openSUSE Survey Results Online

apokryphos writes "openSUSE have announced that the results from the openSUSE survey (PDF) are now online. The survey was live for almost 3 months and more than 27,000 users participated, making it one of the largest Linux distribution surveys ever."

Comments

ORLY?

[caller9]

So 27,000. That's like a lot huh?

I Wasn't Very Impressed With Suse...

[morari]

Years (almost a decade, I would say) ago when I had tried it... Bought a nice, big bundled package from the store at that, thinking it would rock. I'm sure that added to my disappointment. At that time however, I really liked Mandrake. I tried my big Suse suite to a friend for American McGee's Alice. Much better :P

Re:I Wasn't Very Impressed With Suse...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, both were horror stories?

Why?

[Hemogoblin]

I RTFA and even RTF-PDF, but I still don't know the point of this survey. For what purpose was it administered? As far as I can tell, it simply collected the characteristics of people who use openSUSE. Is some organization going to be using these results for something?

Re:Why?

[sqrt(2)]

I hear they're selling it to Google.

Re:Why?

[apokryphos]

Well, from the article: "Thank you all for your participation. With your input we all are able to make openSUSE better and better." It was a general survey on opinions and usage of openSUSE for the developers and those working in and around openSUSE.

Re:Why?

[maxwell demon]

I guess that organization would be Novell. It should be obvious that it's an advantage for a company to know how people like their product.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't know the point of this survey.

Well, within the limitation in how far this survey is representative, they have now information about how experienced their users are, how important certain aspects (price, support, stability, ...) are for them, how well in their opinion openSuSE meets these criteria, what aspects people would like to see improved (hardware support, ...), which desktop most of their users use etc etc

Do you seriously not see why such kind of information might be valuable for openSuSE?

Re:Why?

[Bloke down the pub]

Don't be silly, Google already know.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, the organization is Microsoft and they are trying to determine what they should copy for their next OS. :o)

Luckily

[Propaganda13]

OpenSuse user base doesn't reflect the world. Otherwise, only 2% of the population would be female.

Re:Luckily

[tftp]

It is almost that bad in China.

Re:Luckily

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG OpenSUSE is responsible for pirating disneyland!

Re:Luckily

[houghi]

If they would talk to me, I would happily agree with those odds, but in the real world, none come down to my moms basement where I live.

Tools used

[tftp]

It's always interesting to check PDF properties; this survey was printed from Mozilla on an Apple box. I just wonder why Novell could not spend 0.5 [wo]man-hour to actually make it nice.

Re:Tools used

[value_added]

t's always interesting to check PDF properties

A perverse habit that I share. My guess is that only people familiar with desktop publishing would get what they're looking at, but it's worth pointing out that while PDFs can contain interesting information, the information is never as interesting (or incriminating) as what we'd typically get from folks who "publish" Word documents, employees of Microsoft included.

this survey was printed from Mozilla on an Apple box. I just wonder why Novell could not spend 0.5 [wo]man-hour to actually make it nice.

Agreed it's pretty amateurish. Someone be sure send off a copy of Unix Text Processing to the folks at SuSE. The book is probably 20 years older than the version of Acrobat mschmidkuntz (or whoever the author is) is using, and among other things, a lot cheaper.

KDE vs Gnome

[eklitzke]

I know that Suse has long been a KDE-oriented distribution, but I was still surprised to see such a high percentage of respondents who used it. When I started using Linux several years ago, it seemed that most users were running KDE, but lately with the huge success of Gnome and Gnome-origented distributions, I was expecting to see a higher adoption rate of Gnome (yes, even among Suse users).

Also, did anyone else think it was weird that among all the questions asked, they neglected to ask what geographic region respondents were from?

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[thatshawnguy]

Also, did anyone else think it was weird that among all the questions asked, they neglected to ask what geographic region respondents were from? Because "In my parent's basement" can't be found on a map.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[WindBourne]

Considering that GNOME is the default on suse, it is amazing. It looks like the more that the distros push GNOME, they more that they shoot themselves in the foot. Hopefully, this survey will stop that crap, but I am guessing that Novell will disregard this part.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[sjbcfh]

Considering that GNOME is the default on suse, it is amazing.

Gnome is the default selection for SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop, but only in that the radio button for Gnome is preselected, rather than that for KDE. KDE is still the default selection for openSUSE.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Nuno Sa]

It's hard to find statistics about KDE vs GNOME desktop usage. A few weeks ago I spent one or two hours researching this and every statistic says the same: KDE has 70% to 80% of the userbase. Beeing them from last year or from 3 years ago. Now I wish I have saved the few links I found about this subject.

That or Linus is voting several times!!! :-)

Regards,
Nuno

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[drgonzo59]

the more that the distros push GNOME, they more that they shoot themselves in the foot

Ubuntu's Gnome foot (Gnome logo pun intended) looks pretty good so far.

I was an avid KDE user, used it exclusively on Redhat, Mandriva then SuSE. When I switched to Ubuntu, I promptly added the Kubuntu metapackage to get my KDE back. But then, after playing with a 1001 configuration preferences in KDE I wanted to revert back some settings, it took me a very long time to find them.

Eventually I came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that "more configuration choices for a desktop" does not always equal to a good thing. (By the way, Apple has known that for a very long time, and I think they invested more into UI design and research more than any other company ). I wanted good fixed defaults and applications that just worked. I found myself logging into GNOME more and more and eventually I just stopped using KDE altogether. I find GNOME simpler, cleaner and more consistent. As a programmer I would rather develop in KDE and Qt but as an end user I like the GNOME Desktop better hands down....

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Daniel Phillips]

Considering that GNOME is the default on suse, it is amazing. It looks like the more that the distros push GNOME, they more that they shoot themselves in the foot. Hopefully, this survey will stop that crap, but I am guessing that Novell will disregard this part.

Obviously, Novell pushes Gnome because Novell does not have nearly the same level of control of KDE as they do of Gnome, where a number of Gnome poster boys are on payroll. Ahem, and it is no exaggeration that Microsoft is now paying part of those Gnome paychecks. Odd.

To be honest I find it more than a little amusing that Microsoft has chosen to fund (with its "patent" deal) development work on a Linux desktop system. However much I prefer the other desktop, I do not deny that competition between desktops has value. What I do not like is Novell tilting the playing field, turning it more into a political competition and deep pockets competition than an honest features, performance and usability competition.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

There is, as far as I can tell, only one place in the world where GNOME is more popular than KDE, and that is, surprise surprise, on the Ubuntu Forums. Everywhere else, KDE appears to lead my a margin of roughly 2:1. In particular, it is a consistent winner of the LinuxQuestions Members Choice awards. It's also very popular on the desktops of European government, being used on 10.2% of desktops, compared to GNOME's 5.5% (see page 29).

It always saddens me to see the Big Distros rallying around GNOME and pouring funds into it as I've always viewed Open Source as a meritocracy, whereas the decision to back GNOME development is quite clearly not based on its merits (or at least, not its technical ones), nor even, clearly, on what the end users want. It also strikes me as a terrible waste of resources: GNOME's shaky technical base and general bureaucratic attitude means that even though money is thrown at it, nothing ever seems to get done, with GNOME's busiest days barely matching KDE's laziest, while the KDE team are completely shaking up the code and architecture of their massive code-base on a shoestring. A real shame, but - c'est la vie, I guess!

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Nuno Sa]

Hey! GOOD links.

Thanks,
Nuno

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[phrasebook]

But then, after playing with a 1001 configuration preferences in KDE I wanted to revert back some settings, it took me a very long time to find them.

Name them. Go on, I dare you.

Refer to one of my earlier posts if you need some help.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[friedman101]

When I started using Linux several years ago, it seemed that most users were running KDE, but lately with the huge success of Gnome and Gnome-origented distributions, I was expecting to see a higher adoption rate of Gnome (yes, even among Suse users).

I think I wanted to make the exact opposite of this post. For awhile Gnome was the face of linux because QT wasn't free (as in speech) and GTK was. Now that's changed and KDE (thankfully) is winning this battle.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Curien]

The option that always pisses me off is the one that allows you to change from 'single-click activate' to 'double-click activate'. I end up looking through all the various "Look & Feel" panels to no avail. (Yes, I know where the option is, but I have to hunt for it every time.)

The main problem, to me, is that KDE doesn't differentiate between per-user and system-wide System Settings, but the labels imply that it does. "Personal" and "Look & Feel" are obviously per-user, and "Computer Administration" implies to me that those are system-wide. In reality, it's a mish-mash of the two. This is an important distinction for me, as my wife and I both use the same computer with different profiles.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there's a reason that the KDE devs went to the trouble of writing a Search tool for you. Car Analogy: This makes as much sense as complaining that cars suck because they make it hard to drive them if you use your knees to steer and your head to depress the accelerator.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[drgonzo59]

As a presumed KDE user you should be the one naming them and listing why would every single user need to have that particular option. I on the other hand, don't use KDE anymore, I forgot all the options as I don't have to worry about remembering them .

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

I really like a lot of the work that KDE has done with the desktop. They've made it nice, and have added a lot of really cool usability features that I wish were added to Gnome. I've almost always had both Gnome and KDE installed on my computer, but I still almost never use KDE.

The problem with KDE is that it's buggy. I get a constant stream of segmentation faults every time I use it. The reason that I switched to Linux on my main desktop computer ( back when RedHat 7.0 was still brand new) was stability. While KDE on Linux continues to make Windows ME look rock solid I'm afraid that I really can't recommend it to anyone.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[EsbenMoseHansen]

The option that always pisses me off is the one that allows you to change from 'single-click activate' to 'double-click activate'. I end up looking through all the various "Look & Feel" panels to no avail. (Yes, I know where the option is, but I have to hunt for it every time.)

It took me 10 seconds to find, even though I didn't know it was there. How? Open KControl. Type "double" in the search bar. Select the first suggestion.

Of course, this wouldn't work with the awful, awful configuration dialog that Kubuntu supplies. Deinstall it, it is not worth the bytes on your harddrive. I hear it is a clone from the Mac; if so I pity the Mac people for yet another reason.

The main problem, to me, is that KDE doesn't differentiate between per-user and system-wide System Settings, but the labels imply that it does. "Personal" and "Look & Feel" are obviously per-user, and "Computer Administration" implies to me that those are system-wide. In reality, it's a mish-mash of the two. This is an important distinction for me, as my wife and I both use the same computer with different profiles. That's a good point. Is there a bug report on this on the bug tracker? Of course, you can infer it from the question "does changing this setting require a password?", but I suppose it could be made clearer than that.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[lattyware]

I'm sorry, but GNOME is important. I have friends, they will run a GNOME distro, but not a KDE one. KDE is harder, and ugly as hell. Note that I run KDE myself, because the software and configurability is better, but to most end users GNOME is way more attractive and easier to use. GNOME will be the desktop of choice for the linux masses if the day ever comes, KDE will remain the power-users desktop, as far as I can see.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[dalutong]

You talk about the open source value of meritocracy. I agree that it is an important value. But it is a value for "consumers" to consider, not Novell (the parent company of SuSE and Ximian.) If people were supposed to only support the development of the better software, then there would only be one choice out there. So I don't think it undermines the value of having a meritocracy to have companies fund alternative environments.

Just as an aside, you say that the "Big Distros" rally behind GNOME. That's just false. Until relatively recently, Red Hat was the only Big Distro to come with GNOME as default. They have to consider their interests in doing such: they have been using GNOME for a long time and probably care more about familiarity and consistency than about which environment is better.

You also mention the Ubuntu forums. Ubuntu uses GNOME as a default and is the most popular linux distribution out there. Couldn't that be evidence that people like GNOME? Or are the statistics only worthwhile when they support your desktop environment?

I started using GNOME way back when there was still a substantive debate regarding which was truly free software. Miguel de Icaza was, at least in my young eyes at the time, one of Free Software's champions. I remember Antitrust's scene where you can see GNOME on the computer. All of those associations, basic familiarity, and the fact that my concept of the desktop matured while using GNOME have caused me to stick with it.

I won't disparage KDE; I simply don't know enough to do so. I just don't see the value in arguing that GNOME shouldn't be supported.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[dalutong]

Oh yeah -- and of course KDE is getting more commits, etc, than GNOME. They are between major version numbers; GNOME isn't.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

But the question is, of course, which is the more cost effective approach: Spending time grafting features onto GNOME to bring it up to KDE's functionality, or just giving KDE a face-lift? Heck, most of the (alleged - my 57 year old mum had absolutely no trouble at all with using KDE) usability issues with KDE stem from the clutter of the menus and its crappy defaults, most of which can of course be altered without even changing a single line of code; in fact, a huge amount of this can be dealt with using its Kiosk settings.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[houghi]

Uh. The reason it is default is because they want to take as many steps away as possible for the SLES and SLED version.

It is only default. If you wish, you can still install KDE, XFCE, Windowmaker or whatever you like. You can even make your own SUSE based distribution for your company, including your own logo's and software (Eat that RedHat and CentOSS)

Also openSUSE still leaves you the choice as what you want to install.

So So saying that Novell is pushing GNOME is mere FUD. I would say they worked hard to bring GNOME on the same level as their KDE.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, thanks for the level-headed and fair post: reading my own, I think now that it was rather flame-baity, and I'm glad you responded civilly :)

You talk about the open source value of meritocracy. I agree that it is an important value. But it is a value for "consumers" to consider, not Novell (the parent company of SuSE and Ximian.) If people were supposed to only support the development of the better software, then there would only be one choice out there. So I don't think it undermines the value of having a meritocracy to have companies fund alternative environments.

But this is just it: I'm not complaining about the fact that it is funded, per se (frankly, any funding for Free software is welcome in my book, and GNOME technologies quite often benefit KDE, too: see e.g. d-bus and NetworkManager), but about the fact that practically everywhere I have seen, the market has spoken and it has chosen KDE, yet a truly disproportionate amount of funding is directed at the second choice. Does this not strike you as the least bit ... well ... odd?

Just as an aside, you say that the "Big Distros" rally behind GNOME. That's just false. Until relatively recently, Red Hat was the only Big Distro to come with GNOME as default. They have to consider their interests in doing such: they have been using GNOME for a long time and probably care more about familiarity and consistency than about which environment is better.

Hmmmm ... I don't know, Red Hat and Novell are the Big Hitters on the business desktop, and Ubuntu is the undisputed giant of the home desktop, and all are GNOME. I think this particular point still stands, to be honest.

You also mention the Ubuntu forums. Ubuntu uses GNOME as a default and is the most popular linux distribution out there. Couldn't that be evidence that people like GNOME?

I'm not disputing for a second that people like GNOME; the results show a very solid core of support for it, and as one of the few KDE fans on the Ubuntu Forums, I see heartfelt testimonies to it every day. But to address what I'm going to guess is the question you meant to ask: I don't feel that GNOME need be the primary reason for Ubuntu's success. In order of importance, I'd go for:

1) Community!

The Ubuntu Forums number over 200k people, and have a strict anti-RTFM/ trolling code of conduct. They are an immensely helpful resource, and have massive amounts of HOWTO's and documentation.

2) Nicely printed, professional-looking CDs shipped to your door for free!

This one pretty much speaks for itself, I think.

3) It "Just Works" mantra.

The "If it doesn't Just Work, it is a bug" mantra is very enticing.

4) Advertising!

I don't mean to imply that this as a deliberate cynical attempt on Canonical's part, but Ubuntu has a massive grass-roots advertising campaign. For most people, the word "Ubuntu" is their first exposure to Linux.

5) Glamour!

You'd be amazed how impressed people are that it is funded from the personal fortune of a millionaire astronaut.

Or are the statistics only worthwhile when they support your desktop environment?

Since the Ubuntu Forums statistics are so thoroughly out of whack with everything else I've seen, I can't help but see them as an anomaly. Maybe this is remiss/ dishonest of me; I honestly don't know :/

Oh yeah -- and of course KDE is getting more commits, etc, than GNOME. They are between major version numbers; GNOME isn't.

Well ... I can't see how this doesn't reinforce my point that KDE is more active, especially as GNOME have no plans to embark on a major release.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

True...otherwise you'd have somewhere to tell your non-existing dates to come back to, eh Shawn? Dumbfuck.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Weedlekin]

" I hear it is a clone from the Mac; if so I pity the Mac people for yet another reason."

OS X's "System Preferences" dialogue has a search bar that works extremely well: it not only drops down a list of "hits", but highlights the applet(s) containing each term as one moves through them, and will take users to the correct page of the relevant applet when a term is selected. The Kubuntu configuration system you are describing is not therefore a clone of the Mac one, irrespective of what you may have heard.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[oergiR]

I think the difference between KDE and Gnome can be explained sufficiently well by two screenshots, taken from random places on the web.

Copying a CD with KDE

Copying a CD with Gnome

I don't see much explanatory value in talk about "power users". That I am an expert on speech recognisers does not make me want to manipulate zillions of settings when I'm burning a CD. I have better things to do. KDE is not the desktop of choice for "power users", but for people with too much time on their hands.

Come to think of it, that's exactly the psychological profile of the average Slashdot reader!

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[hclyff]

I think the difference between KDE and Gnome can be explained sufficiently well by two screenshots, taken from random places on the web.

Copying a CD with KDE

Copying a CD with Gnome

I don't see much explanatory value in talk about "power users". That I am an expert on speech recognisers does not make me want to manipulate zillions of settings when I'm burning a CD. I have better things to do. KDE is not the desktop of choice for "power users", but for people with too much time on their hands.

Nice generalizations you have there. What do you do when you know your CD is scratched and won't copy using the default settings? What do you do when you have to leave in 5 minutes and need to quickly copy a CD directly from one drive to another (on-the-fly)? If your answer is 'I wouldn't know how to do these anyway', you can hardly call yourself a power user. And in either case, you can always ignore the extra settings.

Come to think of it, that's exactly the psychological profile of the average Slashdot reader!

Yes, because IT people are generally known to have lots of free time.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[maccallr]

[plug]
Well, your mileage may vary, but you could try compare-stuff:

KDE vs Gnome

Fedora vs openSUSE

You get the idea... (I hope!)
[/plug]

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[oever]

I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't know there would not be another big GNOME update.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[leonardo.stern]

Last month, GNOME had 4631 commits http://cia.vc/stats/project/GNOME/. Last time KDE had less than 4631 commits was Jan/2000 http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-commits&r=1&w=2

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

You need a fucking sense of humour, AC.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[aiwarrior]

Even though your information may be true ( i didn't check some facts ) i disagree with you about the "badness" of gnome. You say Gnome is bad in all ways but you also mention that you really dont understand why its still pushed on Ubunutu. I give you a hint. It works. And the fact is that the major part of linux newbie migrants start in Ubuntu and stay. Guess again whats the default desktop environment?Gnome.

Now i have worked most of the times with kde in other distros(Gentoo, Debian etc) and i know that kde is ahead in terms of features, customization and code quality, but eventually they get in the way, at least in my oppinion.

Linus Trovalds says gnome sucks cause it hides options from the users...well i agree with the hiding part but not the suck part. If i really am going to do some extreme config theres no way im going to navigate in a nice GUI, i'll just go to the *.conf file and do my bussiness.
This suits both the newbies, which aren't plagued by crazy technical terms and advanced users as it doesnt create wrapping config files that confuse the overall hierarchy of standard linux to the advanced users.

You are welcome to disagree with me :D

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[shish]

Everywhere else, KDE appears to lead my a margin of roughly 2:1

Define "everywhere"? From what *I've* seen, KDE is third place, GNOME is second, and a mixture of the command line and apps from several toolkits combined under a lightweight WM like fluxbox or E16 is *way* out in front :P

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[earthforce_1]

I used SuSE/KDE for over 5 years, and for a long time considered it to be a big step ahead of Gnome in terms of stability and usability. Now I am writing this on Ubuntu/Gnome. - Both are now solid and usable and I don't really care one way or another. But if you really have a bee in your bonnet over this you can always give kubuntu a try, or install both desktops and decide which UI you want at login.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[bsims]

I know that for myself, I use KDE or wmaker... rarely gnome.

Kinda odd for an Ubuntu Feisty user, but gnome just chaps my
butt in odd ways.

I use KDE because I can make it work the way I want to...
with Gnome I have to work the way they want me to.

That said, I really want the ability to define two different
actions for a single icon like I can in windowmaker.

In WindowMaker, I have an oocalc icon; left click it opens just
the application, middle click it opens my checkbook spreadsheet.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

> GNOME technologies quite often benefit KDE, too: see e.g. d-bus

You know, this is exactly why GNOME gets so much financial support: top-notch marketing and communication.

D-BUS is actually KDE technology. D-BUS is explicitly the offspring of KDE's wonderful DCOP technology, only generalized, detached from X's ICE authentication mechanism, and from the Qt toolkit, to make it acceptable for GNOME people to use it.

Yet you, a KDE fan, if I understand correctly, believed it a GNOME tech. Pretty interesting, isn't it?

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Curien]

I was indeed using Kubuntu's System Preferences applet, and it uses the coloring technique but doesn't have drop downs. When you search, the icons that don't "match" turn monochrome.

What was the problem? The icon I needed to click is ALWAYS monochrome! I thought the search was excluding it.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[dhasenan]

Solution: have the simple view by default. Let the user click the "Advanced" button to show advanced settings. It takes two seconds of the user's time, though the programmer has to spend an extra day or so creating the default view and settings.

You could just have the application find sane defaults for the system and just present all the options, which is what KDE does. That usually seems cluttered and unappealing to me, but it works.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Curien]

And what's the reason Ubuntu devs replaced that excellent tool with a craptastically misfeatured knockoff?

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[EsbenMoseHansen]

" I hear it is a clone from the Mac; if so I pity the Mac people for yet another reason."

OS X's "System Preferences" dialogue has a search bar that works extremely well: it not only drops down a list of "hits", but highlights the applet(s) containing each term as one moves through them, and will take users to the correct page of the relevant applet when a term is selected. The Kubuntu configuration system you are describing is not therefore a clone of the Mac one, irrespective of what you may have heard. So it has a dropdown list --- Kubuntu's config doesn't. I suppose that makes the apple version tolerable. I hate the lowlighting stuff: if something is irrelevant, removing it altogether (like KConfig does) is infinitely clearer and better. I don't understand the bit about "taking users to the correct page"... how else could it work? Anyway, good thing that part of Mac, at least, isn't screwy, even if it still have a way to come to be on par :)

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[apokryphos]

GNOME is NOT the default on openSUSE. :)

The user has the choice of DE on Installation, and neither is pre-selected.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[someone300]

Actually, it may be better not to remove entirely, since this will make the UI jump about. Generally, if possible, the UI's positioning should remain constant. The true answer would need research... but don't assume that you are right because you have an opinion. My opinion is that the way Spotlight works is better than others I have tried on KDE and GNOME, but that doesn't make it universally true.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[kbahey]

You touched a nerve here.

The free software community often talks about freedom of choice and how that is a good thing. While I basically agree, I think there are exceptions.

For example, in the case of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL or even vi vs. Emacs, choice is good. The user base in this case are developers, not end users.

However, on the desktop, GNOME vs. KDE is a bad thing, and rather than choice, it is causing fragmentation and confusion for the user base.

While the original argument for GNOME was a valid one (Qt was no-cost but not free, while Gtk was free), this reason is no longer true. Still, you see applications using Gtk (Mozilla, OpenOffice, ...etc.).

I use Kubuntu, and only jumped on the Ubuntu bandwagon when they started an official KDE based release.

If there was only one advocated desktop, it would be easier to polish, tune, optimize, market, train, and adopt.

This is one case where choice is bad, and hinders adoption by the general public.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Actually, it may be better not to remove entirely, since this will make the UI jump about. Generally, if possible, the UI's positioning should remain constant. The true answer would need research... but don't assume that you are right because you have an opinion. My opinion is that the way Spotlight works is better than others I have tried on KDE and GNOME, but that doesn't make it universally true.

Of course it's just my opinion :) Having tried both in KDE (Kubuntus vs KDEs) I find the one where the irrelevant ones are removed entirely better. Firstly, because the list doesn't "jump about"... it contracts, which is not (as) confusing. Perhaps a touch of animation might make it even better. Secondly, because when I'm searching, I'm usually eliminating most (4 of 5 at least) entries. Having all those deactivated items in the list doesn't help me. Maybe it works on the Mac because it is less powerful optionwise (so fewer options). On KDE where the list is quite long, it breaks horribly.

Looking at again, I think maybe the best way would be to drop the category items list altogether, and instead add the icons in a small version after or before each listed "hit". Maybe something to code up and try, it should be easy enough.

Ideas like this is why I love discussing stuff :)

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[el americano]

I assume you're referring to the "intentionally similar" line. And for this, D-BUS is a KDE technology? Might the improvement over DCOP be attributable to GNOME? Seems a little petty to me. It's not like it was a fork.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

Because KDE is more popular it has clearly more technical merits? I guess you should use Windows.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Elektroschock]

SuSE customers were very pissed when those "Novell desktop strategists" tried to push for their GNOME technology and break the distribution. That was unethical and many Suse employees left the company. The Survey shows that the Ximian crowd failed.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

It always saddens me to see the Big Distros rallying around GNOME and pouring funds into it as I've always viewed Open Source as a meritocracy, whereas the decision to back GNOME development is quite clearly not based on its merits (or at least, not its technical ones), nor even, clearly, on what the end users want.

not quite. it is based upon merit. it is just merit to someone who thinks differently than you.

i've used both and i like both. i can see why migrating windows users would feel more comfortable with gnome and i can see why more experienced linux users would tend to prefer kde. both are good for linux for different reasons and we have a choice - cool beans!

no big deal. ubuntu also produces xubuntu.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Nuno Sa]

Those are search engine hits charted.
That confirms that Gnome users talk a lot more :-)

Regards,
Nuno

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Weedlekin]

"What was the problem? The icon I needed to click is ALWAYS monochrome! I thought the search was excluding it."

Apple's system "darkens" the entire page of icons, and highlights the ones that fit the search terms with a searchlight effect, i.e. they are "illuminated" by a bright circle. It is I think rather unlikely that anyone would assume the darkened icons are the valid ones rather than the bright ones.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Weedlekin]

"So it has a dropdown list --- Kubuntu's config doesn't. I suppose that makes the apple version tolerable."

Indeed.

"I hate the lowlighting stuff: if something is irrelevant, removing it altogether (like KConfig does) is infinitely clearer and better."

The problem with your preferred method is twofold:

1) People who leave a search term in place (or accidentally type some rubbish in that the system "thinks" is a search term) may be presented with an incomplete list of options, and not know why, or how to get the full list back again.

2) The whole desktop metaphor is based on spatial awareness, which is lost if items keep moving around, disappearing, etc. This is a major reason for so many users disliking the new UI in MS Office -- they'd learned _where_ things were on previous versions, and don't like the fact that they've not only moved, by keep doing so based on context.

"Anyway, good thing that part of Mac, at least, isn't screwy, even if it still have a way to come to be on par :)"

While I agree that some things in KDE that are better than their OS X equivalents (and it has things that OS X doesn't have, although the reverse is also true) , UI elements that appear and disappear isn't one of them.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Raenex]

This is one case where choice is bad, and hinders adoption by the general public. Ok, so all the people who prefer Gnome will argue that Gnome should be "the one", and all the KDE users will argue for KDE. Is either side really going to convince the other to change?

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[EsbenMoseHansen]

"I hate the lowlighting stuff: if something is irrelevant, removing it altogether (like KConfig does) is infinitely clearer and better."

The problem with your preferred method is twofold:

1) People who leave a search term in place (or accidentally type some rubbish in that the system "thinks" is a search term) may be presented with an incomplete list of options, and not know why, or how to get the full list back again.

Lowlighting doesn't help with this problem. In fact, it makes it worse... why are all those icons monochrome? They don't work, either. The correct solution to this problem is a clear marking (with text) that you are seeing a subset according to the search terms. Incidentially, removing the items altogether clears up space for this.

2) The whole desktop metaphor is based on spatial awareness, which is lost if items keep moving around, disappearing, etc. This is a major reason for so many users disliking the new UI in MS Office -- they'd learned _where_ things were on previous versions, and don't like the fact that they've not only moved, by keep doing so based on context. Rubbish :p That argument is only relevant with something you do often. Configuring the system is hopefully not one of them, unless it is severely broken.

"Anyway, good thing that part of Mac, at least, isn't screwy, even if it still have a way to come to be on par :)"

While I agree that some things in KDE that are better than their OS X equivalents (and it has things that OS X doesn't have, although the reverse is also true) , UI elements that appear and disappear isn't one of them.

I'm not talking about random UI elements... indeed, in a menu bar, leaving some items in greyed out might be better, if you make sure that hover (or similar) explains why they are greyed out. But in a narrowing search, greying out is bonkers. Think of a list with 100 items, and you have to hunt for the 2 that is not greyed out? That would be highly annoying.

I find that a good rule of the thumb is that if you are ever greying out more than 1/2, greying out is not the way to go.

About features either way, I really don't now. I have only ever used a Mac for a few minutes at the time, which was (as can only be expected) a highly annoying and frustrating experience. Time pressure and a new interfaces just doesn't mix :) I always view Mac OS as a sort of Gnome extreme --- very our-way-or-the-highway like :) But don't shoot me if I'm wrong, it's all second hand.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[marcello_dl]

I agree, but we can't turn back time. So let's just concentrate on making the fav desktop as good and interoperable as possible. I am quite happy with gnome and kde apps under xfce4.

After all the only truly consistent desktop environment is OSX - sans X apps. Windows is fragmented too, even before the advent of vista.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[kbahey]

Obviously, I prefer KDE.

But in this case, I wish one or the other would die and we don't have that fragmentation.

Even if it is KDE that dies, against my preference, it would be better than the current situation.

One problem is that at the time this fragmentation happened, we (the open source community) were spinning it as a freedom of choice issue, and ignored the confusion and fragmentation that was in the process.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet D-BUS is explicitly based on DCOP, in the sense that it's meant to provide the same level of IPC as DCOP, that it's explicitly been designed to serve as a suitable replacement for DCOP in KDE 4 while also making it usable by GNOME... regardless of how much it might annoy the same GNOME fans that have been vociferously defending the ORBit/Bonobo trainwreck for years.

On the other hand, now I am annoyed that you're making me dig for more references on Google, because I have far better things to do in my life than try to inform people on /. who feel that ignorance is a valid base upon which to form an opinion. Look, I grabbed the first link that looked serviceable as a reference, but if you don't believe me, just grab Havoc Pennington at the next KDE convention (because, yes, unlike you, he likes to attend those when he can) and ask him directly, okay?

Oh, and if you'd spent, what, a mere ten minutes looking into the matter, you'd know that DCOP uses the QDataStream class of Qt to serialize data between processes and clearly that's not acceptable for GNOME people, and that's why D-BUS could not be a fork of DCOP even if Havoc, who AFAIK is more comfortable with C than C++ anyway, had wanted to attempt it.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Raenex]

Well I agree, as a general principle, but in practice I don't see any way around it. Merging projects or rallying around a single solution is nice when it happens, but it rarely does. There's too many packaging systems, too many APIs that do the same thing, too many licenses, too many distros, ... the list goes on and on. Nearly all of this "choice" isn't worth the 99% duplication of effort and fragmentation. Gnome vs KDE is just one more.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[kbahey]

Yes, there is too much duplication of effort and NIH (not invented here). Which is sad ...

As I said, it does not matter in some cases (e.g. vi/vim vs. Emacs).

But the desktop case is the most visible one, and the one that most directly affects end users.

Oh well ...

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Weedlekin]

"Lowlighting doesn't help with this problem. In fact, it makes it worse... why are all those icons monochrome?"

This is a problem with a particular Linux program, not the Mac, which as I have explained previously, highlights the icons that fit the search criteria. Linux is awash with examples of dreadful UI design (although both the Mac and Windows have their fair share of them too), and this sounds like yet another.

"That argument is only relevant with something you do often. Configuring the system is hopefully not one of them, unless it is severely broken."

Unfortunately, it may well be one of the things that people who are new to KDE have to do, so bad design choices here can sour the initial experience.

"I'm not talking about random UI elements... indeed, in a menu bar, leaving some items in greyed out might be better, if you make sure that hover (or similar) explains why they are greyed out."

Indeed.

"But in a narrowing search, greying out is bonkers"

This does I think depend on what's being searched. It makes perfect sense in the Mac's System Preference dialogue, which has a relatively small number of fixed options displayed on a square grid of icons, all of which are visible whenever the dialogue is opened -- it would however be an extremely poor choice for files, which can exist in very large numbers, and are liable to change on a fairly regular basis. There is no single mechanism that is equally well suited to everything.

"Think of a list with 100 items, and you have to hunt for the 2 that is not greyed out? That would be highly annoying"

It would indeed. However, the fact that neither of the professionally designed systems uses scrolling lists to present system configuration options, despite both of them shipping with perfectly serviceable list control widgets, could well indicate that there are much better ways to do this. It does not of course mean that a well programmed list isn't better than a badly written alternative, which appears to be the case with the amateurish Kubuntu attempt to emulate Apple's system, but by the same token, it's unfair to judge other systems by assuming that a poor quality rip-off is in any way representative of the original.

"I find that a good rule of the thumb is that if you are ever greying out more than 1/2, greying out is not the way to go."

There is no adequate heuristic for this, because so much depends on (a) how many items there are, (b) the way they're presented, and (c) whether they change on a regular basis.

"I have only ever used a Mac for a few minutes at the time, which was (as can only be expected) a highly annoying and frustrating experience. Time pressure and a new interfaces just doesn't mix :)"

I also found it very annoying after having become accustomed to Windows and KDE (I tried gnome, but didn't like it as much as KDE, although this was purely a matter of personal preference). It took quite a while (several weeks) to realise that I was in fact trying to do things in a far more complex way than was necessary because I'd never used a full GUI that was based around a very rigourous application of a few basic metaphors, and now the frustration comes when using other systems, which seem like a hodge-podge of ill fitting mechanisms duct-taped together by comparison. This does not however mean that I think OS X is unreservedly wonderful, because it's far from being so, and theree are many things about it that I dislike such as the stupid fixed menu bar that obviously made sense on a single-tasking system with a small screen, but is IMO totally stupid in a multitasking OS that is frequently used with several 30" displays.

"I always view Mac OS as a sort of Gnome extreme --- very our-way-or-the-highway like"

This is a very valid criticism. However, the other side of the coin is that a disciplined and highly integrated system is much easier for newbs to learn than a more anarchic one that incorporates a whole bunch of distinct ideas, and the very

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[EsbenMoseHansen]

"Lowlighting doesn't help with this problem. In fact, it makes it worse... why are all those icons monochrome?"

This is a problem with a particular Linux program, not the Mac, which as I have explained previously, highlights the icons that fit the search criteria. Linux is awash with examples of dreadful UI design (although both the Mac and Windows have their fair share of them too), and this sounds like yet another.

Highlighting doesn't work with a narrowing search as everything matches initially. So either the Mac doesn't do this in a narrowing search, or, more likely, it does indeed lowlight them. Hence, the problem remains. Thankfully, since it also provides a dropdown list with only the matching items, the problem is mitigated. The linux clone is, as I started out saying, horrible, and I suggest any Kubuntu user instantly removes it from the system. KConfig is far superior, and the default KDE config anyway.

"That argument is only relevant with something you do often. Configuring the system is hopefully not one of them, unless it is severely broken."

Unfortunately, it may well be one of the things that people who are new to KDE have to do, so bad design choices here can sour the initial experience. Huh? It has nothing to do with bad design. Once more, laying out something the same way every time only helps if you do the same thing several times --- like 100 of times. Unlikely to happen with configuration.

"But in a narrowing search, greying out is bonkers"

This does I think depend on what's being searched. It makes perfect sense in the Mac's System Preference dialogue, which has a relatively small number of fixed options displayed on a square grid of icons, all of which are visible whenever the dialogue is opened -- it would however be an extremely poor choice for files, which can exist in very large numbers, and are liable to change on a fairly regular basis. There is no single mechanism that is equally well suited to everything.

Ah. As I suspected, it works because Mac has fairly limited customisability. Fits with my Gnome extreme view of Macs.

There is no adequate heuristic for this, because so much depends on (a) how many items there are, (b) the way they're presented, and (c) whether they change on a regular basis.

My heuristic is perfectly fine for a heuristic. (a) is irrelevant, no sane person would make a narrowing search for 5 items. (b) and (c) is just lame, it doesn't matter how they are presented, not whether it is used often, it still have to be done in a userfriendly manner.

"I always view Mac OS as a sort of Gnome extreme --- very our-way-or-the-highway like"

This is a very valid criticism.

It wasn't meant as a criticism. It is good for certain people. One of the Gnome people formulated it as "get the hell out of my way" --- contrast this to KDEs "empowerment"... KDE wants to work for the user, Gnome wants to be invisible. I always tagged Mac in the Gnome way, just even more so.

However, the other side of the coin is that a disciplined and highly integrated system is much easier for newbs to learn than a more anarchic one that incorporates a whole bunch of distinct ideas, and the very lack of flexibility in the Mac GUI that irks experienced KDE users also means that there's a much higher chance of non-technical but otherwise experienced Mac people being able to walk up to an arbitrary Macintosh and start using it straight away. Thus, while I doubt that a person who really likes KDE would be happy with a Mac, it's also likely that one who loves the Apple way would profoundly unhappy with KDE, so we should celebrate the fact that there's still a choice despite Microsoft's attempts to establish a worldwide monoculture where every computing device of any description (general purpose or embedded) pays a royalty to them.

I agree 100% :)

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Nutria]

I'm sorry, but GNOME is important. I have friends, they will run a GNOME distro, but not a KDE one. KDE is harder, and ugly as hell. Note that I run KDE myself, because the software and configurability is better, but to most end users GNOME is way more attractive and easier to use. GNOME will be the desktop of choice for the linux masses if the day ever comes, KDE will remain the power-users desktop, as far as I can see.

To me, it's not that GNOME is "simpler", but that the apps I use most (Tbird & Firefox) are GTK apps, and thus don't integrate well with KDE. (I'd rather use XFCE, but it doesn't seem as "smooth" as GNOME.)

As far as customization, that's just not on my radar: the DE is a means to an end, not a goal in and of itself. GNOME's defaults are good enough for what I need a computer for.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[Weedlekin]

"Highlighting doesn't work with a narrowing search as everything matches initially"

I fail to see where this is different from a list, which would also initially contain everything in a narrowing search.

"So either the Mac doesn't do this in a narrowing search, or, more likely, it does indeed lowlight them. Hence, the problem remains."

The Mac "lowlights" the items that _don't_ fit the search criteria along with the surrounding page, so the ones that do fit stand out because they're not only much brighter and more colourful than the rest, but also picked out with a "searchlight" effect that's only used during searches, and isn't seen otherwise. It's analogous to stage lighting effects where the overall lights are dimmed, and a few key performers are picked out by spotlights, which is a metaphor that most people are familiar with.

"Thankfully, since it also provides a dropdown list with only the matching items, the problem is mitigated."

The fact that there are two complimentary views is very important because the list provides a context for the visual cues on the icons. Although Apple have a less than perfect record on the UI design front, they're generally much better at it than their remaining competitors, who often try to copy some of their ideas while omitting others that are often key factors in making the Apple version useful.

"As I suspected, it works because Mac has fairly limited customisability. Fits with my Gnome extreme view of Macs."

It certainly is limited compared with KDE, but the reason the Apple system works so well is not due to any limitations, but comes instead from the way things are initially presented, i.e. as an organised hierarchy of options. The System Preferences windows is a 7x4 grid that's by default visually separated by an effect similar to music paper into four distinct lines that represent categories called "Personal", "Hardware", "Internet and Network", and "System" (this can however be changed into a strictly alphabetical grid if preferred). Each icon in a line is an applet that can contain several pages, and it is references to the entries on these pages that get returned in response to search terms. The list that drops down from the search text window is updated dynamically as letters are typed, and the icons containing any of those entries are highlighted; if one moves down the list using the keyboard or mouse, the highlights change dynamically to reflect whatever entry is selected. Double-clicking a highlighted icon opens the applet at the page referenced by the search term, i.e. it takes a user directly to the correct level of the hierarchy. This is far from the entirety of the System Preferences functionality, but it should give an idea of how it works on a base level.

"My heuristic is perfectly fine for a heuristic. (a) is irrelevant, no sane person would make a narrowing search for 5 items. (b) and (c) is just lame, it doesn't matter how they are presented, not whether it is used often, it still have to be done in a userfriendly manner."

Your assertion that my point about presentation is "lame" does I think say a great deal about why Linux in general, and KDE in particular, have earned a notable reputation for being the antithesis of the user friendliness that you claim is so important.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[51mon]

What I do not like is Novell tilting the playing field, turning it more into a political competition and deep pockets competition than an honest features, performance and usability competition.

Not just Novell, seems SUN, IBM, Nokia, Canonical, Intel, Redhat, are all trying to tilt the field by giving money, or staff, or other resources to the GNOME project. Or possibly it is these companies actually like the GNOME project, and see it as adding value to their businesses.

I'd accept the commercial interest in GNOME seems somewhat one sided, given how good KDE is. I'm especially intrigued by some of the PIM stuff in KDE (not that I use it other than Kmail). I think that it is companies seeing which way others jumped, and feeling safer to go that way as well (Isn't that what got us a Microsoft monopoly?). So it would be good to see more commercial backers for KDE, but I don't think we can blame Novell for tilting anyones playing field.

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[and235100]

There is a simple reason why more people use KDE rather than Gnome - KDE is updated more regularly - both for bugfixes and additional features and to my mind is like a proper linux GUI - buggy and split into loads of different bits, with lots of dependancies that at times you cannot figure out. Just what you need... Use the command line if you don't like KDE - but just don't bother with Gnome...

Prizes for completing the survey...

[Anonymous Coward]

...include:

If you want to take part in the drawing for five 1 GByte USB sticks and one 80 GByte portable hard disc from Teac, please supply your e-mail address. This survey must be really old as it probably costs more to ship those prizes now than what they're worth.

Of course, I'm not trying to diss them, but I think most people would do the survey regardless of prizes. It makes Novell look rather cheap to be offering those prizes ;)

It's bigger but it's not new

[queenb**ch]

The survey data isn't really telling us anything we don't know already about linux users. Linux users are technophiles who still cannot accomplish everything without having to resort to a command line. This means that linux ain't ready for the Windoze using masses. Almost all of you are men, which makes me feel left out again. Many of the applications that linux is deployed in, even in the home, are still not the primary workstation type-uses - router, firewall, web server, print server. You download your disks and you still aren't using it at work all that much.

There may be more respondents, but the data is still the same.

2 cents,

Queen B.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you are a lesbian, you fall into the "men" category.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[sqrt(2)]

Have you tried Ubuntu? It's probably the most refreshing experience with Linux I've ever had, everything really is done just as well if not better than with Windows. That's not to say that it doesn't have it's hiccups every now and then, but honestly so does Windows. I'm probably more capable of fixing problems on Windows, but the support from the experienced Ubuntu user base is amazing, and fast.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[queenb**ch]

Oh and I suppose you thought that my "it's bigger but it's not new" comment meant you???

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[kebes]

who still cannot accomplish everything without having to resort to a command line

Hold on a second... where are you drawing that conclusion from? Is it because 64% of respondents answered "Yes" to the question "Do you use non-graphical tools when installing or administering your Linux operating system?" ??

I don't think that's the correct conclusion to draw. The 64% merely shows that alot of Linux users prefer the commandline, because it is quite powerful and efficient. If anything, the fact that 36% of users are able to install software and administer their box without ever touching the commandline is evidence that you don't need to touch the commandline in a modern Linux distro. (Unless you think that 36% of openSUSE users never install software or make changes to their system?)

I agree that many Linux users are technophiles and love the commandline (I know I do), but in a modern Linux distro, there are graphical tools to do just about everything. So can we stop propagating the myth that only UNIX-gurus can run Linux?

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[Secret Rabbit]

"""
The survey data isn't really telling us anything we don't know already about linux users. Linux users are technophiles who still cannot accomplish everything without having to resort to a command line. This means that linux ain't ready for the Windoze using masses.
"""

I'd honestly like to know how you got from A to B on this one i.e. Just b/c the techie's /prefer/ the command line does _not_ mean a GUI doesn't exist or is crap. It just means that they don't typically use it. So what?

"""
Almost all of you are men, which makes me feel left out again.
"""

The primary gender of the user base makes you feel "left out"? You can't be serious.

"""
Many of the applications that linux is deployed in, even in the home, are still not the primary workstation type-uses - router, firewall, web server, print server.
"""

What does this have to do with anything? So what, Linux is not primarily used for lots of things. Does that mean that it /can't/ be used for those lots of things? Obviously not. Especially when you have things like OpenOffice running around. I mean, seriously. The only thing that Linux does /not/ have going for it is games. And event that is starting to change.

"""
You download your disks and you still aren't using it at work all that much.
"""

You may not, but in every job that I've had, I've used it for /every/ /single/ /task/; from administrative type tasks to development.

"""
There may be more respondents, but the data is still the same.
"""

But the conclusion is only the same if you ignore other advances e.g. GUI pretty much everything. Just b/c the techies prefer not to use them doesn't mean that they aren't there. And it doesn't mean that the GUI's aren't friendly.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[pembo13]

Do you have a problem with or phobia of men? I ask because I don't understand why the gender of others would cause you to feel left out.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[Helldesk Hound]

> Linux users are technophiles who still cannot accomplish everything
> without having to resort to a command line. This means that linux ain't
> ready for the Windoze using masses. Almost all of you are men, which makes
> me feel left out again. Many of the applications that linux is deployed
> in, even in the home, are still not the primary workstation
> type-uses - router, firewall, web server, print server.

Funny that, but I use SuSE Linux 10.2 as my everyday desktop box.
I also use FreeBSD Unix as my file/print server, and SmoothWall Linux as my network firewall/router.

That is what I have at home.

I have to support M$ Windows based PCs at work.

Perhaps it is worth noting that there are things on Windows PCs that *still* require the use of a command prompt - that cannot be done from a GUI.

Things such as, ipconfig & ping - two very useful utilities.

What do I do on my Linux desktop that is easier done using a command prompt? SSHing into my File server - and I only need to do that for administrative purposes.

Perhaps in your sexist bitching about men vs women, have you ever stopped to consider that we are ALL equal human beings?

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[renoX]

>64% merely shows that alot of Linux users prefer the commandline, because it is quite powerful and efficient.

Note that it can be because the commandline is efficient or because the GUI tools provided by the distribution sucks: a long time ago, Mandrake's upgrade tool was quite good in the commandline version, but the corresponding GUI shell sucked big time, which made me loose quite some time because while the GUI was easy to find, its commandline counterpart was "hidden"..

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[jgrahn]

Almost all of you are men, which makes me feel left out again.

It should make you feel special.

Or better, you should try not to think too much of the relation between yourself and some piece of non-scientific, badly laid out statistics.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[Curien]

XP has GUI functionality for pretty much all of ipconfig (and in fact does better than an ipconfig /release && ipconfig /renew -- that doesn't /completely/ refresh the IP). But you're right about ping. And add traceroute to the list as well as about half the functionality of the "net" command. Pretty much the first thing I do when logging into Windows is open a command line. (Actually, I open two -- one as me, and one runas'ed an administrator.)

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[forgotten_my_nick]

> Hold on a second... where are you drawing that conclusion from?

Well me personally I would take it from experience. It has come a long way but there are still a lot of things that require you to have some knowledge of the command line to get it working at all.

It is quite annoying and it will turn off the non-tech savvy user.

Saying there is graphical options to do things as well doesn't always mean it is easier. For example I have openSuse and I had to change network settings. Did I use the icon in the status bar? The network settings in the control center? The Hardware settings in the control center? The network settings in YaST? Or the command line?

Answer = Command line because it was the only instructions I could find to help fix an issue I had.

Now you show some newbie that they have to guess between 4 options (technically 5 as one option breaks off into two other options). They aren't going to do it when Windows is just one option to learn.

Linux is a brilliant operating system and if it wasn't for that annoyance I would of moved all my machines over to it by now.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost all of you are men, which makes me feel left out again. Pandering to the crowd?

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows isn't ready either.

I wanna add a new route to the system... go to the command line.
Wanna add a host/ip mapping... edit %windir/system32/drivers/etc/hosts

Let's not mention the registry. Wanna re-enable that setting that your soundcard drivers disabled (fucking Dell) do a search on the registry for disableMicMonitoring.

There are plenty of examples that show that windows users need to learn to go to the command line, edit files and, on top of that, learn to use the registry, which is a few times more obscure than named text files in Linux.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[houghi]

For me it is the right tool at the right time. Some times I edit files directly with vi. Other times I use the YaST GUI.. It is as if you ask a carpenter what he uses, a hammer or a screwdriver.

They are not realy OR/OR questions, they should be AND/AND questions.

Oh and using YaST can be done form the CLI as well. ;-)

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[Loke the Dog]

"I wanna add a new route to the system... go to the command line.
Wanna add a host/ip mapping... edit %windir/system32/drivers/etc/hosts"

You don't need the command line for that. Yes, the registry is annoying, but I dont need to edit it every time I try to install a dowloaded app. In ubuntu, I have yet to find an app outside Synaptic that didnt need a lot of command line typing to work.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[ChrisMaple]

Linux users are technophiles who still cannot accomplish everything without having to resort to a command line.

As opposed to Windows users, who cannot accomplish the same tasks because the tools to perform those tasks do not exist. Unless you count cygwin, or compilers so that you can create those tools.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[greenbird]

Linux users are technophiles who still cannot accomplish everything without having to resort to a command line. This means that linux ain't ready for the Windoze using masses.

Did you ever think that people might be using the command line because in many cases it's a faster better way to accomplish the task? I go nuts every time I work on a Windows box and have to dig through layer upon layer of menus to accomplish even simple tasks. Most things on modern Linux distros can be done through GUI tools but I most often use the command line because it's quicker and easier. I only wish I had that option when fighting menu hell on Windows machines. What's even worse is going from Windows XP to 2000 and trying to remember what menu path takes you to the magic room your trying to get to. It's like one of those old Infocom games.

"Your on a blue lit desktop. There is a start button and a bunch of silly meaningless pictures"

"Click start"

"You are presented with 10 menu options with confusing names"

"Click menu option 1"

"You are presented with 20 more menu options with confusing names"

It always amazes me when people talk about how simple Windows is. I can move from Solaris 7 to OpenSuse 10.2 and at most have to check the man pages on a few commands for switches or the location of a file. Most things are consistent and have been for decades. The things that aren't have easy to access documentation to tell you how they are different. It usually takes less then a minute. Going from Windows 2000 to XP means trying to remember all the mebu magic paths with little or no documentation of any kind to help you. I hate to think of the pain the first time I have to deal with a Vista box. Fortunately most companies seem to be avoiding it so far.

And what is even funnier is whenever you come across a difficult task on Windows like the basic security of not running as admin the excuse the Windows bigots use is "well if they're to stupid to figure it out they shouldn't be using a computer". While anything remotely complicated on a Linux computer means Linux isn't ready for prime time. That's BS. Linux is far more ready for prime time if people were more willing to get over there prejudice for the piece of crap unsecure mess called Windows.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[greenbird]

Saying there is graphical options to do things as well doesn't always mean it is easier. For example I have openSuse and I had to change network settings. Did I use the icon in the status bar? The network settings in the control center? The Hardware settings in the control center? The network settings in YaST? Or the command line?

No shit sherlock. A great many things in Windows would be much easier and more efficient if you didn't have to dig through a maze of poorly documented menus, windows and tabs to do even the simplest of tasks.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[jZnat]

I'd rather follow carefully written instructions by copy/pasting some text into a terminal than blindly click on pretty widgets until I find the configuration dialogue(s) for my particular problem.

Of course, that's just me (and many, many other people). This is especially true on a laptop when you have the choice of a touchpad (meh), clit mouse (meh), another mouse (kinda makes it a little less portable), or using its keyboard so conveniently placed for you. If you're a hunt'n'peck typist who types at 5 WPM, I can understand preferring to click on pretty widgets, but for us real folk who can actually type, it's usually faster and more efficient to just type what we want the computer to do rather than blindly click pretty widgets.

Re:It's bigger but it's not new

[forgotten_my_nick]

> I'd rather follow carefully written instructions by copy/pasting some text
> into a terminal than blindly click on pretty widgets until I find the
> configuration dialogue(s) for my particular problem.

I would agree with you except that 9 times out of 10 the instructions are far from carefully written.

Not using the command line

[gnu-sucks]

What really surprised me (besides the large number of female users... haha) is that 36% of the users survayed DO NOT use "non-graphical tools (e.g. YaST text mode, console) when installing or administering your Linux operating system"

Either desktop linux tools have changed a lot in the past few years, or these people aren't digging that far into their systems.

Re:Not using the command line

[baileydau]

36% of the users survayed DO NOT use "non-graphical tools (e.g. YaST text mode, console) when installing or administering your Linux operating system"
Either desktop linux tools have changed a lot in the past few years, or these people aren't digging that far into their systems.

Actually YaST and the other GUI tools are pretty good. You *can* do pretty much everything you need to for normal (and quite often advanced) administration tasks if you want to.

I personally prefer the command line for a lot of things, but I do use the GUI tools a bit as well.

That's the beauty of Linux, you can use the GUI if you want to, or you can use the CLI and you can switch between.

Re:Not using the command line

[Anonymous Coward]

linux has improved a lot since I started using it in 1994.

I have been booting Damn Small Linux on windows machines lately, and find that I
don't need to do any administration at all. The box just worx for me.

It finds my printers, it configures the network card for dhcp, and the video
card works without issues.

I would guess that 36% of the people just want to turn on the computer and do their job.
Modern linux allows people to do just this. Click Click, and away we go.

Re:Not using the command line

[thrawn_aj]

these people aren't digging that far into their systems. Hmm, perhaps they are, oh I don't know, busy folks who have barely enough time to USE their machines towards the purpose for which they bought it :P?

[sarcasm]

You know what? I'm a physicist, and I am seriously offended at people who show no curiosity whatsoever about the quantum mechanical theory of the semiconductor (which after all, is the basis of the whole shebang) when they use their computers every day.

[/sarcasm] Oh wait, that's rather stupid isn't it?

I have just as much contempt for this flavor of arrogance as I do for the macho idiots who sneer at you if you get an oil change at a shop rather than do it yourself :P.

[offtopic rant]

I have used the Linux commandline in numerous stages of my life (as also DOS and even VMS) and I wasn't impressed. Memorizing arcane commands to do simple things (vi as a text editor is an extreme example of its absurdity) is on par with memorizing Clebsch-Gordon coefficients :P. Above all, why it's become fashionable to run these tasks in your own personal RAM (*points to brain*) when the mindless computing machine in front of you can handle them quite easily is a mystery to me. It's all so...twentieth century... that I'm amazed that people actually consider that "advanced". I would rather have the workstation do the things it's supposed to do behind the scenes and spare me the irrelevant details so I can actually focus on the task at hand.

[/offtopic rant]

Re:Not using the command line

[CannonballHead]

Interesting post - I agree. I enjoy using linux... I'm not a huge fan of the command line. Yeah, it's kinda geeky I guess, but I like graphical text editors better than Vi, I like using YAST and not the command line to edit my preferences and hardware, and I like using NetworkManager instead of ifup (unless I absolutely have to configure two IPs for a nic or something like that).

It'd be akin to me firmly disputing that a DOS word processor is far superior to any sort of modern word processor.

May as well just get a black and white screen and forget all this color nonsense.

I do admit that the command line is helpful at times, though.

Re:Not using the command line

[jgrahn]

I have used the Linux commandline in numerous stages of my life (as also DOS and even VMS) and I wasn't impressed. Memorizing arcane commands to do simple things (vi as a text editor is an extreme example of its absurdity) is on par with memorizing Clebsch-Gordon coefficients :P.

You are wrong, or at least wired differently from me and other command-line people.

It's not about memorizing arcane commands. It's about being able and willing to research the tools while using them. "How can I use the find command to list all files larger than a gigabyte? *browses the man page* Oh, that's how. *back to work*" If you still know how two weeks later; fine. If not, you simply read the man page again.

And seriously, how is a GUI better? Take the MS Word preferences which I battled yesterday. A tiny window filled with twelve tabbed screens which jump around at random, each containing more than a dozen settings and frequently sub-dialogues. And no useful reference documentation which explains what these bloody settings actually do.

Above all, why it's become fashionable to run these tasks in your own personal RAM (*points to brain*) when the mindless computing machine in front of you can handle them quite easily is a mystery to me.

It's not fashion; many of us seriously believe the command-line way is superior for most tasks. I truly cannot see how not doing that way somehow offloads work from your brain to the computer. My experience is exactly the opposite -- pointless memorizing, futile searching and mindless repetive tasks is something I associate with non-commandlines (i.e. using Windows and GUI applications).

Re:Not using the command line

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

It'd be akin to me firmly disputing that a DOS word processor is far superior to any sort of modern word processor.

Of course, for that comparison to be valid, "a DOS word processor" would have to be immensely more powerful and useful in various situations than the modern one.

The analogy could only be better if it was about cars...

Re:Not using the command line

[Dhalka226]

I have just as much contempt for this flavor of arrogance as I do for the macho idiots who sneer at you if you get an oil change at a shop rather than do it yourself

So much so, it seems, that you explode even when there is no arrogance demonstrated.

"Either desktop linux tools have changed a lot in the past few years, or these people aren't digging that far into their systems." That's all he said. There was no value judgment. He didn't declare that these were clearly a lesser breed of human being because of it. There was not even a judgment made about whether or not digging into your system is good or bad, just an implication that you need command-line tools to do so (or that things have changed lately).

Maybe he did mean all the things you assumed he meant, but he certainly did not say them. Let's constrain our rants to actual insults rather than imagined ones.

Re:Not using the command line

[Anonymous Coward]

"And seriously, how is a GUI better? Take the MS Word preferences which I battled yesterday. A tiny window filled with twelve tabbed screens which jump around at random, each containing more than a dozen settings and frequently sub-dialogues. And no useful reference documentation which explains what these bloody settings actually do."

That's only because you're used to using the command prompt. The CLI is just as confusing to people used to GUI stuff, as the GUI stuff is confusing to people used to the CLI.

Secondly to compare the Unix CLI to the Windows CLI is apples and oranges. In Unix theshell is LI, with everything else, GUI and all, is tacked on on top of it. In Windows it's quite the opposite, The shell is a GUI and the CLI is tacked-on on top of that. Some people are more visually oriented, and are more productive on a GUI, others are the reverse, some are at a half-way point.

The tabs don't really jump around randomly, the active tab just gets pushed down to the first row, I think it's silly to move them around at all, but it isn't random.

And using Word's dialog to compare GUI vs. CLI? That's only a valid comparison if you do your word processing in the CLI. Frankly I've yet to encounter anyone who does.

Re:Not using the command line

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Sorry, but no. Just no. I bet you're glad this is all happening over the internet because there's no way you could've kept a straight face when you were writing that.

You are wrong, or at least wired differently from me and other command-line people.

It's not about memorizing arcane commands. It's about being able and willing to research the tools while using them. "How can I use the find command to list all files larger than a gigabyte? *browses the man page* Oh, that's how. *back to work*" If you still know how two weeks later; fine. If not, you simply read the man page again.

I bet he's wired differently. As am I. As are the vast majority of people on this planet. We see computers above all else as tools to do things, not something to be investigated in and of themselves. Sure, plenty of people such as myself might be interested in how they work might even program them, but the primary reason to use a computer is to complete a task of some kind, even if that task is just playing a game and having fun. We don't want to research the tools while using them, we just want to use them.

No regular person wants to read a manual either. How would you feel if your power drill disassembled itself each month and you had to read a manual of randomly arrowed diagrams and Korean instructions, would you still appreciate "researching tools while using them"? Because that's what man pages are to the common computer user: an absolute mess of technical terms and presumed prior knowledge that can only be half understood unless you're willing to take your computer use up from casual user to demi-expert. Most users aren't willing to do that, and there's absolutely no reason they should.

And seriously, how is a GUI better? Take the MS Word preferences which I battled yesterday. A tiny window filled with twelve tabbed screens which jump around at random, each containing more than a dozen settings and frequently sub-dialogues. And no useful reference documentation which explains what these bloody settings actually do.

MS Word gave you a tiny window? What do you mean it was too small to read the information it presented, or is that just a result of the GUI approach allowing the information to be compressed in a way that you as a command-line user aren't used to? If the Window is really too small in some way then that's an individual issue with that app's UI, not a problem inherent to GUIs themselves.

As for having multiple tabs, it's called categorisation. It's useful for preventing information overload that you commonly get with CLI apps when using "--help" or using man pages. It provides a far more accessible and much less overwhelming way to present the available options.

Sub-dialogs? Yes, some applications may over-use them, again not a problem for many many others though and not a direct result of a GUI. Good use of sub-dialogs is entirely appropriate in some situations though. For very rarely used options or "expert" options which can cause issues if misused it makes sense to not display these alongside the regularly used and innocuous options. Again this prevents information overload and helps new users from accidentally changing critical settings without realising their importance.

No useful reference information in MS Word? I haven't used it in a long time but still I find that very hard to believe. Even if by some chance MS Word doesn't provide that info almost any and every other half-decent GUI app does, and in far more intuitive ways than any CLI app I've seen. For one thing the nature of the options is implictly given by the type of control they use (ie. checkbox, editbox, choice dropdown, etc.), the controls are invariably labelled of course, they'll also typically have a context-sensitive help in the dialog itself (in Windows this would be accessible from the "?" button, in GNOME it's just a mouse-over). If that doesn't give you enough information there's always a help file which gives full documentation.

Re:Not using the command line

[mythz]

And seriously, how is a GUI better? Take the MS Word preferences which I battled yesterday. A tiny window filled with twelve tabbed screens which jump around at random, each containing more than a dozen settings and frequently sub-dialogues. And no useful reference documentation which explains what these bloody settings actually do. A GUI is better because you can layout the interface intuitively so a program can be used without resorting to reading documentation - generally a sign of good and productive software. Great example, now please provide an example where a command line interface would be superior to manage the same number of preferences for a word processor?

Re:Not using the command line

[greenbird]

I bet he's wired differently. As am I. As are the vast majority of people on this planet. We see computers above all else as tools to do things, not something to be investigated in and of themselves. Sure, plenty of people such as myself might be interested in how they work might even program them, but the primary reason to use a computer is to complete a task of some kind, even if that task is just playing a game and having fun. We don't want to research the tools while using them, we just want to use them.

So I guess knowledge just magically jumps into your head. Must be nice. I know whether it's a GUI tool or the command line I have to research how to configure and do things on my computers. I find a set of clear concise documented tools much easier to use than a maze of undocumented menus, windows and tabs.

No regular person wants to read a manual either. How would you feel if your power drill disassembled itself each month and you had to read a manual of randomly arrowed diagrams and Korean instructions, would you still appreciate "researching tools while using them"? Because that's what man pages are to the common computer user: an absolute mess of technical terms and presumed prior knowledge that can only be half understood unless you're willing to take your computer use up from casual user to demi-expert. Most users aren't willing to do that, and there's absolutely no reason they should.

When's the last time you used your drill for to track your expenses or edit a picture or do your taxes or research refrigerators? You know what? I think a computer just might be a just little more complex than a drill. Kind of makes your comparison a little fallacious.

No useful reference information in MS Word? I haven't used it in a long time but still I find that very hard to believe. Even if by some chance MS Word doesn't provide that info almost any and every other half-decent GUI app does, and in far more intuitive ways than any CLI app I've seen. For one thing the nature of the options is implictly given by the type of control they use (ie. checkbox, editbox, choice dropdown, etc.), the controls are invariably labelled of course, they'll also typically have a context-sensitive help in the dialog itself (in Windows this would be accessible from the "?" button, in GNOME it's just a mouse-over). If that doesn't give you enough information there's always a help file which gives full documentation.

Reference information? I thought you were the one who didn't feel that kind of thing should be necessary? It's not a matter of using the control. It's a matter of finding the control for what you're trying to change. It's the difference between digging through layer upon layer of menus, windows and tabs to find the checkbox or typing "man vi".

You can't see how it's unreasonable and unrealistic for regular users to remember the relevant switches for every option of every app they use? Or that it's silly to think they should be happy to read a man page each time they forget one? You don't see how having the relevant options present and labelled and documented up-front is beneficial?

Don't you think it's a little unreasonable for people to have to memorize which of million or so menu/window/tab paths (do the math sometime) gets them to the thing they want to access with limited or no documentation rather than simple typing "man whatever" to find the switch they forgot.

a GUI tool often isn't the quick and easiest method of doing things. At least with Linux I have the option of either way 90% of the time. Oh, and the other 10% are mostly things you can't even do on Windows at all.

Re:Not using the command line

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

So I guess knowledge just magically jumps into your head. Must be nice. I know whether it's a GUI tool or the command line I have to research how to configure and do things on my computers. I find a set of clear concise documented tools much easier to use than a maze of undocumented menus, windows and tabs.

It does jump into my head. Not using magic though, using the wonder of sight. Any menu and option/control is labelled so you can quite easily follow a logical path to find the option and what it does. A little more intuitive than a blinking command prompt, don't you think?

When's the last time you used your drill for to track your expenses or edit a picture or do your taxes or research refrigerators? You know what? I think a computer just might be a just little more complex than a drill. Kind of makes your comparison a little fallacious.

How does that make my argument fallacious? It just proves my point precisely. A more complex machine means even more confusing manuals, meaning all the more reason not be expected to memorise the means to correctly operate it without having to rely on those manuals.

Reference information? I thought you were the one who didn't feel that kind of thing should be necessary? It's not a matter of using the control. It's a matter of finding the control for what you're trying to change. It's the difference between digging through layer upon layer of menus, windows and tabs to find the checkbox or typing "man vi".

Reference information shouldn't be necessary. It can be useful though. As I stated quite clearly, the help file is there as a backup if you don't understand the label or the context-sensitive tooltip or any other text that may be associated with it in the GUI itself. You talk about finding controls and layers of menus as if it's a maze. Most decent apps will provide any option within three menus/dialogs. Menus and dialogs which are clearly labelled. Contrast this with "man vi". OK, now I'm looking at 428 pages of prose, listing approximately 60 switches, of which less than half have long options meaning I have to read the text associated with each of those to see if it does what I want. Yeah, that's better...

Don't you think it's a little unreasonable for people to have to memorize which of million or so menu/window/tab paths (do the math sometime) gets them to the thing they want to access with limited or no documentation rather than simple typing "man whatever" to find the switch they forgot.

a GUI tool often isn't the quick and easiest method of doing things. At least with Linux I have the option of either way 90% of the time. Oh, and the other 10% are mostly things you can't even do on Windows at all.

As I've already stated, the "million menu/window/tabs" is a complete fallacy for any remotely well-designed app. The fact that any menus/windows/tabs are all labelled along the way makes it a hell of a lot easier than using switches. What's that about "limited or no documentation"? As my previous post explained, a GUI is just as likely to have documentation as a CLI app, but more importantly it provides and displays relevant and appropriate information to the context of the option/command/whatever you wish to know about.

A GUI tool is only slower than a CLI app if you already know your way around the CLI app and remember all relevant switches. Otherwise you've got a lot of reading to do. Even if you do know your way around your CLI it's no guarantee since, as I mentioned previously, CLI apps are typically limited by their interfaces to focusing on a single operation or subtask meaning you'll often need several of them to perform a single practical task.

As for the Linux vs. Windows stuff, that has no relevance to what I or the GP's were discussing. This isn't about Linux vs. Windows, it's about GUIs being the more practical means of interface for the common computer user. In order for Linux to be a serious contender for mass appeal it

Re:Not using the command line

[instagib]

... he's wired differently. As am I. As are the vast majority of people on this planet

This is the single most important reason why technical computer users get desperate over non-technical, and vice-versa. They don't understand each other, they do things differently. The latter are the majority of people who, in most cases and as a few examples, had difficulties programming those video recorders, watch at a distorted and badly adjusted image on their widescreen TV, or continue driving their car although there are warning lamps on in front of them.

Look at what things are commercially successful: MP3 players with one or two buttons; fully automatic cameras; movies with a simple story. Because family/relationship/work/money creates enough problems. This means: simplicity is what most people need. They don't care about maximum effectiveness. GUIs try to provide this, sometimes succeed, more often only partially, but still better than a CLI.

In summary: The CLI almost always is more powerful, but this is irrelevant for most computer users.

Re:Not using the command line

[greenbird]

How does that make my argument fallacious? It just proves my point precisely. A more complex machine means even more confusing manuals, meaning all the more reason not be expected to memorise the means to correctly operate it without having to rely on those manuals.

It's fallacious because you're saying it should be as easy to operate a Computer as it is a drill. I've never seen a more than trivial app where the menus, windows and tabs intuitively led you to what you were looking for and the more complex the app the more confusing and arbitrary the menus, windows and tab are going to be. It's easier to find an arcane feature by typing in "/" in a man page than to search through menus to fine where it's hidden or looking through a 15 pound book and the man page is there whenever I need it.

Reference information shouldn't be necessary. It can be useful though. As I stated quite clearly, the help file is there as a backup if you don't understand the label or the context-sensitive tooltip or any other text that may be associated with it in the GUI itself. You talk about finding controls and layers of menus as if it's a maze. Most decent apps will provide any option within three menus/dialogs. Menus and dialogs which are clearly labeled. Contrast this with "man vi". OK, now I'm looking at 428 pages of prose, listing approximately 60 switches, of which less than half have long options meaning I have to read the text associated with each of those to see if it does what I want. Yeah, that's better...

You're arguing in circles. You say you shouldn't need manuals and you shouldn't need to memorize but somehow all knowledge of how to use and configure an app should just magically appear in your head. If you're saying someone who has never used a computer before is going to be able to sit down and "intuitively" figure out how to use a menu very well know what all the words in a menu mean I call bullshit. If Windows is so intuitive why are there shelves and shelves of Windows books in every technical book store. You find the GUI in Word easy because you've been using it for a long time. For someone who never used the app it's a maze of twisty passages. It's "intuitive" to you because you've had years of training to learn that "intuition". Vi is "intuitive" to me for the same reason. Neither is more "intuitive" to someone who has never used a computer before (well I'll give some on vi but it's a bad example). And I've encountered many more GUIs that were outright obtuse than I have man pages that were obtuse.

A GUI tool is only slower than a CLI app if you already know your way around the CLI app and remember all relevant switches. Otherwise you've got a lot of reading to do. Even if you do know your way around your CLI it's no guarantee since, as I mentioned previously, CLI apps are typically limited by their interfaces to focusing on a single operation or subtask meaning you'll often need several of them to perform a single practical task.

Man you've just blown all your credibility by claiming that a CLI is more limited than a GUI interface. The only place this holds true is in the Windows world where the reason they don't give you a usable CLI is so they can limit what you're able to do. A CLI is only slower if you have no idea how to use the command and you've memorized the way through the twisted maze of menus, windows and tabs to find what you want to do. If you have to do something more than three time in a month the CLI is always faster because you'll remember and just have to simple type some stuff and hit return. With a GUI you're fishing and clicking with the mouse before you get to where you can type in the information. Instead of memorizing commands you've memorized what all those menu words mean.

As for the Linux vs. Windows stuff, that has no relevance to what I or the GP's were discussing. This isn't about Linux vs. Windows, it's about GUIs being the more practical means of interface for

Re:Not using the command line

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

It's fallacious because you're saying it should be as easy to operate a Computer as it is a drill. I've never seen a more than trivial app where the menus, windows and tabs intuitively led you to what you were looking for and the more complex the app the more confusing and arbitrary the menus, windows and tab are going to be. It's easier to find an arcane feature by typing in "/" in a man page than to search through menus to fine where it's hidden or looking through a 15 pound book and the man page is there whenever I need it.

That's not what I said at all. I used a metaphor for the experience of "researching a tool while using it" to highlight the fact that the casual user wants no such experience and simply wants to use a tool to get a job done. I'm curious though, why would a more complex app use arbitrary menus? That sounds more like FUD that sounds nice if you don't think about it but give it a second's thought and it doesn't stand up to reason at all.

You're arguing in circles. You say you shouldn't need manuals and you shouldn't need to memorize but somehow all knowledge of how to use and configure an app should just magically appear in your head. If you're saying someone who has never used a computer before is going to be able to sit down and "intuitively" figure out how to use a menu very well know what all the words in a menu mean I call bullshit. If Windows is so intuitive why are there shelves and shelves of Windows books in every technical book store. You find the GUI in Word easy because you've been using it for a long time. For someone who never used the app it's a maze of twisty passages. It's "intuitive" to you because you've had years of training to learn that "intuition". Vi is "intuitive" to me for the same reason. Neither is more "intuitive" to someone who has never used a computer before (well I'll give some on vi but it's a bad example). And I've encountered many more GUIs that were outright obtuse than I have man pages that were obtuse.

Knowing the fundamentals of computer use and terminology isn't the same as having to memorise CLI command names and the names and uses for all of their switches. Again you're talking about Windows as if that has anything to do with this, it doesn't. It isn't about the GUI in Word because the GUI in Word is really no different from the GUI in any other app. That's the point. There is greater uniformity and more inherent labelling in a way that is easy to follow step-by-step if need be.

It has every relevance. You've grown up with Windows. That's why you find the Windows way easier. For administrative type stuff the CLI beats the GUI in both speed and flexibility while in some cases being somewhat more complex. Every try to automate a task on Windows? It's impossible without adding Cygwin.

I didn't grow up with Windows, I grew up with Commodore 64s and BBC Micros, then later Acorn Archimedes. Neither C64s nor BBC Micros were GUI-based, the Acorn's were. 15 years later and I couldn't tell you how to do a damn thing with either the C64 or the BBC Micro, but I bet 2 minutes with that Acorn I'd have no problems at all with it. Why is automation easier with CLI stuff? Maybe if you use a specific automation app which happens to use CLI, but then someone can do the same thing with a GUI app. If you mean it's harder to communicate between GUI apps than CLI ones there's truth in that on Linux, but that's simply because Linux lacks a decent standardised platform/protocol to communicate between apps. I've never used CORBA but from what I understand it's a mess. As for Windows well COM does an OK job of it. On a whole there's less GUI apps that support such methods than CLI ones, but that's an issue for developers not for end users which is what we're discussing here, and it's not a problem that couldn't be fixed in Linux if developers stopped fellating the command-line-Gods long enough to put their heads together to fix the situation.

Give me a break. There is far more easily

Re:Not using the command line

[uvajed_ekil]

Wait, you mean some computer users just want a computer to assist them in their daily business? They don't want to be computer experts, and they don't care about having the latest updates to every package simply because the previous version worked just fine for them? Not everyone enjoys tweaking their machines to get that last 1% out of it??? The horror!!! I bet these l0sers also don't modify their Honda Accord's exhaust system for an extra 2-3 horsepower and probably don't have any sort of home automation system to prevent them from having to reach for a light switch in the dark. Why the hell do these morons just use computers as tools rather than look at them as reasons to live?

What, didn't everyone spend countless hours configuring DOS and Slackware by trial and error? I can't fathom why they don't just spend days and years mastering command lines and updating what ain't broke, but I envy them.

To make this useful

[WindBourne]

they need to conduct the same survey across ALL the distros at the same time. Perhaps set it up again, but get the others to link to it. It would be interesting to see how they all stack up.

Re:To make this useful

[daniorerio]

One interesting thing that struck me was the high score for "improved hardware support" in "what should be in future versions". Which is actually what Ubuntu has been working on in their last release. Apparently you don't need a big survey to figure this out ;)

Re:To make this useful

[apokryphos]

And yet Ubuntu aren't really innovating; they're more just packaging. Sure, they do a few little things for their own benefit (like the installer, or Launchpad, even though it's proprietary), but it's Novell/openSUSE who are really sponsoring so many Kernel, GNOME, KDE developers etc to make OSS a reality, and possible. Improving hardware support of course is nothing new for any and all Linux distributions, indeed, but that wasn't the whole goal of the survey; a lot of the information is very important and interesting. :)

Conclusion

[Nick_taken]

Everyone got an email

Re:Conclusion

[iamdarhand]

Or better: most openSUSE users use OpenSUSE

Re:Conclusion

[frazzydee]

Hate to be so anal, but wrong. "Response percent" refers to (# of people who voted on option) / (# of people who answered the question). Note how below it says that 6,297 people, or about 23% of participants, did not supply an email address.
Conclusion: about 4/5ths of participants got an email.
But I do find it odd that there are 6 missing people in the "total respondents" section for the question, or the response total for the question is 6 people too high. (look at the 9th page; the bottom two numbers should be the same)

Re:Ah... commence lowering of hope.

[Tatsh]

Haha. Would you even talk to any of them anyway if there were, what you consider, "enough" women using Linux? :P

Since when do the dead get to take surveys ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I counted more than a few names that are bogus. Richard M. Nixon? John Hancock (poor, poor John, teased a lot). Elvis Presley? I'm pretty sure that guy, and many others, have passed from this mortal coil. Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel? OK, that almost sounds about right.

Results

[Psychotria]

I like reading results of surveys such as this. However, I always find myself comparing the results to how I would answer. I am a developer, so results like these are invaluable... they highlight that not everyone (not even the majority) of users think/perceive differently to me. It's a great wakeup call.

Re:Results

[Psychotria]

Think the same as me ;-) I guess that preview is useful after all

SuSE - just not up to par.. for me.

[Vskye]

I've used it on and off. I actually bought the retail packages for the 5.x and 7.x releases and always went back to debian. I also gave 10.x series a shot, and for me it's been yast that has sucked compared to apt. Maybe I'm just not patient enough, but yast is slow. As far as I'm concerned, debian based releases are just far easier to maintain. SuSE on the other hand does seem to support more hardware out of the box, (for the most part) and the UI is a tad better from the system/hardware point of view.
 
I figured that SuSE would be on top by now, but it's not happening at this point and time. (any yes, I realize you can use apt in SuSE.. not the same)

Re:SuSE - just not up to par.. for me.

[apokryphos]

Package Manager != YaST. There are great improvements on speed with Libzypp in 10.2, but there's really exciting things planned for this with the new cache introduced into Libzypp for 10.3, so I really do recommend you try that out (when it's out).

100% e-mail response?

[navyjeff]

Is anyone else wondering how they managed to get 21,171 e-mail address responses when they had only 21,165 respondents to the survey?

Seems like some restaurant math to me.

Re:100% e-mail response?

[pixelite]

(skipped this question) 6297

you probably missed the next page. there was actually 27k people surveyed.

Re:Ah... commence lowering of hope.

[essence]

I had hoped that after all these years, the % of females who use Linux would have improved. Granted, this is only SUSE, but 539 out of 27000 isn't very good odds.

But we could have one hell of a bukakke session! Well maybe if people like you stopped making such gross remarks about women, more women would join the community.

PDF Warning.

[Fossilet]

att.

Re:Ah... commence lowering of hope.

[Frogbert]

Who said it was the ladies that were getting the jizz on their faces?

Re:Ah... commence lowering of hope.

[jgrahn]

I had hoped that after all these years, the % of females who use Linux would have improved. Granted, this is only SUSE, but 539 out of 27000 isn't very good odds.

But we could have one hell of a bukakke session!

Well maybe if people like you stopped making such gross remarks about women, more women would join the community.

Or at least women with no sense of humor. The point of that joke was obviously directed at the male users, not women. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been funny.

but I'm working with bash since it's what I prefer

[zukinux]

I do not work with bash since I cannot do this stuff on the gui / whatever.
I work with bash because it's much faster/easier/comfortable/more powerful then the gui.

Now, after 3.5 Linux years, I don't know how I've used Windows before, Shell is one of the best Linux advantages, why we as linux users would want to denial of using it. (and no, power-shell or cygwin are not even 1% of Linux's shell potential).

Re:That was the most useless survey I've ever seen

[apokryphos]

If you got out of your trolling tantrum you'd realise the survey was about the _distribution_ and not political opinions on political decisions. The survey was to get information about the usage of openSUSE, opinions from the users, and hard-data from those taking it. It succeeded, and just because you don't find the information interesting, it's not to say that it's not very important.

Bribes

[mobby_6kl]

They offered a chance to win one of five USB flash drives and an external 80 gig hdd.

I want a Vista Survey that way

[Anonymous Coward]

15. Where do you usually get Microsoft[R] Windows Vista[TM]?

Steal it from computer or software shop 7%
Download from thepiratebay homepage 70%
"Free CD" from friends (hey, they said it's free) 10%
I actually bought it. 3%
Other (please specify) 10%

Re:I want a Vista Survey that way

[Anonymous Coward]

It Came With My Pee Cee: 99.9999972%
Cowboy Neal: 0%

Accuracy guaranteed

[Anonymous Coward]

The survey was live for almost 3 months and more than 27,000 users participated, making it one of the largest Linux distribution surveys ever.

And to make sure the survey was as accurate as possible, I personally voted over 80 times.

Re:KDE vs Gnome - a theory

[Balinares]

I've long thought that distros generally prefer GNOME (probably for license and looks-better-out-of-the-box reasons) but users have different criteria about desktop environment choices (looks better after tweaking, does everything you want, fast, and otherwise remains very much out of your way, etc). It is interesting that distros and users should have wants driving them to opposite choices, though, and probably goes to show that Linux has already spread far, far beyond the demographic of geeks that take part in its development.

Ultra 40 M2

[tcopeland]

You can get those with SUSE now; not sure what the 2K version gets you, but seems like a reasonable price for a starter workstation...

Missing Option in survey:

[earthforce_1]

#23L What should be changed in future versions of openSUSE? (Multiple answers possible)

Tear up and renounce Novell's deal with Microsoft

(Former SuSE user since version 6.0 came out)

Number of respondents?

[tryggvi]

Did anyone else notice that they claim number of responses to be 27462, while if you add together "total responses" and "skipped this question" one gets an interval of [27462,27465]?

Taking together the statistics of it, you get the correct number most of the times but not always (2: 10 times, 3: 5 times, 4: 4 times and 5: 7 times).

education and non-profit

[maccallr]

Why do surveys always try to lump us into home or commercial users? There must be plenty of people using Linux in non-profit research, teaching, charities, etc.

Re:education and non-profit

[laffer1]

Simple, most surveys are done by people who want to make money on open source. Research and education aren't big $$$ markets. People there know how to download free distros.

Linux has the best chance in the business sector. I'm hoping to make MidnightBSD useful to home users and academic enivronments. Of course, its easy for me to think about computer labs and universities since I'm still a student and administer a computer lab. A high up at novell probably thinks about business. I'm not a big ubuntu fan, but their perspective is a bit unique in the linux community these days.

I guess the finishing move for me with Linux was when I saw the CEO of Redhat interviewed on a financial show on PBS. He was asked if linux was ready for the prime time and he pointed out that he had Windows in his office. When the CEO of redhat can't even used openoffice and run his own operating system, its rather sad.

where is my prize???

[tanachi]

"If you want to take part in the drawing for five 1 GByte USB sticks and one 80 GByte portable hard disc from Teac, please supply your e-mail address. " wonder i'll be the winner

vi

[ChrisMaple]

Every day, using vi, I accomplish in seconds things that would take minutes or hours in a GUI editor. Occasionally I do things that would take days, weeks, even months in a GUI editor. The power available from memorizing about 30 commands and learning regular expressions is astounding, provided, of course, that you actually have a use for such power.

Re:Power User

[Grand Facade]

What yanks my chain is you still have to be a power user just to get basic functionality from a desktop system using Linux!

Why is it so freaking hard to burn a CD?
Why is it so ridiculously difficult to install java support?
Why is wireless networking next to impossible? (My original Novell distro worked with my wireless card but it has never worked again)

I just heard about easyubuntu so maybe alot of the answers are there I will try it on my next install.

Re:Why? - Worthless pseudo-customer-focus

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to seem like they give a damn about their customers... but they don't even KNOW their customers... look at question 4."What's your profession...." Now just about anyone who can spell linux knows the number one profession among linux users.. it's the one profession that can legally get away with being 98% male (my kid brother is 98% male), with an age of around 25-30... DUH? And they don't even have it as one of their multiple choices. "Other" is used in good surveys as a catch-bin, in unscrupulous surveys as a trashcan for something you're trying to hide, and in poorly designed surveys as a fishing net to learn just how ineptly ignorant you are about the very people who make your career possible. This survey was written for their corporate clients.. and they tried to apply it to OpenSuse users as a ruse to appear committed to open-source and linux... this is PR damage control after the MS deal fallout.

Make that 428 *lines*

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

428 lines, not pages.

Stupid typo.

the first thing I do in setting up a new distro

[alizard]

is find out how to change the Window manager to KDE.

That kind of irritation is like turning off Active Desktop on Windows and Clippy on MS Office used to be for me.

Minimalist made sense when the hot new machines were K6-350s. For most of us, that was quite a few years ago.

You've never tried editing Windows Registry?

[alizard]

That makes .conf files look pellucidly clear... at least .conf files have human-readable comments in them.

There is indeed too much CLI stuff involved with Linux, but it's going away year by year.

Setting up your network used to be command line, now just about any modern distro will find the LAN and hook up to it automatically.

You used to need it to run multimedia, now run Automatix or an equivalent for another distro and it's running. Palm PDAs used to require a command line session, now, just open jpilot or kpilot and plug into the USB.

Printer and wireless drivers are still a PITA, but Dell starting to mass-market Ubuntu boxes will probably force a solution to the problem, Dell is big enough to tell vendors "you want to sell Windows printers or wireless adaptors through us? Deliver us Linux drivers or we'll find somebody else who will." If not, the other big box vendors will lean on their peripheral vendors when they join the rush to the exits. . . the "Vista is crap" message has hit the general public, MS plans to stop selling XP real soon now, and the box vendors really would like to sell their computers with OSs on them for some reason.

I make a living with my computer in my SOHO setting. The main reason I use Debian (testing) with VMware Server running my Windows legacy stuff is that it's EASIER to keep running in terms of stability and security than Windows ever was for me.

And... there aren't enough women in the Linux community. However, that'll fix itself as Linux moves into the mass market. There was a time when the percentage of women users of cyberspace looked like the numbers for current Linux users. Cyberspace is mass market now and IIRC, a slight majority of the online community is women now.

Gender

[towsonu2003]

%2 of the respondents are women... There certainly is something wrong with the community, if it cannot attract almost any women...

what this poll proves...

[ubiquitin]

For the price of five 1 GByte USB sticks and one 80 GByte portable hard disc from Teac, you can give 25,000 Linux users give you their email address.

It's plausible.

[Dr. Evil]

The 2% confused the survey for an order form.

Re:It's plausible.

[towsonu2003]

The 2% confused the survey for an order form.

Oh I see :) Maybe the 98% confused the survey with a penis-size contest?

Re: IIRC Gnome is infected with Mono

[Douglas Goodall]

I seen to remember reading that Gnome has a lot of Mono used in it. Since I think that Mono is a giant patent troll trap by Microsoft, and I am avoiding .NET like the plague, I am tending towards KDE. That means if ubuntu is my preference, I willl use kbuntu instead. I have also read kbuntu is very popular. I think the portions of Gnome that use Mono should be locked by default and require a key such as 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 before they go live. Then people would know when they had crossed the line and started using Microsoft technology.

Confused?

[Dr. Evil]

It's a good thing that there's only a 2% chance that that's sexist.

Re:Ah... commence lowering of hope.

[iggymanz]

that is false, far more gross remarks about bukakke sessions are made in Japan than in the Linux community, and that community has a female membership of about 50%.

Re: Did you mean "bistro math"

[Douglas Goodall]

Douglas Adams wrote about "bistro math" as a unique way of calculating each person's share of te bill.

I think you multiplied your portion by 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 then used the square root of the result as your bill (plus a tip of course).

Re:Power User

[Nutria]

Why is it so freaking hard to burn a CD?

I've always found it easy to burn CDs. But then, I use the CLI, and discovered the magic formula back 5 years ago. So I ensconced it in a shell script and have used it ever since, only occasionally changing it to account for faster hardware.

Why is it so ridiculously difficult to install java support?

????

Installing the Sun Jave JRE is pathetically simple.

Why is wireless networking next to impossible?

Can't answer that one. (Only use wires.)

Re: IIRC Gnome is infected with Mono

[Nutria]

I seen to remember reading that Gnome has a lot of Mono used in it.

Not true.

To verify, I just purged all Mono-related packages from my Debian system, and no "higher" dependencies were also removed.

Re: IIRC Gnome is (not) infected with Mono

[Douglas Goodall]

Thank you for checking this out. I try to be accurate in my statements (especially on /.) and I appreciate you taking the time to correct my mis-understanding. I will do some research and see why I believed that to start with. Again, Thanks :-)

Re: IIRC Gnome is (not) infected with Mono

[Nutria]

I will do some research and see why I believed that to start with.

Because there are those (like MdI) who want GNOME to be written in Mono.

Re:Power User

[lattyware]

I have never had a problem burning a CD. Gnomebaker or K3B and it's done. Simple as hell, nothing special - and I even use SATA DVD burners - you'd think that'd cause hassle. Again, Java support is simple, something like EasyUbuntu or Automatix makes it easier. And wireless networking is annoying, I'll give you that, but I stand by the response I give everyone. Get a wireless access point. Hook it up via Ethernet, easy to configure, can use it with way more stuff (I use it with a 360, etc...) and it has better range etc... Plus it's not that much more expensive.