

What's the Big Deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that all desktops, regardless of OS, function pretty much the same. X closes a window, - minimizes it, mouse clicks launch icons, and every flavor has some sort of start bar.

I would think anyone with a basic understanding of what a GUI is for wouldn't have problems with what idiosyncracies do exist. I mean for crying out loud, all you're doing is opening a file or running a program.

I am not a programmer nor any flavor of geek (well, I read /.) and migrating from Win2k to RedHat9 was really painless for me. Choosing which desktop to use was a minor part of the process, and I don't think standardizing on one or another is the solution to Getting Linux Ready For The Masses, which is really what we're talking about here.

I am already fed up....

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Software is not a war.
The Development of free software doesn't have as objective to crush Microsoft.
If i make software allow me to make as _i_ (or my team) want and i'll let you change it!If you don't like it, don't use or simply make something (for your standards) better. THAT'S the point.

Free Software isn't a weapon against Microsoft, stop thinking like a corporative guy!

And about the topic of standarizing Linux's GUI... well... it would be too boring... We have eight different window managers because someone like them, and we have a billion text editors because someone in any place use them and like them!(Altough anybody Knows that vim simple rules :-P )

And besides... different ways of doing something is interesting and instructing

(I'm not actually an active english speaker, so while i know the basics of grammar, maybe my style of speaking is just hilarious or wrong, excuse me, please)

Bluecurve Screenshots

[hahn]

Link.

The Market Will Decide

[Anonymous Coward]

This pundit obviously knows nothing about how software is developed. The developers will end up using the best library/GUI for their needs. If were talking about a serious commercial application, then the $1000 commercial license for QT (which also gives you cross platform porting!) is really nothing.

If a gaggle of commercial developers start using KDE because they can write one app for Linux, Mac OS X and Winblows then the users wont have any choice. They will be running the KDE/QT libraries even if they are running some other window manager such as WindowMaker (my reigning non-kde-gnome fave).

Having said that, I prefer the KDE environment. Sometimes I even use Konqueror under Windowmaker. At some point the great majority of applications will decide on KDE or Gnome. The others will fade and it's possible that the importance of X itself will fade from history. Quite soon there may be non-X versions of KDE running on Linux. The big roadblock is video card drivers (could they be converted?).

Having been a developer in C and C++ and GUI's for about 20+ years now I'll have to say that KDE is by far the better architecture. No serious developer will ever start a new, large application/GUI project in C anymore. I know GNOME/GTK has a C++ interface, but its not well supported if not actually deprecated. The whole move by the Gnome chief towards cloning .net is foolish and a distraction from what should be his main focus.

The only real concern in my book is that the Canopy group has a minority share in Trolltech. Of course, after IBM and RedHat scatter SCO and Canopy to the four winds they would no doubt own, not just the SysV source code, but the Canopy's interest in TrollTech. That would work out nicely considering IBM is a big proponent of KDE and the cross-platform capability of KDE would help IBM's partner in Mac OS X hardware, Apple. It would also help Apple since they use Konqueror in Safari.

End game: IBM buys the rest of Trolltech and removes cross-platform license fees. Commercial use of KDE/QT would be under LGPL or maybe just the GPL. IBM slices off a chunk of money and creates the QT foundation. They pay QT developers to develop it forever and the original Trolltech developers are rich because they got bought out. Excellent all around.

Until then we have Mac OS X, which is the best damn graphic environment around bar none. Of course, there is a little bit of evil over at Apple with MS being a part owner.

In the end, some form of PDF-like environment will be worked out on the KDE side and even Mac OS will fade from view.

Re:FUD

[arth1]

The KDE/Gnome libraries must be installed to run these applications, but KDE/Gnome do not need to be running.

I beg to differ. Start konqueror without starting kde, and then do a ps. konqueror starts kde for you. Kill kde, and konqueror and other kde apps die. You not only need the libraries, but the runtime environment. This is not like other apps depending on shared libraries, but more like .NET (which is evil, and must be destroyed).

I've also run all these apps remotely using Cygwin and XWin-Pro (now called something else... WinaXe?). If your X server is not working properly you should check with your vendor.

Uhm, no -- one error kde does is to *expect* extensions to exist without always checking for them. That is not a vendor problem.
Even worse, it expects KDE-specific extensions to be present also on the SERVER environment. Somehow, I doubt you're immune from this one:

ERROR: KUniqueApplication: DCOP communication error!

Regards,
--
*Art

Linux = GPL , GPL = Freedom, Freedom=choice

[anwyn]

Linux = GPL , GPL = Freedom, Freedom=choice

Executive Editor A. Russell Jones is an idiot. He has not understood the above simple equation.

Even supposing that "standardization" were a good thing, what power on earth could possibly enforce it?

Any free software project by definition can be forked. The right to create alternatives is the right of free speech. Code=Speech. The Internet gives computer users the power to download and install any such alternatives.

The fact that many window managers are included in common distributions is proof that different people prefer different distributions.

The fact that Mr. Jones has not understood this, is proof that he is not competent enough to impose his ideas on anyone!

The beauty of free software is that people like Mr. Jones can not get the power to implement their half-baked "bright ideas" and totalitarian visions.

Free software is the power of organized anarchy!

Limited Disto

[Exousia]

Isn't that what Lindos tries to be? At any rate, this whole GUI issue is one issue that has bothered me (a fanatic Linux developer and user) for quite some time. Some consensus with the average consumer in mind needs to occur. This will greatly enhance acceptibilty.

End users (including corporations) want it easy to use, and cheap. The wants and desires of the average Linux junkie is irrelevant here.

Window Manager choice?

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

"the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on"

Picking your window manager or desktop environment is easy. What so hard about:

1. Picking KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment/IceWM ... from the login menu
2. Clicking on the icon in the lower left corner to see what programs are available (if it's there)
3. Clicking on the icons to see what they do.
4. Trying a few right-clicks to see what happens.
5. Deciding which one you like.

IMHO a far greater problem facing new users is figuring out what software they need. Many free software projects do a terrible job of representing themselves to the user community. When a user visits a program's web site, they want to find out if that software will fit their needs. If the features and capabilities are not spelled out clearly, the user may go elsewhere, or assume that his only option is commercial software.

BeOS and OS/2 failed: not in market long enough

[tjstork]

The one thing that really seems to define how well an operating system is how long the offerer keeps it in the market. OS/2 was not around really long enough, having given up the ghost around Windows95. And, neither was BeOS.

I still think that BeOS could have made it had Be not done the disasterous foray into Internet appliances and stuck with the pay for download the O/S model.

All they needed to do was stay the course, keep making the OS and improving it, and stay in business. But they did not, and so they failed.

MS won because they stuck with it. They throw something out there, and, if they judge it to be strategic, they stick with it. Look at how bad Windows 1.0 was, but they stuck with it. They stuck with it through Windows 2.0, through Windows/386, and finally, they got a product they could sell to OEMS in Windows 3.1 and even then, many businesses did not even move to Windows until Windows 95. That's nearly a 10 year stretch of staying in the market.

Why 'Linux'?

[UserAlreadyExists]

Why sell it as 'Linux' on the desktop at all?
The average desktop user doesn't see the kernel at all. Sell it as 'KDE' if it runs KDE and 'Gnome' if it runs gnome. No confusion there. It doesn't even have to be running on a Linux kernel. It could be *BSD. Mr. Average Desktop User won't know the difference. All he sees is the GUI and the apps.

And another thing: why is everyone so concerned about selling Linux/OSS in the first place? Most people who write the stuff do so to fill a need they have. If it helps someone else, great. If not, who cares? That's why there's so much choice.

It amazes me

[Soothh]

How many people vote KDE? from toying with it, maybe it is good for someone totally new to the linux desktop, but im amazed at how many people, that claim to be geeks like KDE. I think its ugly, clunky, and mere eye candy. I have hated kde since the first time i used it, and while it has come a long way, its super ugly.

Considering its for a common desktop, id have to vote gnome.

"I just want to go places in my car!"

[mec]

The general public cares as little about computers as "we" do about how our cars operate. We just want to get in them and drive.

Transcripts from the General Motors Help Line

good news

[penguin7of9]

Good news: doesn't matter what "Executive Editor Russell" says. Russell may thinks that the appearance of Linux should be planned by a Central Committee, which would avoid the waste and duplicated effort of a free market. People in the Soviet Union also thought that central planning was more efficient than a messy market, but it didn't work that way. Choice and variety is an intrinsic part of Linux and open source. And in the long run, they avoid the stagnation that is intrinsic in centrally planned systems, like the USSR or Microsoft.

Pehaps one way in which people like Russell can get happier with Linux is to think of Linux not as a single system with an inconsistent user interface, but as several different systems. Then his argument becomes about as sensible as arguing that computer users would be a lot happier if Apple just killed the Macintosh because then commercial user interfaces would all look like Windows and hence be less inconsistent.

In summary of said article .

[Anonymous Coward]

for those with AD/HD or those just plain too lazy to read it ...

Standardization GOOD! - Choice Bad. Open Source, a non-issue blown out of all meaningless proportion because Joe User dosen't care to make changes or customizations ... Joe User, just wants it to work. Simple.

Anything else is bad for 'business' and the Linux community has to decide ... standardization/organization and be successfull in business ... or don't and fail miserably.

as history has allready proven.

A relevant experience

[nicestepauthor]

I use Window Maker pretty much exclusively. Last New Year's Day my niece came over and wanted to use my computer to instant message her friends. I had GAIM installed but had never configured it (I've never used Instant Messaging). She figured out how to bring up the menu (left click anywhere on the desktop), found the menu entry for GAIM (I may have mentioned that the IM program was called GAIM) and had it configured in minutes. Then she sent messages to all of her friends.

Later, she told me she didn't understand why I bothered with Linux because it seemed to her to be "just like Windows". But Window Maker doesn't try to be like Windows at all. It is designed to look like a NeXT computer.

In some ways Window Maker is a better desktop for new users because it doesn't set up false expectations. You don't expect it to work exactly like Windows so you aren't frustrated when it doesn't. Also, how it does work is easy to figure out.

In any case, I think that yougsters won't have much trouble with Linux and will probably appreciate a choice of desktops.

Re: every few months...

[Jon Abbott]

My Computer and the other desktop icons are gone by default in XP

That explains why I couldn't find the "My Documents" folder on the desktop of my friend's XP machine... I have seen other XP machines where "My Documents" is shown by default. So much for consistency!

Other features

[nuggz]

There are still more features.
Glass shelves, or wire. edging to prevent drips.
Cooling through the door.
Ice machines, water dispensers.
Individually adjustable shelves.

This is similar to KDE & gnome do the same thing in a similary way, but still a bit different.

Re:Other features

[blixel]

There are still more features.

CD-ROM drives
webcams
printers
digital video cameras
external DVD burners
wireless mice
fax/scanner/copier

You want to compare KDE and Gnome to Windows or MacOS? Then try actually looking at the software element instead of the physical box. Because comparing phsyical adjustable glass shelves to the core software operating element of a computer isn't the right comparison.

If I want to change the GUI of Windows and keep the kernel, (like keeping the Linux Kernel and choosing a different Window Manager) I can simply go out on the web and pick a new shell. Such as LiteStep or AstonShell or any of the dozens of others that tickle my fancy. Or if I just want to change the Desktop look, I can download any one of the many thousands of themes that exist for Windows. Here's an example link (Many of which will extend the capability of the Window frame to add features such as window shading, pinned windows, translucent/transparent windows, etc..)

Are you Linux Zealots really that blinded by your own childish desire to be "l33t", "unique", and "nonconforming"? News flash: There are millions of other childish, nonconforming rebels out there ... just like you.

Go take a bath. You'll feel better.

useability the key to Linux desktop adoption

[chaosmind]

As others have pointed out, there's a bit of a non-sequitur in claiming that a single desktop will speed Linux adoption (98 -> XP, MacOS 9 -> X). If Lindows can sell an easy to use GNOME desktop and Lycoris can do the same with KDE, more power to 'em.

But most of the arguments about which is "better" (hah!) focus on look and feel. You want fast Linux adoption? I can do that one better:

drag and drop.

Not impressed? I can even do one better than that: the absolute most important step to desktop adoption:

copy and paste.

('nuff said!)

shortcuts

[Lelon]

I'd be happy if they settled on ctrl+c for copy and ctrl+v for paste. Before you can even think about standarizing the Linux desktop, you need to purge the incessant desire to be different for the sake of being different. Recognize what works in Windows and co-opt it.

Win what?

[Jonner]

Microsoft will win what? They've made it abundantly clear that they hate freedom and choice and anything they don't control. They've called GNU/Linux and the GPL unamerican and subversive. Have they managed to stop people from using Free Software? Have they managed to stop people from dumping their chains in favor of Free Software? What or how are they going to win?

Just because most people don't run GNU/Linux on their desktops and probably never will doesn't mean that Microsoft will win. It seems that in their eyes, they are losing. Would they react so violently if they felt secure in their software dominion?

Free Software has the advantage over proprietary because its users and developers don't have to care about market share and profit margins. There is plenty of commercial development of Free Software, but the software itself won't die just because it isn't profitable. Are you concerned for the fate of Mozilla now that Netscape decided it isn't profitable? It's probably slowed down a little. That's a lot better position than IE would be in if Microsoft stopped pouring money into it.

Another strength of GNU/Linux is that it doesn't have to dominate any market to succeed. Microsoft is threatened because quite a few servers and a small number of desktops run Free OSes. GNU/Linux, *BSD, GNOME, and KDE have been succeeding for years simply because people are using and developing them. They have never been threatened by Microsoft in the way the Microsoft is threatened by them.

A winning scenario for GNU/Linux would be one in which there was true freedom of choice and no single group dominated. There would be plenty of room for proprietary developers in such a world, as long as they interoperated with everyone else and provided good value and service to their customers. Of course, there probably wouldn't be many proprietary products that could long survive in such an open market.

Re:Yes, look at the wonderfull consitency of M$ Ap

[x-bow]

I believe this may be the link you want . But seriously, do you realise how much of a cretin the whole M$ thing makes you look? Every time I consider trying Linux again, I see some bullcrap like "M$" or "Windoze" or "Micro$oft". Not only does it suggest an opposition to actually making money, do I really want to use an OS whose most vocal advocates are incapable of making a rational argument as to why I should move to it?

Calling my own typo

[blixel]

attidue

attitude

QT under the GPL (or not)

[tjwhaynes]

There is a GPL'd version of QT available for Linux. So if you are a commercial developer you have two choices:

1. Use the GPL'd QT libraries and GPL your own software too
2. Pay Trolltech for a commercial license to use QT and keep your software closed source.

This is not a Windows/Linux split. It is a GPL/commercial license split. I seem to remember an effort to port the GPL'd QT libraries to Win32 starting up somewhere ... no idea whether it got anywhere.

Cheers,

Re: every few months...

[toddestan]

How could you *not* find My Documents on an XP machine? It seems like no matter where you go in XP, there is always something on the screen pointing you to My Documents.

If you mean where it's stored on the hard drive, then that's not so obvious because XP tries to hide details like that.

Give up total control to get ease of use?

[tjwhaynes]

Conversely:

To get the most ease of use out of your computer, it really needs to interact with you on your level. This means a user interface that is based on faulty human communication (verbal, facial expressions, gestures, posture, etc...) We're not there yet. However, this is what the Linux crowd should focus on instead of trying to imitate what's already been done.

It's a great idea. And maybe for the general public it would be superb. But for someone like me (techincal, detail orientated, good at scripting) it's a nightmare.

Hell why do I like working with computers? For me, working on a computer system is akin to the 'Infinite Fun' envisaged by Iain M. Banks in the Culture novels. Its the possibility of a nearly endless variety of pursuits and combinations sitting underneath my figuretips.

But put a fuzzy 'did you want to raise that window over there that you glanced at' interface over it and it's no longer completely under my control. Some finite state machine with fuzzy logic is going to try and interpret what were unambiguous statements and are now some analogue input or gesture? Maybe there are niceties out there to be done for this but I happen to like the current state of the UI. For the most part, it's simple, I can control all the aspects I need to and leave the rest on automatic (but deterministic) control.

So please start up a company to build this interface for the masses. I'm sure it will do well. But I don't want any part of it.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Re:Give up total control to get ease of use?

[Trolling4Dollars]

That's why I made sure to make this statement first:

To get the most complete use out of your computer, you really need to interact with it on it's level. This means CLI and scripting.

For me, I think I will always prefer a text based system since it is how I get the most out of my machines. I use GUIs too, but only for very limited and rarely used tasks like reading Slashdot for instance. :) The other thing I'd like to point out is that I also meant to mention the possibility of speech interaction with machines as well. While this is nothing new, I think it really is *part* of the next interface popular interface. Studies in the past have shown that people don't like machines talking to them. However, if they see that they can talk to their machines and get them to do task by verbal commands, they might be a little more flexible.

Conflicting interests...

[Kazoo the Clown]

Problem is, there are conflicting interests here. If a user is interested in networked workstations running shared, client server and/or non-realtime apps, he should choose one interface, and if he wants near-realtime games, video or graphics programs that require huge CPU computation sitting on top of a frame buffer, he should choose another interface. An X based interface is not a very good tool for video editing or interactive OpenGL apps, and a Microsoft Windows like frame-buffer GUI isn't going to work very good over a network.

And frankly, I've yet to need networked graphics, as I kinda see it as an oxymoron-- for me graphics have always meant some kind of bitmapping which really sucks over a TCP/IP connection. I use MS Windows as my primary GUI with Linux servers, and won't move to Linux on the desktop until they come up with a high-performance framebuffer oriented GUI. Fresco/GGI seems to be the closest thing to it so far, and it has quite a ways to go before it can perform anything like my current MS desktop can. At this point, I'd say standardization is the least of the problems, taking a back-seat to performance.

Re:FUD

[fault0]

> I beg to differ. Start konqueror without starting kde, and then do a ps. konqueror starts kde for you. Kill kde, and konqueror and other kde apps die. You not only need the libraries, but the runtime environment.

I think you're largely ignorant about KDE's architecture. Konqueror (and practically any KDE app) uses "kioslaves" for i/o, whether it be local or network based (KDE is network transparent). They are fork()ed' processes, so they appear as different from konqueror in a process list.

Konqueror also needs things like kded and dcopserver for IPC to work.

We need MORE gui evolution, too soon to choose 1!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a rats ass about market share in the open source world!
I'd be happier to see MORE competition in the user interface world!
If you agree that "there should be a standard" (and I don't) then you have to pick one.
Which is the best?
None of the Above.
The State of the Gui Interface is "keep trying,
you're not done!"

HAND

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sure Gnome beats the snot out of KDE, but does that mean KDE

# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

icewm?

[Anonymous Coward]

icewm loses its marbles on multiple screens... not Xineramas friend exactly.. submenus dont work on anything but the top row of monitors

Easy solution

[BoldAndBusted]

Someone can make and sell a distribution that doesn't allow a choice of WM/DM. If someone wants to use GNU/Linux to "beat" Windows, then offering very narrow levels of choice (like only defining Desktop Backgrounds, some themes, etc.) is one way to go. Just don't ask RedHat/Debian/Gentoo/LFS/SlackWare/SuSE/etc to do it. You could then have tag lines like this:

* KDE: Like Windows, only... different!
* GNOME: Why Switch? Why ask?
* Having trouble CHOOSING a desktop? STOP worrying and let US decide!
* WE make the MENUS, YOU pay the PRICE!

But, really, I don't think that focusing on "beating" windows is what's going to make Linux as a home OS "win". I think offering unique and innovative interfaces and showing users the benefits of choice is the way to go. With respect to innovationg in interfaces, really, Apple is the one to beat. If you can "beat" Apple, then you, by default, "beat" Microsoft.

more applications

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux need more commercial application like: GAMES: EA Games, Blizzard, Greenleaf Music: Cubase, Reason, CakeWalk, Acid Video: Nuendo, Adobe Premier Multimedia: Director, Toolbox

Choice - it's a dangerous concept

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's contemplate the issue of choice. Let's say that going forward, Gnome and KDE decided that the vast array of choices in configuring a linux desktop was hindering the adoption of linux. It's probably a very valid point. But what to do about it? What if Gnome and KDE decided to agree upon a common desktop presentation. But in the process of doing so, each and every decision they make is contrary to the choice you would have made. Now the aspects of the linux desktop that you know and love have been eradicated. And there is essentially no way for you to get it back short of forking both projects.

The problem with this entire issue is who makes the choices and for what reasons. I recently switched from using the one desktop to the other. I can't even figure out what was bothering me with the other. But now that I've switched, I've been more comfortable.

You could extend this same argument to vim and emacs. It would be a holy way to end all holy wars to try to merge them into one product.

In the end, I think it would be better if each linux distribution would focus on one desktop environment as their default and specialty. For users new to linux they wouldn't know anything else and would just learn to deal with the various quirks of that environment, the same as when they first learned windows. Later, maybe they investigate other desktops.

kde is the standard

[Anonymous Coward]

get over it

more applications

[joaomartins]

Linux need more commercial application like:
GAMES: EA Games, Blizzard, Greeleaf
Music: Cubase, Reason
Video: Nuendo, Adobe Premier
Multimedia: Director, Toolbox

Re:Forget GUIs(NOT!!!)

[Anonymous Coward]

NO! Freedom of choice is the right way to go, the problem is that we don't have enough of it yet with GUI's. They are not flexible enough to handle a request like - "Use the Microsoft Win 98 interface pattern" or "Use the SGI Onyx interface pattern"...

Those requests should handle more than just the window manager and desktop controls. They should handle key bindings, application constructs and flow as well. In other words an end user should not be able to tell the difference between a GUI running an "interface" pattern and the real thing.

Thinking MS Windows is any kind of stable interface is also wrong. It changes from release to release and apps break along the way. I still miss Dashboard that ran on Win 3.1, but was not available afterwards. I'm not even going to mention the thousands of dollars spent on other apps/hardware that are no longer available on current MS releases!

Standardise on UI Conventions, not Software

[podperson]

There's no special reason why Linux can't have as many UI APIs as you like, as long as an application written using KDE looks like (to the extent that makes sense) an application written using Gnome and you don't need to make decisions during installation that will prevent you from using one or the other.

Creating a single set of user interface standards is a good start. (I thought this was in fact underway, but I find no evidence of it via a casual visit to gnome.org).

Even funky riffs on the standard Mac user interface (such as we see in applications like Bryce) are easier to pick up and more intuitive than most Linux apps.

Uniform-Gui, My Ass!!!

[makoffee]

Uniform gui is a dumb idea. Point-less. Given enough development time and resources any one of them will become mature enough the be the obvious choice. IMO(ie right) The UIs (gnome, kde, wm) should become even more deverse, giving people a real reason to use one over the other. Not saying it should be this way but it's the only real life example I can think of... Perhaps KDE should continue to go down the path of MS-esk UI style to try and draw more of the windows croud over. Gnome should move down the MacOS X path of the balance of eye candy and usablility. You'd be surprized at how many people actualy would switch to somthing that just looked better that when they are using. You know, "the grass is always greener" thing. But still I see plenty of room for small foot-print/speedy little windows managers such as WindowMaker, for hardcore-speed geeks, and minimalists. I even see those WMs having a place in next gen PDAs.

The point is, it's fine... Don't worry about mom and pop switching to linux. Some one will come along (like the lindows folks) and make a distro just for them. The point of GNU/linux is that you can tweek it out, or you can build a dumbed disro for computer dummies, but you don't need to go around re-inventing the wheel.

I do agree that it should be made a little easier for the "rest of us" but not at the expence of absolute conformaty, thats what the bad guys did, and it sucks.

[gentoo foreva!]

Already done, thanks for asking

[ChaosDiscord]

No site that breaks online articles into arbitrary pages should be allowed to run articles on "usability."

Feh.

Single page link to the article.

That said, what this person is asking for is already done. In practice most Linux installs are using a packaged distribution. An increasely large number of users just stick with whichever window manager and desktop environment the distribution provides. The big who desktop environments and toolkits, KDE and Gnome, are working together increasingly well. The big distributions are all working to minimize the differences between KDE, Gnome, and other applications for end users. For interoperability most distributions just ship Gnome, Motif, and KDE; they coexist happily. My Red Hat 9 box works great, I run a mix of Gnome, KDE, and other applications without thinking about it, they all look and behave similarly.

The author simply got distracted by the choices. You don't need to look at them and your distribution provider is likely happy to pick some reasonable defaults for you.

Why, if you have to become just like them?

[DunbarTheInept]

What the hell's the point of using an alternative to Microsoft if that alternative contains exactly the same problem the original has - lack of choice? The arguments between KDE and Gnome are what I like about Linux, and I'm glad they're both there. I don't want to live in a world where everyone has to use linux. I want to live in a world where *I* can use it even if my coworkers and friends use something else. Yes, that does mean Microsoft has to lose marketshare (since they are the biggest proponents of OS lock-in which prevents that scenario from being possible), but if we have to turn Linux *into* Windows to do it, then that's not really a win.

Here's an example: I used to prefer Gnome over KDE because gnome was more capable of making the UI look like what I wanted. Now that Gnome has gotten onto the one-size-fits-all bandwagon and removed useful features, I've gone the other way and prefer KDE. Without that kind of choice out there, I couldn't do that and I'd be stuck. (And the manifesto-like explanation as to why pisses me off since it claims features I need are just pointless toys. (I don't consider outline-drag to be a toy. I consider opaque-drag to be the toy that eats CPU cycles needlessly. The Gnome manifesto seems to disagree, claiming that since all machines these days are faster than a Gigahertz, it's pointless to worry about it, but that's the same sort of wasteful mentality that makes me despise Windows. Just because I have lots of clock cycles doesn't mean I want to be wasting them on the UI. I'd rather have useful programs in the background crunching away using them.)

Re:Why, if you have to become just like them?

[Obiwan Kenobi]

What the hell's the point of using an alternative to Microsoft if that alternative contains exactly the same problem the original has - lack of choice?

What's so great about an operating system if it can't just find something great and stick with it? When did that become Something Wrong?

Why do we have to debate and wonder and pontificate on the likelihood of this or that window manager "making it" and striking out for the Betterment Of Linux?

Linux is about ego. Right now, it is. I truly think this way.

Why? I mean, let's face it, the best operating system today (yes, Linux) was based on the fact that Linus thought he could do better. That he didn't have to pony up the cash for Unix, that he didn't have to suffer under Minix. And the world is better for it.

Believe what you want, but Microsoft was started much the same way. Remember, Gates was just a geek that hit it big. He had ideas and put them in motion. Sure he's went over to the Dark Side, but I think it should be said that he too just wanted something that would impress his geeky buddies. I mean, hell, he dropped out of Harvard, but no one ever pays attention to that when you're the richest guy on the planet.

Selecting one window manager would make everything simpler. Yes, simpler can mean worse. But it can also mean that all efforts are on a solid channel, something to strive for and to work towards.

Think of the possibilities: Picking one window manager will assure that business applications and games can use a certain set of libraries and not have to worry about it not working because someone didn't install KLibs.

In a year or less, we'd probably have our own version of DirectX. A simple set of libraries that could universally be used and adapted to. Remember that DX version 1.0 sucked too, but it got better. The problem as I see it is that though we've seen KDE and Gnome develop over the years, hitting version 3.0 would actually be 8.0 if someone just picked something and everyone worked on it.

The power is not in little sourceforge projects that have great ideas and ambition but not the manpower to back it up.

The power is in working together, trying to get over your ego, and making it better. Mass decisions means mass support. Which also means faster development and better results.

That is the point my friend.

iOpenPc is needed

[bjsyd70]

Can most users tell you the optimal sound card for their needs? Can they even tell you their current sound card? To make things simple you need to go beyond an iMac. Limiting the choice of UI is not enough. To truely make things simple you need a single Kernel, Single UI, Single Spreadsheet, Word Processor, single sound card, single laser printer, Single monitor. OpenSource users don't just get to choose between Gnome, KDE and .... They also get to choose between BSD, perhaps HURD, Darwin, and Linux. Choice is everywhere. I think a few iOpenPC's will evolve. And they will kill Microsoft on the desktop. The Kernel may even be BSD based. Brendan

Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never, ever seen that, or even heard of it. I'd imagine the vast, vast majority of people on here haven't either.

Re:Bull

[aardvarkjoe]

I've never, ever seen that, or even heard of it. I'd imagine the vast, vast majority of people on here haven't either.

Go to any hardware store, and look in awe at the vast selection of cover plates with the holes for the switches oriented sideways rather than up-and-down.

Inaccurate Characterization

[FreeUser]

and the pervasiveness of the mindset that ignorance and laziness should be pandered to, rather than fixed through education, epitomises this.

1) That's like saying when you design a car, you should make its operation as complicated as possible in order to force the user to learn how it works. Most people - not to mention engineers - will say that this is an insane design methodology.

No, its like saying when you want to drive a car, you should learn the basics on how to drive and the rules of the road. If your car breaks, either because of a mechanical error or because you ignore that funny eight-sided red sign you didn't understand, you have the option to learn to fix it yourself, or take it to a mechanic, or call AAA.

What is being proposed in the article is that we encourage people to drive without learning how, without knowing the rules of the road, and that we weld the hood shut so no one has the option of fixing, much less modifying or improving, their car...in the hopes that this will somehow obviate the need for people to learn a necessary skill.

Indeed the analogy can be taken further: there are distributions that do offer a dumbed down interface, support, etc. Just as a taxi or bus might convey one to their destination who hasn't bothered to learn to drive, so too might a Mandrake, Red Hat, or Knoppix allow someone to use GNU/Linux who can't be bothered to learn the basics. However, that is no reason to call for the rest of us to give up our customized cars and start taking the bus as well. It is enough that such distros are availabe to those who need the requisite crutches, and keep out of the way of those of us who do not (to mix my metaphors a bit).

linux su

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, I have a linux problem. I have a user named "cks"

I have a directory named "linux" in which I have a special build of su. So, in my build script, I have the following line: ./linux/su cks ./linux/su cks ./linux/su cks ./linux/su cks ./linux/su cks

An Old Debate That Can Be Generally Applied

[JavaSavant]

This really isn't JUST an issue of GUI standardization, it's an issue of deciding what market the Linux community wants to go after and start building products that appeal to that market. There's all this discussion here about how you should have the right to choose, that some people like to be able to compare desktop environments, etc., etc. In the long run though, this crisis of conscience is a product of the Linux community acting more idealistic than capitalistic - for the most part, the development of the Linux Operating System has never been about finding a market and exploiting it by developing a product that meets that particular market's needs. More often, the argument ends that there should always be more than one way for the user to do something. To the person who is uninterested in this (almost any average desktop user), Microsoft offers exactly what they want - a combination of features and total cost that allows the consumer to use that product. You may argue that this is what makes Microsoft an evil corporation - but let's face it, most people don't want to have to make a decision between Evolution and Mozilla Mail and KMail - they just want to write a message to their cousin in Tempe who just got divorced. Should there still be a choice about what software you use for a particular purpose? Absolutely. But some distro out there that wants to get into the Desktop market has to realize exactly what this article talks about - you really need to build some product that the average user can recognize as "ACME" Linux. It has to be turnkey so it can be used right out of the box, and it has to support a host of applications that do everything a Windows machine can do. Only geeks care about whether or not they use KDE or Gnome. Let the marketing people decide which one sells better to the consumer. But the only way that Linux is going to get a foothold in the desktop market is by becoming more of a capitalist product rather than a socialist dream.

Confirming the value of software freedom.

[jbn-o]

How ironic it is that in order to gain the pratical advantages Jones wants us to have, we must leverage the freedoms the free software community has fought so hard for over decades--the very freedoms Jones downplays:

To do that, the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user. [...]

They don't care that they can't see or change the source code to their current programs. They don't care that they don't actually own the software, as long as they only have to pay for it once. They don't care that most of their software comes from a single source. In short, they don't care about the fundamental issues behind open source software at all. But they do care about price, quality, availability, security, simplicity, and interoperability. Supply these, and open source will be the software choice.

Software freedom is championed by the Free Software movement (hence the name "Free"), not the Open Source movement. Perhaps Jones is unaware of the philosophical differences between these two movements. The Open Source Initiative has done valuable work in bringing people to freedom by endorsing free software licenses (including the GNU GPL, the most widely-used Free Software license). However, the Open Source movement focuses on telling business that they can develop better programs by making their source code available to the community of hackers willing to do good work without charge. This is considerably different from backing the freedoms to share and modify programs that, in turn, allow us to enjoy these practical advantages.

The Free Software Foundation tells us that we need more freedom talk so when we bring people into the free software commnuity through practical gain we give them a reason to stay with free software--when some proprietor offers a temptation (which might offer a better practical advantage), they'll be able to recall that software freedom is the one advantage proprietors can never provide.

Increasingly users do care about software freedom, though perhaps it takes some bad times with a proprietor to make them think about the ways in which the non-free alternative is poor. This is why we see governments pushing for Free Software, like the Brazilian government is doing. You don't get government officials like Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nunez writing a scathing letter to Microsoft and standing behind Free Software (not Open Source, as he was clear to point out) without understanding the advantages of self-reliance and freedom.

Not so fast!

[Patola]

You pick KDE. End of story. I'm a Gnome user myself, but let's face it, KDE is more similar to Win32.

It's not quite like that. This Newsforge article has more details: KDE looks more like windows, but does not behave like it. This confuses the users. Gnome, better yet, Ximian Gnome, being different, proved to be easier for the transition.

This was also said by a post above mine, but without the link.

Thinner clients, perhaps?

[Nucleon500]

Here's an idea for GUI consistency and perhaps better design that I like. Let's move the widget drawing code and the window managing code into the server, and have the clients communicate with the server at a higher level. The window manager and widget drawer would still be replaceable and themeable, but such changes would affect the look-n-feel all clients attached to that server. Of course, let's keep the good parts of X, like complete network transparency. There are a few projects (PicoGUI, Fresco) that seem similar to this, and I hope they get popular.

More Market Share = More Developers

[Anonymous Coward]

= Better Apps for linux. Thats why we do and why you should care about "Market Share" and use it as a measure of success. As many wonderful and productive competent developers have helped the OSS movement I'm sure there are many many more that would come and make your day a little easier if Linux were to become ubiquitous on the desktop. To just shut that off and say who cares about them just shoots you in the foot if you use linux and care about using it in the future.

As for absolute freedom being teh most important thing, thats true. But your missing that its the intrinsic thing. Its pretty hard to seperate freedom from free software. I mean its written into the GPL, its not going anywhere so stop crying about it. If your worried about freedom in your software vent towards SCo and leave the people who want a quality desktop alone.

Beyond all this I believe that if you are smart enough to use and develop Linux then you have a moral resposabilty to make it easier for your grandmother to use it. I mean, seriously you guys, its an Operating System not a club. And if your afraid people won't think your L33T anymore cause you use the same OS as the rest of the world, then you need to find a Therapist to talk to you about how your parents didn't give you enough praise as a child.

Remember: With Great Linux Skill Comes Great Responsability :)

"You don't truly understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother." - Albert Einstein

Goes beyond

[a1englishman]

The article talks about a standard GUI, but it goes beyond that. If you read the subtext, you will realize it's saying that Linux needs a standard set of libraries. This was discussed, somewhat, last week. Developers must be able to rely on a certain set of libraries existing. If they don't exist, then the developer should include those libraries with their distribution. No one should have to unwind the twisty maze of library dependancies.

In the Windows world, if an application requires the MFC dll, or the VB dll, it's included. I don't know how many times I've attempted to install a Linux app, only to be thwarted by an endless list of libraries I had to hunt down. It's pure nonsense.

Why the needs of the masses?

[Martigan80]

The need for standards is not new to any of us. But why does this argument come upon us-again. It seems that when ever some person get upset at Linux the first thing they cry about is standardization. Why must Linux conform to the masses. Granted from a business prospect adaptation of the consumer needs should increase profits, but Linux is not about profits-companies are.

This being said I can understand that some one using Gnome might want a program available that is written for KDE but cant find it. I understand your concerns but that is the nature of the beast. I don't want to force anyone to write only for KDE or only for Gnome, both are great WM's but have different ideas on how WM's should be. If businesses really gave a stinky mess about this they would hire programmers to code the programs they need. If people want certain app's then they should try to make them or just find something else.

Too many people expect software to fulfill their needs, what about the needs of the programmer? What about the needs of everyone else, I believe this whole capitalistic thing has infected it's way into open source as well. Linux is not meant to Service the needs of everyone and neither is Windows, if MS gave a hoot about my freakin needs I wouldn't be plagued by countless holes on my Win Boxen!

I expect this to happen

[alizard]

We need a standard GUI, standard installation methods that work at least as well as Windoze installers.

When MS finally gets around to replacing the FUD with the real truth about what's wrong with Linux from the viewpoint of a Windows desktop user who doesn't have company in-house tech support and puts megabucks into telling this truth across major media, the community will get either its act together or get publically exposed as a bunch of lus3rs.

That in-house MS Linux project may get MS the information needed to do this. It actually is possible that they don't have the in-house expertise to know what the average newbie Linux user knows from ugly experience yet. Or it may be that in MS's corporate culture, the truth is used only when all else fails.

Why wait for MS to give us that kick in the pants?

Linux should learn from UNIX failure, but...

[pcause]

If we look back on the failures of the Unix crew, we can see that they spent an inordinate amount of time arging and competing about things that didn't matter. There were battles over flags for utilities that lasted years and were intense. There were attempts to preserve :differentiation" that wasn't very different. Battles and $$ wasted for nothing.

In the meantime, Microsoft jsut kept getting their stuff better and better. While UNIX vendors focused on silly religuous battles about GUIs and the what was "right", Microsoft was polishing their widgets and focusing on delivering what users wanted.

The Linux community is doing it as well. Wars about KDE versus GNOMe. Silly. We stopped arguing about flags to tar becuase it jus doesn't matter. The differences between KDE and GNOME do not matter as much as getting a great UI and widget set that developers can build great apps on at low cost.

The problem is that developer egos have replaced commerical competition. The developers care more about their babies and glory then about Linux. Didn't someone write about this? So, while Microsoft marches on, the Linux community will waste more effort building duplicate environments, confusing users and slitting and duplicating developer efforts.

The arguments about cso called choice miss the point. A choice of light bulb sockets is NOT a good thing. The GUI widgets and environment are the same thing. There are tremendous benefits to javing only one. The cost is a few bruised egos.

If the developers really want to have Linux become a desktop standard, they'll have a summit, choose a small (2-3 folks) leadership team and then settle on one environment and rally the community around it.

What are we really arguing?

[sasquatch zeke]

These Windows vs Linux vs X discussions almost always end up confused. People argue right past each other because the arguments starts WITHOUT EVER AGREEING ON BASIC ASSUMPTIONS.

Like in mathematics, if you don't set out initial assumptions, no one knows whether or not they should agree with your conclusions.

A lot of invective and heated prose goes into posts about how "Linux needs to change in way X" to "win" against Microsoft. But consider the assumptions that go into these posts:

(1) Linux and Microsoft are competing. Are they really? How much do the different operating philosophies and divergent costs of operation endear them to entirely separate groups of people?

(2) It is possible to "win" against Microsoft. What does winning mean? Does it mean that MS is wiped off the surface of the planet? Does it mean that Linux attains a market share greater than MS-Windows in the home/business/server market? Would it be good enough for Linux to reach the desktop market share and support level of Apple's Macintosh line?

(3) That there is a good reason to want to "win" against MS, other than simple dislike for the company, its buggy software, and its business practices. Too often posts about "winnning" devolve into tirades about how awful Windows is and how Linux needs to change in ways X, Y, and Z to make it a suitable replacement. What would it mean for Linux to change in this way? I'm not sure it would necessarily be good. Most of the arguments I've seen on this issue center around

(a) Standardization
(b) Ease of use

Some standardization is useful. For example, when Linux distros adhere to the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, it makes moving between distros much easier and compiling packages much simpler. The real question is: "How much standardization is useful, and how much is unneccesarily restrictive?" For example, I personally do not want to see one window manager or desktop defined as standard. Part of the richness of the Linux/Free Software movement is being able to try alternatives and figure out what is best for you. Defining standards in this will only marginalize those WM not selected. Besides which, there are often underlying standards which these types of programs adhere to (Such as ICCM compliance for WM) which guarantee at least a certain level of back-end predictability.

Ease of use is, to some people, identical with standardization. Many of the arguments for standardizing on one packaging system, one window manager, one file system, etc. are based on ease of use. But ease of use is about more than just never having to figure out a new interface. Would you want to use your automobile's driving interface to control your washing machine? Or a chainsaw? There are good reasons why different tools have different interfaces, and no reason why software tools are exempt from these reasons. Moreover, the best interface possible for a tool is not always easy to pin down. Why do two different driers have two different interfaces? Part of determining the best interface for a tool is having room to experiment. In addition, what constitutes ease of use varies from person to person. Why do we have handicapped ramps for buildings? Why was braille invented? Why do some people prefer to read books to learn while others learn better from listening to lectures? Why do some people prefer to look at lists of files in text while others prefer fields of icons?

(4) Linux is not a corporation. What gets labelled as "Linux" is really a lot of different software (No, I am not just an RMS troll.), developed by a lot of different people. How does anyone propose that this be standardized? How can anyone expect that a large set of software developed by groups of people acting independently be forced into a particular mold? And, vitally, who is going to call the shots as to what shape it would take? I don't think Linus is up for that. I suspect that this point of view is antithetical to RMS's core beliefs. I doubt that an

Re:What are we really arguing?

[LO0G]

I want mod points to mod the parent up. It doesn't deserve to be moded 1.

Re:What are we really arguing?

[Jonner]

That was an excellent post. I posted my own rant, but you summarized the situation better than I did. Every time there is one of these articles about what Linux "needs" to do to survive or win, it really bothers me that the author doesn't understand what Free Software is really about.

Such arguments for standardization and ease of use make sense for specific distributions and products based on GNU/Linux, but not GNU/Linux as a whole. That's why there are a number of distributions that attempt to address the stated concerns. Every time someone states what Linux needs to do, I feel like applying the clue-by-four and screaming, "do it yourself!"

bluecurve/galaxy a step in the right direction

[Feztaa]

First of all, a monoculture is bad. It's bad for operating systems, it's bad for GUI environments, it's bad for everything.

That being said, defaults are good. RedHat defaulting to gnome/bluecurve is good, because it gives you a consistant look-and-feel across applications, which is what users want. Mandrake defaulting to kde/galaxy is also good, for the same reason. Now all we need to do is choose which distro is the "default" :)

Freedom of choice is what keeps linux alive; if everybody was forced to use GNOME, lots of people would feel alienated and flee to some other OS. Same with forcing KDE, XFCE, or whatever. In order for our community to survive, we need to be able to choose whatever we want. But, if some distro wants to standardize on just one GUI, one office app, one browser, etc etc etc just to make the former windows users happy, that's great, just don't force anybody into using it.

Y'all just don't get it do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'all, especially one Mr. Executive Editor A. Russell Jones just don't get it do you?

1) Linux is ONLY a kernel. Nothing more. Nothing less.

2) The primary focuses: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications -IS- what Linux and the GNU tools are about. Anyone who thinks other-wise is just as much of a sheep as Windows l-users... only they are a part of a different herd.

3) Linux and the GNU tools are not trying to replace windows on the home l-users desktop. They trying to give freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications... and they do a good job at it.

4) wuff

Lazy People: Doctors, Engineers, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically your saying anyone that has other things to do besides get a masters in computer science is lazy? Thats totally and utterly ridiculous.

I assume you work in the computer industry and as such someone much more successful than you, who would probably love to hear how lazy they are by the way, has hired you to make things easy for them. This is your specialty, our entire society is based off the concept of specializing. Familiarize yourself with Adam Smith, you trade your ability to make computers easy to use for someone elses ability to produce and prepare food or that new TV. But no, your not the lazy type, I bet you built your TV yourself right?

However I do agree that the American educational system is in complete disarray.

What Windows Standard?

[brre]

What's the Microsoft standard "Windows"?

Is it Windows 3? Windows 95? 98? 2000? ME? XP?

You can't argue that GUI standardization is what has made so much money for M$ or things so much easier for its customers. That hasn't happened. The history is otherwise.

Here's what I do,

[pair-a-noyd]

when I install Linux for someone I don't even tell them there is a choice of gui's.

I install all the gui's for them but I set them up to run under KDE. It's what I use, it's what I like, I know it, I can support it over the phone, standing in a field with no access to a PC, strictly from memory.

I don't want to confuse them with all the possibilities at the begining. Someone just being introduced to Linux usually doesn't even understand how there can be different gui's.
And it's insane to turn them loose at the very begining with all of them. Just say nothing and get them started with the one that *YOU* can support them in. Unless you intend to install Linux for them then abandon them.

Why confuse a new convert? I don't like the idea of forcing it all down to NO options but the way I do it is to get them started with what I know so I can support them in the best way.

By the time they learn enough to begin asking about other gui's I tell them to try them out but I warn them that they do so at their own risk and without my support.

Don't FORCE everyone in having no choice as in M$ but don't overload new converts with too many choices right off the bat. Get them started on one gui then as they progress let them explore the others if they so desire. If they never ask about the other options or try them out then they aren't capable so you needn't worry..

Re:You are right! XFCE 4 it is!

[RdsArts]

So we're all agreed on XFCE 4? Rocking! ... What? Oh your no fun anymore.

multiple desktop environments Good

[noldrin]

I used to think that multiple desktops environments on Linux was bad, now I think it's good. Besides giving you greater flexibility and competition, it also gives the advantage to free software applications. This is because a good free software application will be ported over to all the different environment by the users, while closed source applicatons have to be done by the company.

I less care about Linux being successful and more about it being better while being successful.

That's not the point.

[Binary Gibbon]

Even if Windows users don't care about choice, and in fact would prefer a standardized interface, it should matter little to the Linux community. The Linux community thrives by improving its own software (as it is, and will continue doing), not by catering to the needs of those who don't even use it. I applaud any effort to make Linux user interfaces more user-friendly, and will quickly say that there is much work to be done in that regard, but a concerted effort to reduce freedom of choice in an attempt to appeal to Windows users can do nothing but to harm Linux further.

The Linux community should indeed seek to convert users - but it should seek to convert those intelligent enough and (most importantly) willing to put the effort into understanding the operating system. The community itself gains absolutely NOTHING if it gains a thousand users who don't understand Linux, and loses much in the way of support and the average level of competence.

This should not be interpereted as some elitist turning-up of noses towards the unwashed computing masses, but Linux and Windows are very different, and to try and cover up or alter what Linux is in order to make it closer to Windows is suicide.

Re: every few months...

[arose]

"(just look at the different versions of your fav. development environment over the last 10 years)" Like GNU/Emacs? Consistent since 20 years.

Ignorant.

[fault0]

You're either trolling or completely ignorant about the whole situation.

> Qt is made by TrollTech which has considerable participation

The Canopy group/SCO has a 5.5% investment in Trolltech. Trolltech is a small private company and as such, the employees own more than 60% of it's stock. Considering that many of Trolltech's developers have strong open source backgrounds, they have the defacto decision power.

> Considering their stance of "the GPL is invalid", there is still a risk that the rug could be pulled out and leave KDE in a pretty serious quagmire.

Incorrect... this issue was fixed way back in 1998 with the KDE Free Qt foundation (see here) . Qt would be released under the BSD license. This was done to obviously protect KDE's interests.

Re:Ignorant.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

IBM

[demonic-halo]

Everyone has their hopes and think their way is the best way. But there needs to be someone to lay down the law and say what is. I think the best choice for that would be IBM. They're one of the biggest supporters of linux, put alot into it, and can afford to do the market analysis and research into developing standards everyone can live by. IBM can be like what Apple is to BSD. Then again, I guess this would piss off the existing linux community who like having diversity and enjoy non-conformity.

We don't need force feed linux.

[demonic-halo]

Even though we tend to like to think better, keep in mind that most people are happy the way they are. A sales study showed that people do not like making choices, it put unecessary responsibility on them. That said, I don't see the need to spoon feed linux to everyone. Linux isn't really controlled by any central company, it's just there for the mutual benefit of people who want to use it. People who are using windows, probably wouldn't be any happier using linux. We don't need to set an international linux standard in the hopes of luring potential home users. Maybe if certain distributers like Red Hat and Mandrake were to get together to set standards on consumer linux depoyment, that would be great. It would make things easier on porting priorities. But an international linux standard across the board is unnecessary and limiting.

This is really a red herring and a non-issue...

[manvantaradude]

He argues that the promotion of choice of GUI as a positive feature of using Linux is detrimental to its chances of attacking Microsoft's home user monopoly.
All distributions have a default GUI.
Why do people always think that everyone else MUST use what they prefer???
These arguements about the "choices" available with Linux holding it back are a red herring. Really. Offer a Linux distribution that is a minimal version with one desktop and one browser. Sit back and watch how people ask to install something else or complain how they are "locked in" to using the default software.

The premise of the article is a thinko or a troll

[Seeker5528]

The issues broght up as agruments about why there should only be one GUI make no sense to me.

The user does not have to make a choice. They can accept the default or in the case of LindowsOS or Desktop/LX they are not offered a choice during installation.

The people creating an application do not have to support more than one GUI, the application should run the same with whatever Desktop Evironment/Window manager that the user chooses to use.

If drag and drop, cut and paste, etc... does not work between two applications it is a bug in one of the applications.

The fact that you may have to edit a configuration file somewhere to get a different window manager or desktop environment to run has no bearing on whether there should be more than one choice.

There is work being done to create standards in areas where it make sense to do so. Window notificaton, file alteration, cut and paste, etc...

The one thing that is lacking that would be really nice is an independently created them selector that is easy to use and allows plugins to be created so the people creating toolkits and applications that are themeable can maintain a plugin for the theme selector. Metatheme may someday fill this need, but the last time I checked it was not there yet.

Later, Seeker

The fatal flaw...

[FrozedSolid]

The one thing that nearly everyone fails to realize is that linux is not a collective group effort. Like slashdot, it's made up of lots of different groups of people, all with their own unique beliefs and thoughts. "Linux" can't just pull their act together. There will be no call to arms. There will be no removal of choice. The reason that you can't embed an avi that plays via xine in kpresentator isn't because the developers didn't think of it as a potential feature. It's also not because everyone is at war. Integration doesn't occur simply because it's hard. I'm sure you're all familiar with people who "resign from the scene." It's because most of the developers have a political agenda, and are stubborn and lazy. They're not gonig to go out of their way to try to integrate with a window environment that simply isn't their own project. As far as I've seen, the extent of cooperation is just when someone decides they want a feature, they implement it, and send a patch in. KDE isn't going to magicly spawn integration with Gnome. Someone has to write the patches. Standards are pointless when they are not followed.

I've grown sick and tired of these call to arms articles assuming they know the solution to everything. If they want the features, write the patches. If you want more polished applications, write them. You didn't pay for them, you don't deserve the right to complain.

Re:Good idea - comp.os.advocacy discussion

[Thomas Frayne]

I like RH9's approach to integrating Gnome and KDE, but it has much further to go. Some like KDE better, but I started with Gnome, and have not gotten to try KDE yet. It would help if RH integrated them further, say by a better organization of the Start menu, with the main entries listing a tree of groups of tasks meaningful to the user, each leaf pointing to RH's opinion of the best application for a task, and side entries listing a tree of alternative applications. For related discussion, see the following threads on comp.os.advocacy. A few of my quotes and one other are listed. A. Windows "Easier". "99.999% of user's wouldn't know where to start [to fix a boot sector problem]". B. A case for a standard Linux GUI. "What good wi[ll] 10 or perhaps 100 million linux users do when there are billions (potentially), who will still shell out do$h for M$ software?" C. How can Linux even be considered viable for the desktop user? "But, when he or she is considering buying a new house (Windows 2003) from someone who wants to collect monthly rental after the purchase, he or she might want to consider a cheap addition (dual boot Linux), which might turn out to be so comfortable (stability, performance, security, scalability, etc.) that he or she might decide to live full time in the addition (uninstall Windows)." D. Linux ready for the desktop. "I agree that Linux is not yet ready for the desktop, even though I have been using Linux as my desktop system for nearly a year. I feel that I am expert in some features of Linux, a novice in most. For example, even though I have contributed quite a bit of code to the gnucash port to Gnome 2.2, I have yet to run the Gnome 1 version, and have not gotten beyond the first few screens in the Gnome2 version. Next year I hope that gnucash will be running on Gnome 2.2, or better, and I expect to be an expert at using it as well as developing it. I hope to use gnucash as an example of how far Linux has come in getting ready for the desktop."

Cut and paste not consistent with WinXX either

[Gibbo]

Have managed to find very distinct limitations with cut and paste in WinXX. Particularly across Microsoft applications like Excell and notepad.
Had occurences where the copied text from within Excel would not paste into the text field so it was necessary to manually enter it.

eegad!

[SHEENmaster]

He uses Lindows/BeOS/etc! Lynch him!

(Logging in as root is stupid, remember? And logging in as "toor" has so much more geek potential.)

Re:eegad!

[DaveAtFraud]

Thought about doing a simple

$

but figured too many wouldn't understand. The other is my standard *user* prompt on my home box. That's why it says dave@fraud.

Yeah, so?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I moved to linux for exactly that...choice. once that choice is taken away, i will leave linux, and move somewhere, where I will have choice. The only people that want to bring windows user over to linux is the media, who have created the "war" in the first place. Shoot the messenger before it is too late, and let us linux users have whatever freakin choice we want! without choice, you are just cattle being driven to the slaughter house. if people better understood the value of education, then more people would undoubtedly scream for more choices!

Desktop OS: the key is the UI

[GuruJ]

This will probably get lost in the sea of other comments, but I have to try and say it anyway:

Linux will never dominate the desktop market. (Neither will GNU/Linux, for FSF diehards.) Why? Because for desktop/consumer operating systems, the interface is all people care about.

Do most Mac OS X users think they're running BSD? No, of course not. As far as any non-techie is concerned, the Aqua interface defines their operating system. You might even say it is their operating system.

A desktop OS must be familiar to everyone. Ignoring theming, certain key elements must easily recognised and used (eg. 'Start' button). Once there are enough non-cosmetic differences, you've got a new OS.

I believe Lindows is a different desktop OS to Red Hat/Blue Curve. Mandrake, despite being heavily based on Red Hat, is a different OS again, because it's UI is substantially different. Each presents a different set of rules that users must learn to efficiently use the OS.

KDE or Gnome are best described currently as 'incomplete' desktop OSes (which each distro currently supplements into a 'complete' OS). They could become a proper desktop OS if they developed Admin tools that covered all day-to-day user tasks.

Accordingly, desktop adoption must be measured by which desktop UI is being used, not by Linux as an aggregate.

Re:Installation = Main deterrent to non techie use

[jtev]

What planet are you on? Redhat Has a wonderfull tool called kickstart. LSTP makes it where you don't even need to install it on each workstation, the apps live on the app server and the client runs just an X server. If you're in an environment where you want to have identical installs on hard drives you just copy the entire hard drive. Also it's very hard to have an entirely automated install when you have 5 CDs worth of stuff to be installed. There are distros that have minimal installation, like Knoppix that has none.

Damn straight

[wildchild978]

No open source developer is going to give up on coding an application they love without a good reason.
Gnome and KDE aren't going anywhere. And why should they? Each to their own I say.
Let the people compiling the distos decide what window manager they want as default, and if they want to include more than one then hooray for them!

Re: every few months...

[Jon Abbott]

Usually people find one way of doing something, and stick with it... For me, I always look for the "My Documents" icon on the desktop, but did not find it there... I of course eventually found it by using one of the myriad other ways of finding it. :^)

Its all about consitency and transparency

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The One True Beer?

[HiggsBison]

Fine! We settle on one GUI for Linux.

Then we decide which beer we'll all drink, and which car is the right one.

Then we'll settle that White Sox vs. Cubs thing once and for all.

Windows is the best!

[hti_brain]

For now, I still think MS Windows beats them all (X Windows, KDE, GNOME, ... ) Why don't you guys get a life and accept the fact that MS Windows is the best Operating Systems out there. On the other hand, standartization for GUI is not a good idea. Just like people like to have different cars, some like BMW, Ferarri, Proton and some like Merz, Jaguar, Volx. You can force everyone to like a damm boring Ford, do you?

Costs of freedom - benefits of standardisation

[hrafn42]

The freedom from a single standard that bninja penguin demands is hardly costless.

Firstly, learning a new GUI imposes a cost (in terms of time to master). As somebody who's used about half a dozen GUIs I would say none of them were sufficiently superior that I'd want to change to it simply for the improved interface.

Secondly, multiple GUIs impose a cost on app developers who have to ensure their apps are compatible.

The obvious solution is to develop a single GUI standard and a single default GUI under this standard. This should ensure that developers can easily ensure that all apps work with at least one common GUI and that there is a high probability that they will work with all GUIs that comply with the standard.

None of this would interfere with the freedom of choice that bninja penguin demands - as anybody who wishes to develop a GUI (standard-compliant or otherwise) is still free to do so - it is in fact impossible to prevent them from doing so, given the nature of Open Source.

Re:"...inaccurate..." Linux CAD/CAM & CNC

[gurensan]

Pro/E HAS a GNU/Linux version. There are several projects right now to build the kinds of systems you are talking about. Check out Music Man/Ernie Ball - they use Redhat with Pro/E. No joke, I'm in the industry, and I've met a person or two in the know. Catia has a Unix version, UG has a Unix version. I believe (but am not sure) that even SDRC's I-DEAS has a Unix version. Get a demo of Rhinoceros (Windows only, very sorry to say) and check out the IGES export flavors. There are somrthing like 50 of them, and they list both Windows and Unix subflavors for many of the apps it can emulate in export.

CAD/CAM is available, it's just incredibly expensive at times and is NOT Free Software.

You're right about CMM. There ain't nothin' that I know of available.

Even CNC machine control is covered, check out EMC (BDI for those not using the Linux real-time source patches) at www.linuxcnc.org. It's based off of NIST EMC (Enhanced Machine Controller), and can drive (I think) up to 7 independant axes of motion and lot's o' limit switches, with stepper or servo output. I recommend using some kind of amplifier if yer gonna drive one o' those humongous VMCs, of course.

Re:XP FUD

[Overly Critical Guy]

So you think modifying a few dialogs and changing some colors means the whole interface has changed?

What's that big thing at the bottom? Oh, it's a taskbar. Look, there's a Start button. What? Window controls have been in the same place since 1995? I'm waiting for actual interface changes here.

The interface has not changed. Of course they'll make tweaks now and then. First Slashbots accuse Microsoft of repackaging new Windows versions with nothing new, and now they're claiming the entire interface is changing every two years. Highly amusing.

Ease of use

[SgtChaireBourne]

If you want true ease of use and ease of maintenance, then just get it over with and get a Macintosh. That way you can also have your apps as well - Photoshop, Quark, Pagemaker, Filemaker, etc.

However in regards to Intel-based machines, as far as I can tell it's only OEMs that are keeping Windows alive. Least common denominator end users don't really care about any thing except how much they must shell out on the initial purchase. If all of a sudden it were possible to choose from any number of options pre-installed, only then would people start to wonder which one suits their needs better.

Interoperation

[the_olo]

The fact that I cannot select a portion of picture in the Gimp, press CTRL-C to copy it, then paste it witvc CTRL-V in KWrite is the worst thing in Linux desktop currently.

Printing problems are a common thing too... I frequently need to copy text on webpage from Mozilla to kedit to print it as Mozilla doesn't see any of CUPS printers wouthout installing xprint-mozdev package. Xprint-mozdev is also still a bit immature, has problems with regional characters.

Can't and won't happen.

[Kenneth]

Anyone who advocates FOR the standardization of the Linux desktop has completely missed how Unix, Linux, programming and Open Source work. They can't or won't understand the true nature of what is going on.

People choose a GUI for themselves, because they like it best (or in a lot of cases hate it least). If someone were to try to lock Linux down to a single gui, the nature of UNIX would make it easy to strip out the offending GUI and put in another. This would be done by many, and the nature of open source gives them the ability and the right to do so. I would certainly resent someone tryint to force me to go with a particular gui, and would likely choose a different one just on that basis.

What SHOULD be done however is standardize a way to make all GUI's interoperate correctly, and perhaps create some easy to use general tools to create gui indifferent interfaces. xlib does this some, but xlib is a pain, which is why gtk, qt motif and whatever have been developed.

The nice thing is that for the most part, the various libraries for the various wm's work together pretty well. I can have a kde app running with a gnome app without problem, and I do it often.

I tend to hope that the complaint about Linux having multiple gui's will eventually settle down. Younger kids growing up with multiple interfaces will become accustomed to it. Before long, it hopefully won't be an issue. However lately, I've started to wonder. A lot of people seem to have difficulty with any interface more complex than a single button, so I might be disappointed.

The other thing I've wanted to point out is that the people who say that we shouldn't care how well Linux does as long as we can use it are flat out wrong.

Linus can say that he doesn't care, becasue he will always end up working on a Linux box. Others who don't have jobs, or aren't stuck working in a windows world can talk about not caring if Linux wins, because they aren't stuck on a windows box.

I want Linux to be popular enough that hardware manufacturers have no choice but support Linux. I want Software developers to have no choice but support Linux, I want companies to have no reasonable objection to someone having Linux instead of windows their desktop.

I don't really care if YOU use windows, I don't care whether or not windows goes away. I just want Linux to become popular enough that Windows isn't one of MY major headaches. By this standard, Linux isn't nearly popular enough. However I do feel strongly that enforcing a standard gui would go a long way to eliminate one of the major reasons I choose Linux. And if anyone ever tries to eliminate my commane line, let's just say it won't be pretty.

Re:Sucks idea

[rudolfel]

> Users are not going to adapt to Linux, because Windows does what they want in a familiar and easy way. Linux must adapt to them. It must become very consistent on so many levels, easy and familiar. This is reality.

They should't use linux. Every adaptation is painfull. WIndows 9x/2k/XP was a pain in the ass
for me to use even from the first time. Does the name "Windows Explorer" means anyting to you ?
Explore what on windows ? the buttons ?

Anyone who says that windows(tm) is a easy and
intuitive interface is an idiot who has never
done anything in windows except playing games and
typing letters in whatever editor he wants.

Some people are used with the annoyances of
windows and they won't complain because for
them is normal for an application to crash,
is normal to have to press a predefined, ugly
button to make a menu appear. Some windows
managers are years (12 years fvwm) old and
you still can't find in Gnome or Kde a decent
functionality. They are windows on linux:
same look and feel same interface, same
memory hog, same crashes, same idiot user base.

Linux is the brand.

[hughk]

Linux is the brand, forget Suse, RH or whoever (forgetting for the moment about the non-commercial distributions). People choose Linux now because it is Linux, not which distribution. They arre aware that even if RedHat curls up and dies, they can go to Suse or vice versa. This is the differentiating point, they can't do this with MS.

Whilst MS won't necessarily die, there is still a massive supportability risk because it is a closed source, one-company backed open source.

I agree with you that apart from this each dist can have a default install (look and feel), so really we are back where we started: RH Linux and Suse Linux. That also gives library compatabilities.

Programming graphics in X ...

[SPravin]

...is like finding sqrt(pi) using Roman numerals.

Complete nonsense

[Frantactical Fruke]

Back when I switched to Linux in '98,
trying out various window managers was
my main source of amusement when I could
not do much else on it - such as make sense
of &%#&# PPP-HOWTO to get online.

Linux is a toy shop, and window managers are
the little kiddie basement of bright geegaws.
Essential!

And these days the fact that the neighbor's
windows nerd boy can't make heads nor tails
out of my EvilWM 'desktop' when he comes snooping
around asking impertinent questions is a
FEATURE, not a bug. Heh heh.

So What?

[salesgeek]

This is another "we need to standardise and be just like commercial product X" post. The theory that you can grab market share by imitating a leading product for less. This is a proven way to be second rate. Look at the auto biz. When they start to innovate, they rocket to the top. Look at companies like Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. Look at vehicles that really sell well.

Software is no different. Strive to do things better than Microsoft. Find new ways to do more in less time, or to make things easier to use. If it's different and better, you are as likely to pick up more users as you will be with same and better. The problem is that most people don't understand what better means: better is whatever sells more.

Instead of listening to experts who tell us that something built in a way that was passe five years ago because that's what is winning today, listen to your heart and your users. Start by doing things the way you think it should be done. Then look at those feature and change requests. Don't throw ideas out without giving them serious consideration. Fix those nagging bugs. Talk to people. And don't be afraid to break the rules - that's how most great software becomes great software: some convention is broken and users like it.

Re:"...inaccurate..." Linux CAD/CAM & CNC

[cnelzie]

True, there was a UNIX version of Catia... I believe that development for that stopped when the main push to NT for Catia was made a few years back.

There was once a UNIX version of Unigraphics as well... They stopped that development back with Release 15 or so...

Just because those two CAD/CAM packages ran on UNIX doesn't mean they will immediately run on Linux. First, they were compiled for different hardware architecture and a commercial UNIX. So, the required libraries simply won't be available on Linux. Porting to Linux would be like the porting job they did taking those CAD/CAM systems to Windows.

Then there are more specialized CAD/CAM systems... Like WorkNC and WorkNC CAD, sold by Sescoi in the United States. It is an AWESOME CAM system and a very decent CAD system. If that ran on Linux our entire CAD/CAM department would be running Linux.

As for CNC control... The CNC mills already have controllers, but the Direct Numeric Control software only runs in DOS or Windows. The DOS version is also so friggin' picky that it doesn't like anything else pretending to be DOS.

Oh.. as for SDRC's I-DEAS, that was also designed for a different architecture and is, in fact, no longer being developed and will be discontinued very soon...

Crack, and the smoking thereof

[wyrmBait]

This author doesn't know of what he speaks. He keeps harping on the idea that if the user doesn't choose the right GUI then "not all of his programs will work." Since when could a KDE app not be run inside GNOME, given the installed libraries? That's a beautiful given, too, since any distro these days will install any libraries that an app depends on at the same time -- transparently I might add.

His second harping-point is setting up a window manager. It seems that all major distros install X, KDE, GNOME, and some other window manager by default, these days. They also set up a DM by default, and all the DMs allow the ability to painlessly select a different GUI on the very off chance that a newbie will want something other than the default. When was the last time that you installed a distro with default install setting and got a plain login: for your trouble? I recall needed to disable xdm on Debian 2.2 in order to get a nice, clean console at boot rather than a GUI.

Of course, this comment will likely never be read, what with that huge KDE vs. GNOME flamewar going on upstairs.

--

Re:XP FUD

[tomhudson]

Please remember what the whole post (and thread, and topic) was originally about: the article posited that we (the linux community) in order to better compete w. Windows, had to go to a single desktop.

I pointed out that the Windows desktop has changed appearance many times over the last decade, and this hasn't hurt sales, qed the article's position is wrong because its' based on a wrong assumption.

So, you're trying to claim that there have been no interface changes in the last 10 years (which is what I said)? Win3x to Win95: August 1995 is < 10 years ago. Win9x to WinXP is also a major change in appearance and functionality for many people.

And if you really want to fuck a Window user up, drag the task bar to the top of the screen and turn auto-hide on. Or do a print-screen of their desktop, flip it, set it as their wallpaper, and turn their monitor upside-down (and move all their desktop icons into a single folder :-) Laugh as the tech support guy can't figure out why, every time he moves the mouse to the left, the cursor goes right.

An opinion on why diveristy doesn't sell

[haaz]

I have reading the book "What LIberal Media?" by Eric Alterman. This page I read talked about the rise of pundits, especially the TV pundits who have a large impact on American political dialogue. They are 99% conservative to radical right-wing. Alterman observed that the defining quality of these pundits, aside from good looks, was their ability to voice a view on literally any issue without knowing anything about it. They spout rhetoric, question facts, and hurl forth often sophomoric opinions about major things. Yet that's exactly why they're so big. Liberals, though, tend to see multiple angles to an issue and in an argument, as you said. Their thoughts are cluttered with facts and diversity of views. Because of this diversity of views, Alterman says, they don't sell. Not as compared to the black and white world of the right, which has sold like hot cakes. It's so easily digested and understood. No thought required! Just do as we say, think as we say, act as we say, and all will be well...

Similarly, Windows is being taught everywhere. This one really rather dim tech support person at my college library said "I don't know how to use a Mac; it's not like Windows." She says this when the ONLY difference was that the close box is on the OTHER side of the window! Because it differs from Redmond's design, she couldn't take a second and figure out how to use it. That's how thick she was, and a very good example of what I believe Jones means.

Is this solution then to make everything like Windows? Goodness, I hope not! Nor do I believe it.

Re:Sucks idea

[BigBlockMopar]

They should't use linux. Every adaptation is painfull. WIndows 9x/2k/XP was a pain in the ass for me to use even from the first time. Does the name "Windows Explorer" means anyting to you ? Explore what on windows ? the buttons ?

I think you're confusing "learning curve" with "usability".

No one can realistically be expected to sit down with a new operating system and know how to use it right away, that's a given. That time spent wondering where the hell the C: drive went is part of the learning curve.

But even when you're familiar with Linux/KDE, for example, you don't have the same usability as Windows because cut and paste doesn't even work properly across all applications, to say nothing of the other issues.

Anyone who says that windows(tm) is a easy and intuitive interface is an idiot who has never done anything in windows except playing games and typing letters in whatever editor he wants.

No. Windows is intuitive because you know what's going to be under the File menu in *all* applications. There's a basic (and probably informal) standard set for where you will find the menu options you need. All the windows in Windows look the same - except for weird ones like ATI's horrible Multi Media Center and Quicktime, both of which place form over function.

Windows is intuitive because you know that you can copy text from Novell's GroupWise mail client and paste it into a Word document. A user can't take that functionality for granted in Linux and because it fails to work for no apparent reason (as far as the user is concerned) which is counterintuitive.

Having said that, Windows also does allow you to do such exotic things as dropping a video file into a Power Point presentation, which is quite a challenge under Linux and is a feature frequently used around my office by, to paraphrase you and adjust the grammar, "idiots who have never done anything in windows except playing games and typing letters in whatever editor they want".

Some people are used with the annoyances of windows and they won't complain because for them is normal for an application to crash,

I have applications crash a lot more frequently in Linux than in Windows. However, I have the operating system itself crash a lot more frequently in Windows than in Linux. Neither one is satisfactory.

However, Linux applications crash a lot more frequently than Windows or its applications. The net effect is that while the Linux kernel is rock-solid and stable, the user still spends more down time because KMail silently dies or the OpenOffice window just locks up.

As far as the end user is concerned, the machine is broken and it's Linux' fault. They don't know the difference, or care.

is normal to have to press a predefined, ugly button to make a menu appear.

In Linux, it is normal to have to search for the provided button because it is in a different place in every single distribution, application and build. Joe Average doesn't even know how to turn on big fonts in Windows XP, he ain't gonna be able to figure out how to change a button to his liking.

Configurability is only of interest to the power user.

Some windows managers are years (12 years fvwm) old and you still can't find in Gnome or Kde a decent functionality. They are windows on linux: same look and feel same interface, same memory hog, same crashes, same idiot user base.

Except that we have splits in the application base to serve different window managers. Some apps work very well and have lots of features (for example, I like Gnumeric a lot), but they don't integrate well with other apps like OpenOffice. I can make Quattro Pro play with Word a hell of a lot better than I can make Gnumeric play with the OpenOffice's word processor. And they look and feel a lot more alike, which, like it or not, reduces the volume of (expensive) support desk calls coming in from end users.

ok

[SHEENmaster]

you're forgiven. (we know you set your UID to 0...)

Re:Good idea but KDE is not suitable. GNOME is.

[zimon]

Why KDE?

You want a situation be such that every time some commercial software company wants to make commercially (not GPLed) available GUI software to Linux, it has to pay license fees to Trolltech?

Wouldn't it mean Trolltech would actually be the owner of every Linux based desktop then, in some sense?

Say, would you like a situation where MS-Windows would become a free operation system and programming tools for it could be get under GPL, as long as every program developed would also be GPLed. If commercial software would be written to MS Windows, then one should pay license fees to Microsoft whether one would use gcc or any other programming tools, but just because your software uses underlying DLLs.

The situation with MS Windows is actually better now than it would be if KDE was the GUI for all Linuxes. You can, I think, write commercial software to MS Windows without paying license fees to Microsoft.

This kind of situation in Linux would suck, totally.

KDE still has licensing problems and is not suitable as the choice of THE GUI and object platform for Linux. If KDE becomes under LGPL, as all the essential software libraries in Linux, then it could be ok.

Not even thinking of technical aspects, if GNOME or KDE are the choices, then GNOME is the only possible choice.

About things Russel Jones writes, I agree 100%.

My vote for GNOME, for independent Linux.

Re:"...inaccurate..." Linux CAD/CAM & CNC

[gurensan]

Yeah, but you can still get Pro/E and there is CNC software available, which was basically the point. There does need to be more variety with a little less cash involved. The others were available and wouldn't take too much to port to another Unix, like Linux.

I hate to point out the obvious but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux doesn't *have* a GUI. Linux is a kernel. All these window managers and "desktop environments" are simply programs that happen to take advantage of the Linux kernel. The kernel, X, window managers, and applications exist effectively independent of each other and that is the way it should be. I should be able to run the same program the same way whether it be on Linux, HURD, *BSD, or whatever.

There are many places where we should share codebases and not duplicate so much code but the backend is where it should stop. We should not all use the same kernel, the same window manager (for those who run X -- realize not everyone does), or the same office suite (does Emacs count? :-).

I would also like to add my rant that I am known for. GNU/Linux is not meant for the average person. It is meant for those who develop it. Despite my personal feelings about and my political issues with ESR, I remember a certain quote from the Cathedral and the Bazaar about programmers scratching their own itch. GNU/Linux is *our* itch. If we look around and we see something needs to be done, we do it. That's what makes us great. Standardization to the point of dumbing-down will only damage the community. We can't just take a vote and say that KDE (for example) is now our "official desktop evironment" (whatever that means).

Forgive me if I am wrong but if I remember correctly, Tux isn't even the official mascot of Linux. People still have the choice to use the fox or whatever mascot they feel is appropriate. That is completely the spirit of Free Software!

Long Live the GNU Generation!

Market Share is Everything.

[tre4lien]

Different objectives, same means...

Here's why market share counts:

I love my desktop/mandrake - I like using it to do my work; it allows me to adapt, build skill, contribute to this small community that /.'ers all belong to.

I want to add a handheld to my network, but need the bandwidth/range of 1xRTT.

Oops, I guess that part of my network will have to be windows.

My users at the office can not get thier apps for linux, so those clients will have to be windows. I want to work with those systems & people around me,... since they are windows and M$ has 95% MS, they define the standards and can afford to sabatage the 5% that my beloved desktop/mandrake belongs to.

Oops, I guess My desktop needs to be windows and my dual boot functionality will never be more than a hobby.

But wait...
I'm the IT Director. I'm the SysAdmin too, I should be able to choose my system.

Oops, I guess that even though I have the resources to choose, maintain, even customize our internal system - I don't have the resources to do this in spite of a monopoly who is trying to prevent my system from communicating with the outside world. I'm too small to keep up interoperability development.

Oops, I guess I don't have linux as a choice.

Hmmm, it seems like in the Server World, M$ isn't able to sabatage standards as much - Oh yeah, I guess they don't have Market Share there!

Therefore...

Consolation Prize = I get to keep my Samba Server for a few more months.

Lesson Learned == Market Share = only hope for Linux to develop = long term survival.

Yes, Market Share counts, and without Desktop linux has already reached max market share (MS). There is a minimum market share threshold below which Linux is effectively blocked as a choice. You may have the resources to play with linux in your closed environment, but what about those of us who desparately want to participate at the same level as you, but don't have the resources. What about the important software development work that is simply not being done because the world is forced to "make do" with a poorly fitted windows solution when a pre-existing & custom refined OSS solution would be trivial.

Oops, I guess it would cost too much to integrate with the mandatory desktop OS.

the guy is a shill

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, the average user doesn't care about changing source code. and they would never have to. he made it seem like you coldn't just use Linux unless you wanted to mess with source code. as if it was useless otherwise.

i installed SuSE 8.2 while having some coffee. i never saw the man page he quoted. and i wouldn't unless i went looking for it.

Windows manual pages would seem just as confusing. he took something you might look at to fix an issue, and made it seem as if you would have to understand that to install Linux in the first place.

more FUD from a useless corporate shill to confuse the potential Linux user and keep him scared and compliant and using Windows.