Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Moving Toward a Single Linux UI?

Posted by timothy on from the everything-that-rises dept.

Anonymous writes "With the releases of Fedora 9, Hardy Heron and OpenSuSE 11 so close together, it's looking more than ever like an evolution to a common interface for major Linux distributions. Here's a compilation of screen shots and descriptions that make it appear to be the case. Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?" There are plenty of other options out there, of course, even considering only Linux distros that are based on Gnome and KDE, and plenty of wilder (or at least less common) desktops to choose from besides.

7 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. Probably a bit of both by psychodelicacy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess that if we're keen on getting more people into Linux, then some commonality across the major distros might be a good thing. On the other hand, it's not so great for the smaller distros if we get a kind of monolithic Linux which dominates the market and means that people are less willing to try something different.

    Still, there'll always be enough of us who want to use things because they're different - and because they are better at doing exactly what we want rather than being more generic, suit-everyone tools.

    --
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    1. Re:Probably a bit of both by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Interesting

      On the other hand, it's not so great for the smaller distros if we get a kind of monolithic Linux which dominates the market and means that people are less willing to try something different.

      I hardly think it would stifle innovation (open licenses are so important in all of this). But it might make people think a little more carefully before innovating. That is, there will be yet greater emphasis on integration and interoperability with the other available applications.

      And if anything, the need for lightweight desktops and specialized linux distributions is growing with the accumulation of older computers and the advance of the second and third worlds to the computer age.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  2. Multiple UI is probably a good thing. by jfbilodeau · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm all for choice. True, that can make it a challenge for Linux adoption, but we all know what happens when a product becomes a defacto monopoly.

    I'm convinced that 'competition' between KDE and Gnome has only help to improve the quality of both interfaces. Furthermore, having Xfce, KDE, Gnome, etc, gives the user choices not just in the colour, but in the actual design and philosophy behind the UI. In other words, there is plenty of room to try out new and exiting idea that would be difficult would there be a single, monopolistic desktop UI.

    My $0.02 CAD.

    --
    Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
    1. Re:Multiple UI is probably a good thing. by markdavis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Plus, KDE and Gnome are both getting quite bloated and complex. Sure, I use KDE on my main 3GB multicore desktop Linux machine, complete with all the Compiz thrills and wobbly transparency wow's. But they are completely unsuitable on my thin clients. IceWM to the rescue!

      Anyway, I agree with you that Gnome vs. KDE probably has improved both a lot. But there is no denying that it also holds back some types of application development. I don't know the answer, but just try to enjoy the ride.

  3. Re:Precisly the missing part of Linux by mfnickster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the opposite goal is more desirable - a platform standard which allows you to run your GUI on any machine.

    Why should I learn Gnome or KDE if I already know Aqua, or vice versa?

    The best solution would be an interface definition standard that lets you use KDE on Windows, Mac or Linux with no installation or configuration necessary - just download your profile from a server or USB key.

    Oh, yeah, and I'd like a pony too, as long as I'm wishing on pipe dreams...

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  4. The UIs are not the problem by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I don't mind the different eye candy.

    What matters far more is standardising the way the distros handle other things so that HowTos, installation scripts/instructions for printers etc can be written once without a whole lot of "On Ubuntu do this, on Fedora do that" stuff. Things that would help a lot:
    *Pick one printer handling mechanism.
    *Pick one package manager.
    *Standardise one one usb/udev/pam.
    *Pick one wireless management policy. Hide madwifi/ndiswrapper etc.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  5. Re:They already have a common UI. by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I prefer black on white, and I always have terminals beyond 80x25, but aside from colors and window sized, I think that the cli is _the_ UI for Linux, and it is better than any other *NIX out there in that department. Most other *NIX's have died out, but the cli for Solaris makes me type date and make sure that it really is 2008. I'm not knocking Solaris in terms of its kernel and Sun's hardware can be good (sometimes it sucks). But in 2008 if I do vi /var/adm/messages and it tells me that my window is too wide, I am forced to type the date command again.

    A little more on topic, I think that it will really take a commercial company to make a GUI for any *NIX that is worthwhile. It just seems too big of a project for open source to come together and do. The best that we have to date are two windows ripoffs with the groovy option to have wiggly windows and stuff.

    My rank orderings of GUIs are:

    1) OS X
    2) Windows
    3) other

    Hint. I don't use windows, and I don't see that happening for another 5-10 years. I'm a Linux/UNIX fan. I like what is under the hood, and to me it just "makes sense". For me, windows does not, under the hood nor the shiny exterior. Today, OS X is UNIX with a good GUI thrown on top. Sure, its not perfect, but I'm at home and looking at my nice OS X GUI after looking at my Gnome desktop all day at work makes my eyes feel better. I also find it ironic that of all the terminal apps I've used, OS X has the best Terminal app out there. Its also nice to have the hard stuff in Linux taken care of by the GUI in OS X.

    Now the BIG difference here, is that I would not want to run OS X on all of the servers that I manage under Solaris and Linux. Why? Like Windows, the GUI is the OS.

    This is really tough, but there needs to be a GUI that works with Linux that can help novices with the basics, but those GUIs can't break if a "power user" comes in and modifies the config file in a text editor and now the GUI is either broken or it screws up the config file. This is _NOT_ a trivial task to accomplish, and this is one of the reasons that a good GUI has not come to surface for Linux.

    In fact, I think that the GUI experience was better like 10 years ago under Linux with things like AfterStep and WindowMaker, and Enlightenment. I even know some older *NIX folks that still use FVWM, and I liked that back in the day too. So, I dunno, maybe 2009 is the year of Linux on the desktop. However, unless an excellent GUI comes out for it, I don't think this will be the year.