Examining the Usability of Gnome, Unity and KDE

gbjbaanb writes "TechRadar has gathered a few users and subjected the 3 main Linux desktops to some usability testing for both experienced users and some new to the whole concept." I'm glad to see such ongoing comparisons; they encourage cross-pollination of the best ideas. On the other hand, it's a little bit like trying to determine the "best" dessert; even the most elaborate attempts to find statistical consensus won't answer the question of what's best for any particular user.

Comments

General usability should be one of the choices

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with ignoring the needs of individual users to tailor a generally good experience, _so long as power-users are still given the ability to pick the option best for them as individuals_. That last part is the important part that Apple has forgotten of late.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[InsightIn140Bytes]

But Linux is open. Fork it and do it yourself! Given the ability, pffft.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[obarthelemy]

Users can't fork Linux, they need something premade.
Further, users have computers skills by now, and have no desire to re-learn from scratch.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[InsightIn140Bytes]

So if they want something premade, why would they choose Linux instead of OSX or Windows? What else than customization, tweakability and programming the system does Linux offer over those two? It's a good question to ask, especially for Gnome/KDE/Ubuntu/Linux developers if they want Linux to become mainstream.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[sidthegeek]

Well, because they don't have to pay any money to obtain a copy of Linux.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[slackware 3.6]

Because it is free and mostly works out of the box. Especially for people that are constantly changing hardware on multiple systems, use older hardware etc and don't play many game. That is your primary desktop user.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[grumling]

Because I didn't want a Mac and (at the time) Microsoft's 64 bit OS was too expensive and too little supported for home use. I figured I had paid for a 64 bit processor and it didn't make sense to me to not use all of it's capabilities.

Now that I'm used to the *nix way of doing things, I won't go back.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Anonymous Coward]

That last part is the important part that Apple has forgotten of late.

Apple AND Gnome.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[tepples]

Well, because they don't have to pay any money to obtain a copy of Linux.

Do they have to pay any extra money for a copy of Windows on a new PC? No, because the makers of Windows-exclusive trialware subsidize OEM Windows.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Stormwatch]

They did fork Gnome, it's called Maté.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[dead_cthulhu]

How is any polished distro like *buntu (including Mint), Fedora or OpenSuSE any less "premade" than Windows or OS X? And despite its small market share, Linux *is* now mainstream when I've had people ranging from random bikers at my local bar to grannies in a coffee shop come up to me and ask what distro I'm using and how happy they are that they switched. These are people who wouldn't know what to do if confronted with a command-line. The only reason more people don't switch is that they're resistant to change, and *won't* change their OS unless they evaluate changing their workflow as less of a hassle than what they already have.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Zero__Kelvin]

"What else than customization, tweakability and programming the system does Linux offer over those two?"

You are trying to make a joke, right?

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why there is the MATE desktop

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

We've been hearing about the fabled granny user for years, but well played adding bikers in a bar!

Oh, I see. You meant bicyclists in a latte bar. Carry onthen.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Forever Wondering]

There's nothing wrong with ignoring the needs of individual users to tailor a generally good experience, _so long as power-users are still given the ability to pick the option best for them as individuals_. That last part is the important part that Apple has forgotten of late.

Actually, Gnome 3 is trying to clone Apple--and that's the problem. If you look at the activities panel and scroll over an active window, you'll see a "dismiss" that is a white X with a black background with a white circle around it. This is so close to what an iPad/iOS does that I'm surprised that Apple isn't suing Gnome for patent infringement ...

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[dead_cthulhu]

Thank you, but I do mean the grizzled heavily-tattooed leathery skin beer and a shot of whisky Harley rider type of biker.

And I must admit I was wrong on one front, namely that I excluded another (perhaps more) important reason that more people don't switch. Windows 7 is actually quite good, to the point where I actually bought a copy to dual-boot my laptop. OS X is also an amazingly solid OS. There actually is less of a reason to change than there was during the Vista days.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Coryoth]

There's nothing wrong with ignoring the needs of individual users to tailor a generally good experience, _so long as power-users are still given the ability to pick the option best for them as individuals_.

The standards for people calling themselves "power users" really seems to have dropped. The people I think of as power users would have no problem hacking together a nice custom FVWM2 configuration that integrates all the GNOME3 libraries (including the internal notification and messaging systems -- they do have nice exposed interfaces after all) and applications while giving them exactly the custom experience they desire. I mean GNOME3 is pretty damn modular and broken into a myriad of different libraries and components after all; it's just the shell that they've stuck on top as gloss that lacks some customidability. But no, these days people that call themselves "power users" seem to run scared at the mere mention of hand-writing their own FVWM2 or xmonad configuration from scratch; or indeed, of bothering to actually have to get their hands dirty to create a custom environment at all. Today "power users" need to be able to "customise" their environment via pretty GUIs and checkboxes. Heck, I've heard people calling themselves power users who called GConf complicated.

Look, there's still plenty of extensive customisation and configurability inherent in these systems, they just require you actually be a power user and know what the hell you're doing, and not be scared of getting your hands a little messy and stepping outside pretty candy coated "configuration" utilities.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[ninetyninebottles]

Thank you, but I do mean the grizzled heavily-tattooed leathery skin beer and a shot of whisky Harley rider type of biker.

Well clearly if they ride a Harley they have no interest in reliable technology or things that just work :)

I kid, I kid. HD has come a long way since the 80s. Just a hint though, the average Harley rider is a 60 year old dentist from the burbs. Most of the grizzled, tattooed whiskey drinking bikers I know ride something metric that is more reliable and costs half as much or a chopped up classic. Harleys are like Cadillacs. They used to mean you were cool, now they mean you're old because you still think they are cool.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[ozmanjusri]

So if they want something premade, why would they choose Linux instead of OSX or Windows?

Because it's simpler. Distro maintainers can pre-make beautiful, elegant and very usable desktops that suit individual needs without compromising on stability, compatibility or security. Users can just pick the breed of Linux that suits them and be immediately productive.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Anonymous Coward]

I especially like how that article sidesteps the 'citation needed/original research' by including a 'see also' link to Baby Duck Syndrome.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[dead_cthulhu]

Thread-drift aside (I'm no expert on bikes, but I presume some people buy those which are troublesome to maintain for the same reason people buy classic British cars, just so they have something to work on).

Mainly, I was just pointing out that *nix is actually known well enough and has come far enough on the usability front that people outside of the /. demographic are using it easily.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Anonymous Coward]

if they want something premade, why would they choose Linux instead of OSX or Windows? What else than customization, tweakability and programming the system does Linux offer over those two?

Well, for starters there's the fact that it costs absolutely nothing. (And upgrades also cost absolutely nothing, unlike the "free" copies of Windows or OS X you get with a new computer where you have to shell out hard cash every year or two if you want to stay secure.)

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Kjella]

I'd say it's the other way around, even if your name is Linus bloody Torvalds and you've pretty much written the Linux kernel and a hugely popular source management system, you probably don't want to try writing a desktop environment and all the applications you'd like to use too. This whole "sane defaults and a good out of the box experience doesn't matter on Linux because users can just customize it the way they like" ignores the fact that nobody has the time to customize everything. Nobody. Sure if you're happy with a premade system for everything then maybe Linux isn't for you, but the parts that you do customize are maybe 2% and those you don't 98%. And what those 2% will be varies so in reality no part of a Linux system should ever use that as an excuse. I don't think it's worth overcomplicating it, for the most part I just want my printer to print, my scanner to scan, my wifi to connect, my audio to play and so on. Just getting everything to work the way people generally expect it to work is a good start before you start dealing with what the "extras" are that make it even better than the competition.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Andreas Mayer]

_so long as power-users are still given the ability to pick the option best for them as individuals_. That last part is the important part that Apple has forgotten of late.

Can you give an example? It's obviously true that there are features in Mac OS X where power users would like to have (more) options. I just don't see that this has gotten worse lately, as you seem to suggest.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[knorthern knight]

> Do they have to pay any extra money for a copy of Windows on a new PC?
> No, because the makers of Windows-exclusive trialware subsidize OEM Windows.

Alright, that gets you a PC with Windows on it. Now you want to actually use it for something productive. With all the annoying "Windows-exclusive trialware" crap popping up and nagging you to buy-buy-buy, and burning cpu cycles like crazy, you first need to pay Geeksquad to remove the "craplets". Then you have to set up and use an antivirus. And then there's applications. True, many of the linux apps are cross-platform, and have Windows equivalants. But you then have to update each one manually. There are no "Windows distros" that I'm aware of. unless you count Cygwin. It's essentially a ful-blown linux sitting on top of Windows.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[realityimpaired]

Users can just pick the breed of Linux that suits them and be immediately productive.

Ignoring the 20-30 distros they may have to download to find the one that suits them, assuming they don't have somebody recommending things to them or installing it for them....

Linux *can* be super-easy, just install it and go. But it can also be a royal pain in the ass, if the distro you've installed doesn't fit the work flow you're used to, or that you need in a computer. Finding a distro that does everything you want it to do, and that doesn't give you a migraine trying to configure is a huge part of the impediment to switching for a lot of people. Most users basically can't do it without somebody to pick a distro for them, and maybe even to show them how to use it, or at least what's different from their old system.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[formfeed]

I don't roast my own coffee and I don't spin my own yarn. But if an appliance breaks, I like it if it has screws on the bottom rather than the ones in a plastic welded case. I also prefer wooden toys and things I can modify with a hacksaw...

I get the linux distribution that is closest to what I want for everyday work and then I take a hacksaw to it till it looks like I want it, hoping that I'm done for the next three years.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[drsmithy]

Users can just pick the breed of Linux that suits them and be immediately productive.

And by "immediately" you mean 6 months after they start sampling all those different linux variants to actually find the one that "suits them", right ?

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Nursie]

No.

To customise Gnome Shell you need to write javascript. I do not have the time or the inclination to write code to re-add functionality that was available with a right-click in the last release.

People who write custom FVWM2 configs in the way you talk about it were never power-users, they're obsessives.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[drsmithy]

So if they want something premade, why would they choose Linux instead of OSX or Windows?

Indeed. I spent the better part of ten years as a Solaris, FreeBSD and Linux sysadmin, and I can't think of any reason I'd switch from Windows to Linux on my regular desktop PC. Nor to OS X, for that matter, and our household owns four Macs.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[drsmithy]

Well, because they don't have to pay any money to obtain a copy of Linux.

No-one pays "more" for a copy of Windows. They either get it "free" with the new PC they buy every 3-4 years, or they download it from thepiratebay.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[MaskedSlacker]

And the applications? A distro is a lot more than just the OS.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[drsmithy]

And the applications?

Probably 90%+ of what most people do with their computers these days they do with free applications or on a web page.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[perryizgr8]

so they have patents for "white X with a black background with a white circle around it" nowadays? this has to come to an end sooner or later.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[smash]

Thing is, at least OS X has the architectural foundations to make the trade-off worth it. Gnome LOOKS a bit like a Mac, but the mac UI is actually the least attractive part of the entire OS, imho.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[jbolden]

Windows power users have always been the most hostile to Linux switching. They have learned how to do stuff in Windows but don't have broad computer knowledge. Switching takes that away from them. Up or down in terms of skill set and things work better.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Forever Wondering]

so they have patents for "white X with a black background with a white circle around it" nowadays? this has to come to an end sooner or later.

In reality, it's just about that bad [or worse]. There was an article recently (see apple.slashdot.org) about how Apple lawyers were actually arguing (via a court brief against Samsung) about "how not to infringe" [Apple patents]. Basically, no rounded corners on the tablet/phone, and no flat screen, and a host of other psychotic restrictions (e.g. device can't recharge its own rechargeable batteries).

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[unixisc]

Just b'cos one knows how to use Linux doesn't mean that one knows how to program. The way some people write 'fork it yourself' - it's like if you don't like mayo in your burger, make your own, using Thousand Island instead of Mayo. (And no, I won't use a car analogy, since the 'fork it yourself' itself is like telling a car-owner who doesn't like his Ford Fusion to change it to include a V8 engine, and overhaul the body to make it look like a Porsche. Oops, I just did).

But I do agree on one thing - given the number of Linux & BSD distros out there on distrowatch, one should be able to pick one suitable. Only problem - figuring out whether a distro one likes is supported on one's computer.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[unixisc]

Actually, Gnome 3 is trying to clone Apple--and that's the problem.... This is so close to what an iPad/iOS does that I'm surprised that Apple isn't suing Gnome for patent infringement ...

Actually, there is one Ubuntu based distro - PearOS - which uses Gnome 3.2, but has customized it exactly so that it looks & feels identical to OS-X. Actually, if Gnome 3.2 were to completely morph into that, it would be an improvement - at least people who want OS-X on non-Mac PCs could then install and run it on their systems. Yeah, there will be some differences, like Opera or Firefox instead of Safari (wonder whether the Camino browser runs on anything other than Macs) but otherwise, the UX will be the same.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[r_a_trip]

Immediately productive is theoretical. A standard GNU/Linux desktop install is fairly complete productivity wise. So everything is in place, but using it might take some learning.

Jumping ship wholesale to Linux rarely is a "burning all bridges" process. Most people go through a "courting" period. This is where they are introduced to GNU/Linux by a friend and have a dual boot system set up or a virtual machine atop Windows. (Or a persistant live session or Wubi, etc.) In this period they get to test the waters with Linux and still have Windows as a solid backup. Then two things can happen. Or they find GNU/Linux isn't their cup of tea or they start to gravitate more and more to it.

Once they got the hang of GNU/Linux, they will start to explore on their own and they'll find their niche. But they certainly won't hit the road running. Not that it really matters. They didn't hit the road running with Windows either. Every system has a learning curve and the Windows curve is just as steep as the curves of GNU/Linux or Mac OS. It's just that most people have forgotten their initial falterings on their first system.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Anonymous Coward]

"What else than customization, tweakability and programming the system does Linux offer over those two?"

You are trying to make a joke, right?

No, he's trolling. Check his posting history, he's been unmasked as a Waggener Edstrom employee a few times already. Seems like they've "upgraded" their tactics a bit, now the employee makes a few agreeable, or even funny posts, before touting the party (MSFT) line. He's still a troll working for a marketing agency, trying to astroturf for MSFT.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[lister king of smeg]

"nobody has the time to customize everything."

one word: gentoo.
(also linux from scratch)

no one has time to write everything, customize of everything on the other hand can be gotten away with by, some people with patients and no female distractions.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[fatphil]

Obligatory XKCD: http://www.xkcd.com/963/

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[pugugly]

Because the premade versions of Linux fit my needs better than OSX or Windows -
My needs include customization, strong security, not worrying about malware, access to strong commandline, automated software updates - all thing that linux does better than Windows or OS X.
Unity sucks, and I moved to KDE, but *linux* still fits my needs.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Coryoth]

No

To customise Gnome Shell you need to write javascript. I do not have the time or the inclination to write code to re-add functionality that was available with a right-click in the last release.

How someone who shies away from writing some simple javascript against well defined and well documented interfaces can call themselves a "power user" is beyond me.

Functionality changed. Some things were removed and replaced with other ways of doing things. There still exist perfectly good and very powerful ways to extend the system to do whatever you want if you are an expert user (I despair to think that "knowledge of javascript" now qualifies one as an "expert user"); in fact far more ability to customise has been exposed -- there was little you could do to make some things happen in GNOME2 without hacking around in the C -- with pretty nice javascript bindings for, well, pretty much anything you could want to do. Quit whining and actually customise your system. Or is a text editor instead of a pointy-clicky interface too daunting for a "power user" like yourself?

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no "Windows distros" that I'm aware of. unless you count Cygwin. It's essentially a ful-blown linux sitting on top of Windows.

Better to avoid misleading generalisations. Cygwin is an environment that provides many utilities found in the toolchains of Linux-based distros.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Nursie]

How someone who shies away from writing some simple javascript against well defined and well documented interfaces can call themselves a "power user" is beyond me.

How about someone who has some work to do?

there was little you could do to make some things happen in GNOME2 without hacking around in the C

Now you're just talking bullshit. There was a lot you could do in gnome (MOVE a panel, for instance, or add things to it) at the touch of a couple of buttons.

Or is a text editor instead of a pointy-clicky interface too daunting for a "power user" like yourself?

I use a text editor to write C. I click to customise my desktop GUI, like in every other OS.

Are you seriously, for even a second, suggesting that GNOME Shell was designed to allow "power users" more flexibility? You're more retarded than I thought.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Don't under estimate the "grizzled heavily-tattooed leathery skin beer and a shot of whisky Harley rider type of biker.", they are usually much smarter than they look. The same can be said of professional truck drivers. Its just their sense of taste and style that's questionable.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[HermMunster]

Windows does not come free on new desktops. I find you saying that misleading. Microsoft gets paid for every copy of Windows. The OEMs pay Microsoft and mark it up to you via the price of the whole computer.

The cost of the hardware comes down but the cost of Windows never does. It will continue to remain $50 or more for OEM preinstalls and $120 for the lowest upgrade retail copy.

Keep in mind that Microsoft just put out a public reminder that you do not own that copy installed on your computer.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[mcgrew]

I'd say cost for OSX, but windows is another animal entirely. You have to either leave your PC with no password (unwise if you're going to connect it to the internet) or you have to enter the password every time you boot. Linux (at least KDE) lets you have a default account that the password is entered for you as it boots.

When it does boot, Windows comes up naked; all the apps and documents you had open when you booted it are now closed. KDE defaults to having your computer boot to the state it was when you shut it off, and if you like the Windows way you can change it. Linux gives you choice, Microsoft does not.

Linux is far more forgiving of hardware problems.

You're required to boot a Windows computer once a month, whenever you install any new software, and whenever you update any drivers. Linux has no such limitations.

Linux has no registry, that abomination that slows your computer down as it grows daily.

Linux connects to a time server automatically. It has to be set up manually in Windows using 3rd party software.

Linux is fairly easy to network, Windows tries to make it hard. My copy of Win 7 says it will only connect to a network with a running copy of Win 7 Pro, but kubuntu networks with it easily.

There is no AV needed for any OS except Microsoft's.

Linux wallpaper can be movies or slide shows. Not Windows.

The only thing I like better about Windows is I can set it to hide the bar at the bottom of the screen; that feature isn't available in KDE.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[mcgrew]

I was going to RTFA, when I got there I discovered a fairly short page framed in an ugly pink with little content whatever. Too bad, I haven't tried GNOME in a long time and haven't tried Unity at all.

Too bad there's no real article. Maybe you guys can help with your comments.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[mcgrew]

LOL, a supposed nerd ragging on someone else's "sense of style"! I don't know about you, but "sense of style" is something I lack completely.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[fnj]

Alas, I think he really does not know.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[fnj]

They forked KDE too. It's called Trinity. The quality is excellent.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[fnj]

I am sorry to say, yes, I believe he *IS* perfectly serious.

The poopheads in charge of Gnome, and their apologists, really do not grasp what is crystal clear to any user with the least bit of common sense.

I haven't totally given up on Gnome3's FUTURE yet, because, agonizingly slowly, some of the absurd limitations are being addressed by the developers and by others. The developers are not technically deficient, they are just poopheads when it comes to common sense.

However, Gnome3's PRESENT is garbage, and unless and until it DOES get fixed acceptably, I am sticking with Gnome2 on RHEL6, which should carry me through to 2017.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say cost for OSX, but windows is another animal entirely. You have to either leave your PC with no password (unwise if you're going to connect it to the internet) or you have to enter the password every time you boot. Linux (at least KDE) lets you have a default account that the password is entered for you as it boots.

Windows has that option at least in XP and Win7.

When it does boot, Windows comes up naked; all the apps and documents you had open when you booted it are now closed. KDE defaults to having your computer boot to the state it was when you shut it off, and if you like the Windows way you can change it. Linux gives you choice, Microsoft does not.

It is called hibernate.

Linux is far more forgiving of hardware problems.

Really?

You're required to boot a Windows computer once a month, whenever you install any new software, and whenever you update any drivers. Linux has no such limitations.

Agree

Linux has no registry, that abomination that slows your computer down as it grows daily.

Agree

Linux connects to a time server automatically. It has to be set up manually in Windows using 3rd party software.

I dont think that is true anymore. My windows machines have been keeping time just fine.

Linux is fairly easy to network, Windows tries to make it hard. My copy of Win 7 says it will only connect to a network with a running copy of Win 7 Pro, but kubuntu networks with it easily.

I have windows and have no problems connecting to all kinds of networks.

There is no AV needed for any OS except Microsoft's.

Linux wallpaper can be movies or slide shows. Not Windows.

The only thing I like better about Windows is I can set it to hide the bar at the bottom of the screen; that feature isn't available in KDE.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[Forever Wondering]

Actually, Gnome 3 is trying to clone Apple--and that's the problem.... This is so close to what an iPad/iOS does that I'm surprised that Apple isn't suing Gnome for patent infringement ...

Actually, there is one Ubuntu based distro - PearOS - which uses Gnome 3.2, but has customized it exactly so that it looks & feels identical to OS-X. Actually, if Gnome 3.2 were to completely morph into that, it would be an improvement - at least people who want OS-X on non-Mac PCs could then install and run it on their systems. Yeah, there will be some differences, like Opera or Firefox instead of Safari (wonder whether the Camino browser runs on anything other than Macs) but otherwise, the UX will be the same.

When I said "that's the problem" what I meant was "lack of options" (which I explained in a bit more detail on another branch of the main thread). The iOS model is geared toward a touchscreen which has only one "mouse button" (your finger). If the Gnome 3 developers want to make Gnome 3 a 100% clone of the iOS user interface to attract more market share--fine.

But, those of us who want a our favorites on a toolbar on the work surface and not in an "Activities" window (which takes more clicks to get to and use) should be able to configure that. In fact, the entire look-and-feel should be as easy to configure as selecting a different background wallpaper.

Thus, a regular user, who has done no reconfiguration, gets the default look-and-feel, which is an artistic choice. If they're happy, nothing further needs be done. Choosing a default that appeals to the widest audience is a good thing, providing that it's easy for power users to reconfigure it as they chose.

What's truly incredible is that given all the XML config files used in Gnome 3 for trivial stuff, that enabling alternatives is so painful/impossible. Most users might not want to do this, but some might be willing to download an alternative configuration and install it, just as they do a .png for a background. There could be a site for this, with user rankings, just like the site for add-ons for Firefox. For example, many people like AdBlocker+, even though many could not write it themselves.

The fact that the Gnome 3 developers have gone the opposite way and prevented such an aftermarket ecosystem from developing is hubris, plain and simple. Or, lack of [sufficient] programming skill to architect it that way.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[drsmithy]

Windows does not come free on new desktops. I find you saying that misleading.

You might find it misleading, but it's nevertheless true. The small cost of OEM Windows ($0-40 or so, depending on what other kickbacks the reseller gets) is part of the purchase cost of "the computer". Ie: it's not considered an additional cost by anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind. Ie: it's "free".

The simple fact is that there's rarely a price difference between a PC that comes with Windows and a PC that comes with Linux, from the sellers most people buy from. Ergo, Windows is "free" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Microsoft gets paid for every copy of Windows. The OEMs pay Microsoft and mark it up to you via the price of the whole computer.

Yes. And ?

The cost of the hardware comes down but the cost of Windows never does. It will continue to remain $50 or more for OEM preinstalls and $120 for the lowest upgrade retail copy.

OEMs probably pay more like $20 for their copy of Windows. Many effectively get it free thanks to kickbacks from vendors bundling other software on their PCs.

Keep in mind that Microsoft just put out a public reminder that you do not own that copy installed on your computer.

You don't "own" your copy of Linux, either. If you think you do, I suggest trying to modify and redistribute it on terms not compliant with the GPL.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[HermMunster]

I find it misleading because it is misleading. Every legit installation of Windows costs someone and ultimately that cost is transferred to the consumer. When you buy that computer with Windows you are paying EXTRA. You can't go to HP and say "I want that computer without windows". You can't say that to Best Buy. You are stuck. The cost of Windows is included in the cost of the computer. Saying anything else is misleading and fraudulent (if you are in the business of selling computers to businesses or consumers).

The cost of Windows may be $20 for the OEM but it is sold at a mark up of nearly $50 or more (as per when Dell used to allow you to prove you hadn't agreed to the EULA and wanted a refund -- which they do no longer). AND the LOWEST cost for an upgrade of Windows 7 (single user upgrade) is $120.00 (we need not haggle over a penny here or there).

There's the doctrine of first sale which says that if you bought it you can resell it. I don't need to resell Linux. I can just give it away. I won't be violating anyone's license just by giving it away or by installing it hundreds of times on people's computers. MICROSOFT's warning was that you can have your right to use it yanked and they can refuse to allow you to continue to use it for any reason at any time. This cannot ever happen under Linux. Microsoft is trying to make it clear that they are licensing it to you and that they will enforce their license including and not limited to forcing you to agree to give up a right to a class action lawsuit (and other despicable onerous restrictions) and your ability to transfer your license to others. What you are describing is far different than what I pointed out initially. Why would I ever want to go with a license that restricts my rights to use a piece of software, to give it away, to install it as many times as I want, and especially one that limits my remedy under the law just because i clicked something that says I agree "to a long complex highly confusing nearly indeciperable" EULA.

The GPL does not limit me like Microsoft's EULA. I can do just about anything I want with the code. And not all Linux products are licenses under the GPL. Technically I can do absolutely anything I want with any piece of software under the GPL, including installing it hundreds of thousands if not millions or billions of times without a second thought. I can include it in any product for any reason and any use and not be in violation of the GPL as long as I give back my changes to the original creators of the code (if I made changes to their code and distributed the product) and as long as i made the code available in some way to those using the product.

I think you mistake the GPL for something it is not. Yes it is restrictive in that it is intended to ensure entities (and individuals) give back to the original creators those changes that you made when you modified and used their software, and that you give end users (that want to use it access to the source code) source code access. This is a far far cry from the restrictive agreements that Microsoft is trying to point out via their PROCLAMATION that you are licensing the application (Windows), and that has everything to do with what I was pointing out. Linux doesn't claim to own your install. Microsoft does, even if it means implementing onerous spyware for the federal government or just hating on you and forcing you to stop using it.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[HermMunster]

I was playing a MMORPG and mentioned in global chat that I run that game under Linux. Immediately people began talking about it. Some said they love it to death and others said they'd given it a try and wanted to get out from under Microsoft, but had problems. I explained that today i can run the game by simply double clicking on the .exe file, and I suggested how they might get it to work properly. The visuals and performance are near identical to when it is run under Windows.

My point is that there were so many people interested, so many people speaking positively about it. In the rather lengthy conversation there was not a single negativism by a Windows fanboi). That's a huge step forward. Linux really is that easy to use. If you are stuck on a certain product and can't use something else then a Macintosh wouldn't work for you either. And if you can't get something to run under Wine or in VirtualBox then well, nothing will ever be good enough for you.

KDE has a lot of polish, though some of the defaults are still poorly chosen. The desktop view vs folder view choice they make is stupid. Another stupid choice is single click with the mouse. There are quite a few pieces of polish that's needed though you can't expect total change to happen over night. One can make an excellent and outstanding desktop that's beautiful, friendly and highly usable with little to no need for customization.

For those fanbois here ragging on the command line. Well, for many years that's all we had. We only had the command line on the intel/DOS platform. The GUI didn't exist. All through the 70s and most of the 80s that's what we had. People still were able to launch their programs, back up their data, and do just about everything they do today at the command line. Granted each application was designed differently and you had to learn each application's way of doing things. And for about another decade we lived with the command line underlying Windows 3.x, 95, 98, ME, NT 3.51, NT4 as well as a lot of command line use under Win2k and even WinXP. Today there are just as many people using the command line in Windows every day as there are under Linux.

For the last 5 years there has been almost no need to do anything at the command line in Linux. Most everything is available for the GUI in Linux.

It's just that it is often EASIER to do things at the command line. For instance, it is easier to do support at the command line then it is to instruct people on 5+ steps to getting something done in a GUI. If you had a choice, and you supported units, where you had to tell someone calling you for help to execute one or two commands at the command line vs. 5-10 commands in a GUI (where the user knew little about computers) you'd choose the command line, primarily due to the fact that it is easier to verify that the customer has the right command rather than relying on them to accurately portray where they are in the GUI after you gave them the last 5 steps to complete. A perfect example of this would be to release and renew your IP address, and to do this on a non-administrative account.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[HermMunster]

Listen, if you can't figure out before you download then you are in trouble. Your point is so ludicrous. It's like saying that someone has to buy 20-30 homes before they find the one they are comfortable living in, or that they have to buy 20-30 cars before they find one that fits their style.

People have other ways to find this stuff out. There are plenty of reviews of distributions of Linux, of desktop managers for those distributions, and of applications in those distributions. This gives everyone a great idea of what will work for them, something they'll be happy with, long before they even download a single byte.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[HermMunster]

That is another ludicrous statement.

You can immediately start using quality software under Linux the moment you have the desktop after your first install. The same goes for just about any OS. The moment you get to the desktop you can bring up a word processor and start writing a letter or you can bring up a spreadsheet and begin a budget, or you can launch your browser and watch Hulu or youtube flash videos, or write an email, or chat, or make phone calls.

In fact, it is far easier and faster to begin a productive day with a new install of Linux than it is with the other OSes. With a default install most productivity software is installed with it. They also include music and video playback, web browsers, email, task and contact management, flash, etc. And let's not forget that all of it is free with a plethora of other software that can be installed from a simple GUI. It is rare that you need to deal with installing anything on a Linux desktop unless you want extras or alternatives. Even customization of the desktop is easily achieved through browsing online repos of things such as wallpapers, icons, fonts, sound themes.

And, technically there really are very few Linux variants (the underpinnings may be varied but they are all based on the same things). Technically what differentiates a distro isn't what one has over the other but what one distro chooses to implement (AS DEFAULT) that the others chose not to. Meaning, it's all the same, it's all in the choices the distribution made, but it's all the same. KDE for this and that distro, yet not maybe not for the third. Mate for everyone except this one. Unity on just a single distro, but all the other choices for this feature are readily available--just pick something else. Gnome 3 for about 50% and readily available for 100% of distributions. And it's ALL FREE.

So, please, it sounds as if some around here are relying on old perceptions and they are happy to spread those old false perceptions believing no one knows better or will check on them and hold them to task.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[drsmithy]

I find it misleading because it is misleading.

It's not misleading. If you buy a typical PC - especially from most of the big name vendors - it will come with Windows included. Ergo, Windows is not an additional cost. Ie: it is "free" from the purchaser's point of view.

Every legit installation of Windows costs someone and ultimately that cost is transferred to the consumer.

Yes. And ?

The argument I responded to was not whether or not the cost of Windows is captured as part of the cost of the computer, it was that Linux presents no additional cost to the consumer and this is a reason to prefer Linux to Windows. My point was that it is equally true of Windows (because Windows either comes with the computer, or they can pirate it), and is therefore NOT a reason.

Context: It's helpful.

The cost of Windows may be $20 for the OEM but it is sold at a mark up of nearly $50 or more (as per when Dell used to allow you to prove you hadn't agreed to the EULA and wanted a refund -- which they do no longer). AND the LOWEST cost for an upgrade of Windows 7 (single user upgrade) is $120.00 (we need not haggle over a penny here or there).

Completely irrelevant. If I walk into a store and buy a PC that comes with Windows - or buy a naked PC then download Windows from thepiratebay, then neither how much it costs OEM, nor retail, are relevant to a financial decision whether or not to prefer Windows over Linux.

There's the doctrine of first sale which says that if you bought it you can resell it. I don't need to resell Linux. I can just give it away. I won't be violating anyone's license just by giving it away or by installing it hundreds of times on people's computers. MICROSOFT's warning was that you can have your right to use it yanked and they can refuse to allow you to continue to use it for any reason at any time. This cannot ever happen under Linux.

Now you are moving the goalposts from an issue of ownership to an issue of (certain types of) use.

I'm not familiar with the Microsoft "warning" you refer to, either. Link ?

What you are describing is far different than what I pointed out initially.

You claimed no-one "owns" their copy of Windows. I pointed out the same is true of their copies of Linux. "Ownership" implies complete control. You do not have complete control over a copy of Linux, you are restricted in what you can do with it by the GPL, just as Microsoft restrict when you can do with Windows by their EULA.

The GPL does not limit me like Microsoft's EULA.

I never said it did. That you might prefer one form of restriction over the other, is not relevant to the original statement you made about _ownership_.

I can do just about anything I want with the code.

I can do everything I _want_ to with my copies of Windows. I might not be able to do everything *you* want to do, but that is of little concern to *me*.

I think you mistake the GPL for something it is not.

I'm pretty sure I don't.

I am, however, quite confident that your irrational hatred of Microsoft has made you build up a massive straw man argument, just to merrily rip it apart.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[HermMunster]

That's more hacking rather than using. I think you are pointing out hacking code as a power process instead of USERS that push their computers and know how it all comes together in order to make a more powerful efficient desktop and applications.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[drsmithy]

That is another ludicrous statement.

No, it's not. You are ignoring the context.

The original statement I responded to was (emphasis mine):

Distro maintainers can pre-make beautiful, elegant and very usable desktops that suit individual needs without compromising on stability, compatibility or security. Users can just pick the breed of Linux that suits them and be immediately productive.

Ie: the poster is touting a reason to choose Linux over Windows is the option of bespoke distributions.

However, the end user has no way of knowing which of the zillion Linux distributions out there is actually going to "suit their individual needs" without going out and testing them. A process that would need to take a week or more each to be even vaguely meaningful. The same rationale holds true for any sort of extensive individualised customisation.

Therefore, IF the large number of variants (or extensive customisability) is going to be touted as an advantage, the implicit requirement to either intelligently choose a variant (or extensively customise an existing one) means sacrificing being "immediately productive".

In fact, it is far easier and faster to begin a productive day with a new install of Linux than it is with the other OSes. With a default install most productivity software is installed with it. They also include music and video playback, web browsers, email, task and contact management, flash, etc. And let's not forget that all of it is free with a plethora of other software that can be installed from a simple GUI. It is rare that you need to deal with installing anything on a Linux desktop unless you want extras or alternatives. Even customization of the desktop is easily achieved through browsing online repos of things such as wallpapers, icons, fonts, sound themes.

You sound like the sales guy from $LARGE_STORAGE_VENDOR who came around last week trying to convince us we should use his product. "This is how much better our product is." "You get everything you need included." "It's incredibly flexible." Etc.

So, please, it sounds as if some around here are relying on old perceptions and they are happy to spread those old false perceptions believing no one knows better or will check on them and hold them to task.

If you insist on "holding them to task", please try to understand CONTEXT before shooting off on some straw man rant. Try to keep the "Linux is teh awesome" sales pitch down as well.

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[tachin1]

But power users can always open the terminal and get all the power they need right? oh wait, this is a linux window manager discussion...

Re:General usability should be one of the choices

[cas2000]

The benefit of free software for non-programmer users is far more important than just "they don't have to pay for it".

Proprietary operating systems, like Windows or Mac OS X, are not written for the benefit of the end users, they are written primarily for the benefit of the vendor (e.g. MS, or Apple) *and* for the advertising, retail, media, etc companies (as well as law enforcement and intelligence agencies) that the vendor has made deals with. End users are not the "customer", they are the product.

In short, proprietary operating systems and proprietary software in general are full of anti-features.

Free software is made primarily for the benefit of the developers, who *are* the users....and they certainly don't want to spy on or spam themselves for the benefit of some corporation. Non-developer users get the benefit of that.

I've never been a Windows user, I've been a Linux-only user since 1993 and OS/2 and DOS before that. Earlier this year, I got sick of being unable to play some of the games i bought on linux (in wine) so I built a win7 box from parts left over from my most recent upgrade. It turns out that most of the games that wouldn't run on Wine were because of anti-features like DRM or copy protection or because they required me to use or log in to an online service (XBLA, EA Online, punkbuster, gamespy) - which would be understandable for a multiplayer game but I have no interest in multiplayer games, i only play single-player games or the single-player campagins of single+multi games.

(oh, and much of the bugginess in games that I thought was due to particular games running in wine rather than their native environment of real MS Windows, actually turned out to be the games being buggy crap anyway)

I'm disgusted by the contempt for the user shown by this kind of intrusive crap. I really can't understand why non-linux users put up with it, it's not as if Linux desktop GUIs aren't just as usable and "user-friendly" as the windows GUI (that issue was solved years ago)...I can only guess that they just think it's normal and don't even wonder if there's any alternative. I know I only put up with it because it's only games, which really aren't that important....I guess i think of my Win7 box like most Win users think of games consoles - it's a single purpose appliance just for running games.

One final point: I've never been even remotely tempted to use Windows on my main desktop machine and this experiment/experience just confirms my previous suspicion that the ONLY thing MS Windows is good for is as a games machine (and if it wasn't for stuff like DRM breaking games, wine would be just as good) - there's just no good reason (and lots of anti-reasons) for using it for anything else. I certainly wouldn't use it for online banking or purchases (I do all my purchases of, e.g., steam games on my linux machine...i just don't trust Windows anywhere near enough to even visit my bank's site or paypal, let alone enter my login details or credit card number etc)

Linux Format

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I don't read Linux Format. The article provides no background on the users involved, and reads like something from a high school paper.

Configurability

[NoobixCube]

You know what's best for everyone? Configurability. When the developers can't decide how something should work, when they have two what seem like equally good or equally bad ideas, why should they force one particular decision on the user? Why not just put an option on a big scary controll panel somewhere made just for that? Of course, for usabilitiy's sake, there'd be the normal slick and easy to read control panel, but Gnome used to have GConf (does Gnome 3 have it? I don't know). You could use GConf to configure ANY aspect of the interface, anything at all. It was a very powerful tool if you knew what you were doing with it. So set the defaults to the lowest common denominator, to the grandma standard, but at least leave the powertools where we can reach them! Put up a warning that it may break the interface, sour the milk or bring the rapture to scare off the grandma users, and only those who really know what they're doing need concern themselves with it.

Re:Configurability

[Ethanol-fueled]

Given the flexibility and options available for Linux, anybody who bitches about Linux UI configurability should be forced to manually edit config files without a reference, for all eternity.

Re:Configurability

[obarthelemy]

Not really. OOBE is more important for the 95+% of users who are not hackers.

Re:Configurability

[TheLink]

Configurability is nice, but defaults are very important. A good GUI has good defaults.

You could use GConf to configure ANY aspect of the interface, anything at all.

Not helpful to most users. And in theory you could use the source code to configure any aspect of the interface too.

1) Most people instead of making 1000 decisions to get a GUI that's 99% suitable for them, will make one decision to get a GUI that has defaults that are 80% suitable for them.
2) If you deviate too much from the defaults, you may have difficulty getting support. This may not be a problem for slashdotters but it is a problem for the rest of the world.

Re:Configurability

[rubycodez]

one little problem with that, smarty pants, you can't configure GNOME 3 in many cases with or without config file editing. instead, you have to write a fucking app or hire a developer to do simple things that used to be GNOME user configuration actions

Re:Configurability

[Anonymous Coward]

That's kind of the route taken by KDE. It's *hugely* configurable. Want a stock ticker widget in your task bar? Fine, just unlock it and drag one in there. Want the task bar on the right side? Just drag it over. Want to make caps an additional control? It's just a checkbox in the preferences. By and large, you don't even have to use obscure registry-style editors either.

KDE 4.7 FTW.

Re:Configurability

[Runaway1956]

But - 95% of users are on WINDOWS! 95% of Linux users are hackers. So - where do we go with this?

Re:Configurability

[Ethanol-fueled]

Then use GNOME 2 or something else. Like I said, this is not Windows or OSX we're talking about here.

Re:Configurability

[bug1]

"Not really. Out Of Box Experience is more important for the 95+% of users who are not hackers." (fixed it for you)

And as software developers we should be incredibly ashamed about that.

The problem is when its more annoying to try and workout how change something than it is to put up with annoying features.

Giving users the ability to control their software should always be very important, its really arrogant for developers to always expect they know whats best for users.

Re:Configurability

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'd like to see more options exposed in the control panel out-of-the-box, "many cases" is pretty vague. All UI's, on all devices have "many cases" where you'd have to dig deep or write apps to change behavior. The trick is figuring out what should and shouldn't be easily configurable, and trying to make it as extensible as possible for things beyond that. Gnome 3 is weak in what's directly available, but very good about about extensibility. I just hope they improve the first a bit. And that's a good position to be in, because you can always add a control panel feature later, but extensibility is something you have to build for from the beginning. They did it right.

Re:Configurability

[Forever Wondering]

You know what's best for everyone? Configurability. but Gnome used to have GConf (does Gnome 3 have it? I don't know).

Gnome 3 does have GConf but it's probably not installed by default. I had to go look for it.

In Gnome 2, you could create an icon on your toolbar for your highly used shortcuts.

In Gnome 2, you could put a terminal icon on the toolbar and a single click brought up a new instance. To do this in Gnome 3, well, you can't ... To get a new terminal window, you click on "Activities", find the terminal icon (assuming of course, you've already added it to "Favorites"), then right click on it, slide right to the menu, and right click on "New Window"

So, something that used to be a single click operation is now a three step process. This is an improvement???

It's perfectly fine to make the starting configuration a simple one for the average user. But, it should be configurable enough for those that want more sophistication to have it as well. Gnome 3 developers have decided to dumb things down and then lock down that decision by removing as much configurability as they could.

Re:Configurability

[ozmanjusri]

Not helpful to most users.

But very helpful to distro maintainers who can offer a nicely customised version as a point of differentiation. Have you looked at Mint 12 yet?

Re:Configurability

[BasilBrush]

Why not... big scary controll panel... GConf... if you knew what you were doing with it... grandma standard... powertools... Put up a warning... may break the interface... scare off the grandma users... only those who really know what they're doing... need concern themselves with it.

Hmm. Interesting phrases.

When the developers can't decide how something should work, when they have two what seem like equally good or equally bad ideas

Do some user testing to see which works better.

why should they force one particular decision on the user?

Force is a strange choice of word. No doubt in your car, the right hand pedal is the accelerator, and to the left of it is the brake. The indicator stem might be on the right of the wheel, or it might be on the left. Do you feel "forced" by whoever it was that chose to put them that way around? Do you demand the ability to customise the location of those controls?

Imagine a car where you could customise everything. Hey you don't have to imagine. It's here. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/9/homermobile.jpg/

Re:Configurability

[gtirloni]

Please explain how to install GNOME 3 on Fedora 16 or the latest Ubuntu.

Re:Configurability

[perryizgr8]

because then they have to support it. a feature is not just putting an option in the control panel. it will generate bugs over time and will require maintainence. this is why firefox is so bloated right now.they simply can't maintain it with so many configurable options. long term devs should aim for one true way style of ui. if you don't like their way, you simply use something else.

Re:Configurability

[perryizgr8]

no no this is not s/w dev's fault in any way. just watch an average user browse the internet someday. they do all sorts of stupid things. they ignore ANY dialog that does not force them to click it. the ones that do force them to click they just click 'ok'. and god forbid if they see a 404 or timed out error. even if you ask them what error it was they won't be able to tell you. they'll say 'it didn't work' or some other vague shit like that.
if there is even a slight change from the things they are used to, like google activating the 2 factor auth, most people are just stunned, unable to continue. the rest just click 'skip'. seriously its frustrating. people do not want to "try and workout how change something", and this is what apple (or rather steve jobs) has understood.

Re:Configurability

[perryizgr8]

yeah, everything you see on a kde desktop, you can right click and choose to change its functionality. also i love the way that most widgets work on your desktop, and also on the taskbar. this is how it should be.
unity has locked its ui down tighter than windows itself! you can't even pull that dock away from the left.

Re:Configurability

[msobkow]

I disagree completely. KDE's configurability is asinine. When KDE apps run under another WM, they use their own KDE defaults like click-to-activate vs. click-to-select, double-click-to-activate. It's annoying as hell to run K3B under Gnome 2, because it does not behave like anything else on my desktop. The only reason I put up with it is that they did the best job of a burning utility I've seen since Nero, and maybe even better than Nero (note I'm talking the old "advanced" Nero tools, not the shiny crapware wrappers they install be default with the new releases.)

With the way KDE is structured on top of Qt, it should be possible for a KDE app running under Gnome to detect that fact and "import" it's settings and defaults from Gnome's environment. The reverse should also be true.

It's almost to the point of frustration that I prefer applications that just ignore any standards at all and do their own thing entirely. At least they're consistently screwed up, following their programmer's diabolical visions of UI hell imposed on the user community. :p

Re:Configurability

[Compaqt]

I might be misunderstanding, but it seems you're using a car analogy in favor of Gnome3, which is a little ironic.

In previous weekly discussions on Gno/buntu (Gnome3 and Unity), the car analogy has been used to ask why the need to change?

As you state, the accelerator is on the right, brake on the left, steering via the wheel. It's been that way for a long time. It would be stupid to make a change just for the sake of it, even though you might argue the new would would be objectively the same or even better.

So with a perfectly usable desktop interface which people have been using since 1995, what was the need to change? It would be like changing left-hand driver side to right-hand (like in England). Objectively, it's the same, maybe it's better, but what's the point? Other than to be like England (i.e., the Mac).

This was borne out in the article, where everybody instantly knew how to use KDE, because they've already been using it (the desktop/start menu metaphor) for 15 years.

Re:Configurability

[Ruie]

Please explain how to install GNOME 3 on Fedora 16 or the latest Ubuntu.

I assume you meant Gnome 2 ? - just download tarballs and compile..

Re:Configurability

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should try KDE.

Re:Configurability

[Ruie]

I disagree completely. KDE's configurability is asinine. When KDE apps run under another WM, they use their own KDE defaults like click-to-activate vs. click-to-select, double-click-to-activate. It's annoying as hell to run K3B under Gnome 2, because it does not behave like anything else on my desktop. The only reason I put up with it is that they did the best job of a burning utility I've seen since Nero, and maybe even better than Nero (note I'm talking the old "advanced" Nero tools, not the shiny crapware wrappers they install be default with the new releases.)

With the way KDE is structured on top of Qt, it should be possible for a KDE app running under Gnome to detect that fact and "import" it's settings and defaults from Gnome's environment. The reverse should also be true.

It's almost to the point of frustration that I prefer applications that just ignore any standards at all and do their own thing entirely. At least they're consistently screwed up, following their programmer's diabolical visions of UI hell imposed on the user community. :p

Heh.. KDE has a checkbox (enabled under Kubuntu, for example) to make Gnome apps behave and look more like KDE ones. I would expect that Gnome users should extend Gnome settings application to just export their settings to KDE, should not be that hard.

Btw, what really annoys me about running Gnome apps (anywhere) is the stupid file selection dialog. It's like somebodies design goal was to prevent users from accessing files, but they did it incompetently.

Re:Configurability

[jbolden]

I assume you meant Gnome 2. For Ubuntu just use Mint's version:

sudo gedit /etc/apt/sources.list

At the end of the file add this line:
deb http://packages.linuxmint.com/ lisa main upstream import

Save your file and close. Then, run this sequence of commands:

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install linuxmint-keyring
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install mint-meta-mate

and you are done.

Re:Configurability

[jbolden]

I think you mean when KDE apps run under another GUI. You aren't using the word "window manager" properly. You can actually other window managers with the KDE GUI and get different behaviors.

Anyway... KDE is a full GUI, the apps inherit the behavior of their native GUI.

Re:Configurability

[snakeplissken]

Other than to be like England (i.e., the Mac),

Excellent! then Wales must be linux, cwl :)

Poor Scotland though, they must be Plan 9 or something.

Re:Configurability

[TheLink]

But very helpful to distro maintainers who can offer a nicely customised version as a point of differentiation

Yes but it's not usually a good sign if the people designing the GUI don't have much clue about good defaults.

It's like a restaurant with chefs who lack taste. They will churn out sub-par dishes, refuse to admit they are sub-par ("tastes great to me") and distro maintainers have to "customise" the dishes so that more people would actually eat them. At that point there'd be a limit to how good the dishes can be. You'd have to cook stuff from scratch if you really want something "insanely great" (to use Steve Job's phrase).

And point 2) remains, if everyone has different "defaults" support becomes more expensive or not possible, UNLESS most agree to provide a standard "phone support" interface[1]. No support from cheap people reading scripts (one might think nobody would actually be helped by that sort of support, but the people who have "Hard Drives" with "cup holders" will).

Have you looked at Mint 12 yet?

I'm fine with using "server linux" from the CLI, and sticking to Desktop OSes that work better for me. Maybe if/when Microsoft or Apple screw things up more than the Desktop Linux people, then I'd switch. I spent a few years with KDE/SuSE and while it wasn't bad it wasn't good enough.

[1] Example standard "phone support" interface/method:

1) Phone support tell users to click the "spanner icon", then click "Yes" (instead of cancel ;) ).
2) Then a big configuration window pops up, where sections (tabbed?) are marked with coloured shapes (circle, triangle, square, pentagon, hexagon), and items are marked with letters and numbers- each section has has its own unique letter to start item numbers with.
The sections could be stuff like: OS, Network, Hardware, Applications,Remote Assistance (with scary warning - user-configuration of the destination could be disabled for Corporate setups).
3) Phone support tells the user to go to the "Red Triangle" (Network) section, and to read out item "B2" (IPv4 Address). If it's 169.254.x.x, phone support can get the user to click on the item "B1" (try reconfiguring from DHCP).

I'm no expert on phone support, but from what I see, something like this would be helpful - even to slashdotters proving phone support to relatives.

Then people can have whatever weird GUI or customization, and they can still be supported cheaply and efficiently :).

Re:Configurability

[bug1]

The reason average users do stupid things is because of their past experiences.

If we provided users with user friendly and powerful tools they might gain confidence with them and use them, instead we treat them like idiots and complain that they act like idiots.

Re:Configurability

[msobkow]

KDE is not a full GUI. Qt is the GUI toolkit; KDE is the applications built with the toolkit.

The term "desktop" has become synonymous with "window manager". The general public thinks GUI means Windows or Mac already; let's not get too pedantic.

I did download and play around with Kubuntu for 10.04.1 out of curiosity. It's much slower to load than Gnome 2, and seems to be a rather cluttered metaphor for my tastes. LIttle boxes and lists of stuff all over my desktop, which I don't like. Show my desktop icons; don't give me a window of desktop icons. If I wanted them grouped or hidden, I wouldn't put them on the desktop in the first place, now would I?

I liked their take on the start/launcher concept, in particular stitching some of the configuration into tab panes of the launcher. I'd rather see the second tab with the "traditional" menu as my initial tab, though, or be able to configure my own list of "main menu" launcher apps to provide functionality equivalent to my littered Gnome toolbar (Firefox, Thunderbird, Eclipse, Mono, pgAdmin, Pidgin, Rhythmbox, Terminal, Opera, Chrome, Vuze, Filezilla, K3B, DVD Styler, Open Office, and GNU Cash.) I don't like to have to futz with menus to get at the stuff I use the most.

One thing going for KDE -- it's very responsive once it starts up. Gnome feels almost sluggish in comparison on this box. But there's a price to pay for that: an absolutely obscene startup time. WTF are they loading that takes so damned long -- over 20 seconds to boot a WM? WTF? I haven't seen boot times that slow since Win2K, and KDE was not fighting with PostgreSQL, Oracle, and DB/2 for startup memory and processor time like Gnome usually is (I'm impatient and log in long before the box is done it's startups and recoveries.) Gnome 2 startup is like lightning in comparison to KDE.

I've also been reviewing the widget hierarchies and APIs for Gnome and KDE. I hate to say it, but the organization of the Gnome 2 widget hierarchy is NOT what I'd call intuitive. I think the KDE team has done a much better job of things, but as they started with an abstraction kit that was designed to abstract the GUI as a whole, not just the parts needed to implement Gimp, it only stands to reason that KDE ended up being a better designed widget hierarchy.

I'm very uncomfortable with looking any further at Gnome's programming APIs. Qt is far cleaner and richer, and as I'm not interested in KDE specifically, but Qt's portability, I think I've decided which I'll be doing my future native Linux GUI work with. The fact that I get Windows support as well with the one code set is a huge added bonus.

I'd previously evaluated the two toolkits with an eye towards how good they did on the Windows application side, and came to the same conclusion.

So that's 1 to Gnome 2 for usability and clean desktop metaphor, but 2 to KDE/Qt for portable programming sanity.

And I think every UI that's taking the candy-coated single-task with big launch buttons metaphor approach is spending too much time telling themselves how neat their cell phone or tablet device is, and not enough to how people USE A COMPUTER!

Re:Configurability

[The_Noid]

My biggest problem with many of the new desktop environments is that they use the wrong definition of multitasking, or to be more precise, the wrong definition of "task".

It seems the DEs see any use of multiple windows as multitasking.

For me, a task can use multiple windows of different programs. Different tasks can use different windows of the same program. For example:

Task: Programming.
Windows:
  * Netbeans
  * Browser (for documentation)
  * Terminal
  * File manager

Task: Photo managing
Windows:
  * Browser
  * File manager
  * Gimp
  * Terminal

When I'm programming I need to be able to quickly switch between the windows belonging to the programming task. That switching should require as little cognitive load as possible, so I do not lose momentum in what I'm doing. Programming mosty only uses 1 browser window, so when I'm programming and my mind goes "get browser" it should be easy to get to that one window associated with that task.

Gnome 2 did this perfectly. I could put all windows of a task on the same virtual desktop and the taskbar would only show those windows, Alt-Tab would priorise those windows and show nice big clear icons. As a result I could switch windows within the task with little tought. Switching between tasks was just a matter of switching to a different desktop.

When I want to switch to a different window within a task I do not want to see a list of all windows of all tasks. Identifying the correct window in that list is a heavy cognitive task since for instance all terminal windows look the same. Grouping windows of the same program is equally bad for the same reason.

Alt-Tab should show icons, not windows. When my mind goes "get browser" it can easily pick the colorfull chrome icon out of the list, but since windows tend to look all the same, picking the right one out of an alt-tab list of window shots is hard work for the mind.

Windows 7 is also horrible in this respect. It not only has no multiple desktops, it even groups windows of the same program (instead of the same task) and has only one taskbar for multiple monitors, meaning you can't even switch to "that browser window on the right monitor" because all browser windows are in the same list and that list is on the other monitor.

Proper multitasking support might not be beginner friendly, but no-one is a beginner for long.

Re:Configurability

[BasilBrush]

I might be misunderstanding, but it seems you're using a car analogy in favor of Gnome3

Not at all. I don't know Gnome3. I'm arguing against the idea that when a developer comes to an alternative, he delegates that decision to the user, rather than coming to a decision himself. I'm arguing against having some "big scary control panel" which controls all the details of a UI.

Some configurability is sometimes needed. Again using the car metaphor - people are different sizes, so adjusting the seat is a important.

But generally speaking developers should endeavour to reduce the number of options that software has, not expand on them.

Worst of all is "skins". Complete waste of time - it's just bling.

I agree with you that change for changes sake is pointless. I think everybody would agree with that. But often the changes that people complain about are changes that are not pointless.

So with a perfectly usable desktop interface which people have been using since 1995, what was the need to change? It would be like changing left-hand driver side to right-hand (like in England). Objectively, it's the same, maybe it's better, but what's the point? Other than to be like England (i.e., the Mac).

As I say I can't comment on Gnome3. But to use your example there are many cases of countries switching from right-hand drive to left-hand drive. It makes it easier at borders if two countries drive on the same side. So that's a compatibility justification.

But there are other sorts of changes - for example stick-shift to automatic. It requires the user to do less, whilst the machine does more. At the cost of a few hours of getting used to the change in interface.

Re:Configurability

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefoxoptionsloooooooool

Re:Configurability

[jbolden]

KDE is not a full GUI. Qt is the GUI toolkit; KDE is the applications built with the toolkit.

How does the existence of a toolkit (and QT is actually more of a framework at this point) disprove that KDE is a GUI?

The term "desktop" has become synonymous with "window manager".

BS. Both Windows and Mac use the term window manager properly in all their documentation. Microsoft window manager is called DWM (desktop window manager) and was advertised as a replacement of the GDI window manager from pre-Vista because of the Aero upgrade. They used Window manager to mean the software responsible for things like buffering, placement, ... of windows, they used it correctly. Apple advertises constantly the advantage of Quartz Compositor (the window manager of Aqua) and its features on their website. Their end users are familiar with terms like Quartz Extreme (window manager acceleration), Core Image... Apple doesn't confuse their window manager with their desktop (whatever desktop means). The default window manager for KDE is KWin, and KDE can be used with a different window manager, and KWin can be used by itself or even with Gnome.

I'm not being pedantic you are using the word incorrectly. The word means exactly what it has meant for several decades. The general public doesn't use the term window manager at all. You have a 5 digit user number which means you are old enough to use the term properly.

As for your final comment about the direction of Gnome 3 and using a tablet / phone interface I agree. But I think it is healthy for Linux GUIs to be very different from one another and aim for different niches. Linux has the ability to offer real choice, and I think diverging offers real choice.

Finally on QT vs. GTK. Yeah I've always felt QT is a much more logical framework than GTK.

Re:Configurability

[Anonymous Coward]

This is for Fedora. I would never recommend to any one to us Ubuntu: Hint{spyware}
install Gnome 2.x: in Gnome 3 in system setting area, select 'system info', select graphics and enable fallback. Then open add/remove and do a search for "tweak", then select "gnome-tweak-tool-3.x.x" after tweak is installed run it, and select 'file manager' move the slider to on for all options, select 'windows' and change the theme to "ClearLooksClassic". your done, now you can actually use your computer again without wearing out your wrist.

Re:Configurability

[pz]

I want Caps Lock to be an additional Backspace key, like the old Lisp Machines from Symbolics. Haven't been able to get that to work reliably under KDE (or anywhere else, for that matter, but I use KDE). Any clues?

Re:Configurability

[vurian]

Yes. Settings/Keyboard Settings, then Advanced tab. Check 'Caps Lock key behaviour". "Make Caps Lock an addition Backspace" is on of the options (there are more than 10). If that doesn't work reliably for you, file a bug. It works perfectly here, even with non-KDE applications.

Re:Configurability

[pz]

Thanks!

I recall having tried this a couple of KDE versions ago and the problem is that Caps Lock doesn't get repeated when held down (like Backspace and nearly every other key). I don't know if that's a problem in the keyboard controller hardware on my machine, or in the system software.

Re:Configurability

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

You know what's best for everyone? Configurability.

Not always.

Sometimes you just want things to work. To not have to spend half an hour playing with settings, and get things done. Sometimes well thought out, well designed defaults and a limited subset of changes is the best. I really don't want to spend 2 hours playing how the light model affects my 3d rendering of push buttons.

This is the Apple model, and seems to work for a large subset of people. I know some geeks don't like the 'shackles' of Apple, but some well thought out limits on an (essentially) infinite state machine helps usability a lot.

Re:Configurability

[fnj]

Ah, but the problem is not that the developers "can't decide how something should work." The problem is that they CAN and DO decide, completely in their ivory tower, that everything should be done completely differently to what any sane mind would come up with, and in the bargain they are DEAD SET against leaving any room for configurability.

Re:Configurability

[msobkow]

Motif is a window manager. Gnome is a window manager. KDE is a window manager.

Or rather, to be pedantic, each of those GUI toolkits includes a "desktop" application that provides their window manager functionality.

I'm not misusing the term; you don't know what it means, historically. There was a time when window managers and widget kits didn't come with a bazillion canned applications as KDE and Gnome do nowadays.

Re:Configurability

[jbolden]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KWin (KDE window manager)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacity (Gnome 1,2 window manager), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutter_(window_manager) (Gnome 3 window manager). Those are window managers.

And Motif is a widget toolket same as QT or GTK. MWM the Motif Window Manager is a window manager written in Motif.

Re:Configurability

[HermMunster]

This is somewhat misleading. It is possible to just create an apt-url that does everything he's listing there. Meaning....that a single click of a button on a web page can begin this same process via the GUI. You can see an example on omgubuntu.co.uk on the link to install Juk. It is simple. Click the button, and enter your password in the follow up security prompt then OK to continue again to complete. Seriously, he's giving this example as a way of making Linux look like it needs to have a series of complex commands issued at the command-line.

You can see this by his exaggeration of the commands to be executed where he does the update twice and does the install twice. Even in his example the update is needed only once and you can install both programs with one command. Technically he can accomplish all of it with a single command pasted from a web page into a terminal window where you only need to hit enter and give it your admin password.

And, even so, even if there is no apt-url available many sites give a single command for adding the repo and adding the key. Then it's just a matter of a single command to update and install.

Re:Configurability

[HermMunster]

There is no spyware in Ubuntu nor any fork or incarnation of it. Never has been. Never will be.

Re:Configurability

[HermMunster]

95% of Linux users are end-users. Only a tiny percentage (not even 5%) of Linux users today are hackers. There are nearly 100 million installs of Linux world-wide across all distributions. If you count Android there are almost 200 million new users a year. I'm not counting those in the 95% of Linux users are end-users.

Re:Configurability

[Runaway1956]

I won't count android as "Linux", unless and until the end user possesses root privileges.

And, even the most naive, uninformed, and uneducated of Linux users are at least exploring the lower boundaries of "hacking". They've discovered that there is an alternative to the "Microsoft way" of doing things. Or, the Apple way.

Maybe I exaggerated. Maybe half of all Linux users have an IT guy or gal around to get them started with a nice tidy desktop environment. But, I'll stick with 50% of Linux users being "hackers".

Of course, I accept the definition of hacker found at places like lifehacker.com - that is, people who look for a better way of doing things, and not just running with the crowd and/or what some marketing department tells you.

Re:Configurability

[msobkow]

Ok, let's clarify a bit.

Qt is the GUI toolkit.

KDE is the applications built using that toolkit.

A window manager is the portion of code that deals with things like resizing and positioning of windows.

A desktop is the full-screen application that implements the window-manager functionality in the Gnome/KDE era; with Motif and CDE, the window manager only managed windows and did NOT include a desktop -- the X display server was left "blank".

I am NOT using the term incorrectly. The definition of how window managers are implemented have changed from being a window manager alone to being a combination of a window manager and a desktop.

I've been programming GUIs a hell of a lot longer than the desktop metaphor has been around.

Re:Configurability

[HermMunster]

No, though Android is *** T W O H U N D R E D M I L L I O N *** strong, adding that many each year, Android is not included.

Linux has approximately 100 million installed desktops. This accounts for roughly 4-5% of the total desktop market world-wide.

No, Linux end-users are just those people that use Linux for their day to day. No need to make special dispensation to them. There is absolutely no need to be a hacker to understand anything about Linux to use it. Everyone, can just sit down and use it and know what to do. People that try Linux and find that it is like any other desktop manager are no different than those that try OS X and find that it is no different than any other desktop manager.

No special definitions are necessary. People that use Linux are moms and pops, your sisters, their children, your uncles and grandfathers and the like.

From the website that looks like this

[Superken7]

Techradar wants to talk and judge usability of the all-time favourite linux desktops, and yet their own website looks like THIS: http://i.imgur.com/IOyKu.png

I know other browsers render it centered, but that's not the (only) point, it's that their web looks awful: about 1/4 is margins, which is OK, and of those 3/4 1/4 is the content, which is split into 7 tiny sections (just give me the whole article and don't make me page every 3 paragraphs, it's almost 2012, for christ sakes!), tiny text, tiny images, and 3/4 of crap (related content, ads, menus, more related content, more related content).

It's not like they can't provide a very valid examination of linux desktops, but their site does not inspire very much credibility when they themselves get it so wrong, IMHO.

Re:From the website that looks like this

[InsightIn140Bytes]

I think their site is actually quite usable. Text area is not too wide, there's related news easily displayed and it shows other content from the site too. The inner pages are quite long and putting that everything on one page would be ridiculous.

You yourself maybe want to read print version only, but most users don't. It's also not user friendly for web format.

Re:From the website that looks like this

[Osty]

I know other browsers render it centered, but that's not the (only) point

The site's punishing you for using an ad blocker. I just tested Chrome with adblock, Chrome without adblock, Aurora with adblock, Aurora without adblock, IE9, Opera 11, Safari 5 with adblock, and Safari without adblock. In every case, when adblock was turned off (or not available), the page rendered correctly*. When adlbock was turned on, it rendered like a steaming pile of shit.

The remainder of your points are completely valid. Fixed-width, fixed-font size, ad-spattered, split-for-the-sake-of-page-views "design" doesn't really inspire confidence about their ability to validate usability testing. At least they don't have an always-on-top floating toolbar like so many other sites are doing. But I probably shouldn't be giving them any ideas ...

* It's worth noting that the page is still a steaming pile of shit when rendered "correctly". The only difference is that it's centered.

Re:From the website that looks like this

[Anonymous Coward]

That site doesn't handle AdBlock well but it's still readable. Not testing with AdBlock (and probably without NoScript) is their problem not ours. In other unfortunate cases it's mostly our problem.

What "usability testing"?

[Animats]

Where's the "usability testing"? The linked article is just typical blogger blithering, spread over multiple pages for maximum ad insertion. They write "Since usability is a personal experience, we invited a bunch of people, from newbies to power users, to share their experiences with 3.2.". Which probably means "we asked for comments on a blog".

Real usability testing is not market research. It's measuring how well people did on tasks, not what they said they liked.

Re:What "usability testing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that just because someone does well on something, doesn't mean they want it that way. What people actually tell you they like is just as relevant.

I might be able to do something faster with a certain configuration, but that doesn't mean I like it that way.

Eventually this will descend into the interpretation of meaningful values, and whether people are really honest when they tell you something, or are they motivated by external forces toward an irrational decision.

What it comes down to is "who gets their way"?

The answer is: Those who possess control over the source code and hardware of a given system.

Re:What "usability testing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the computer industry it's almost always done horribly. I've participated in such studies, and they mistake "ease of learning for a complete newbie" with "usability". They are not the same. You're only a newbie on some application for a few days or weeks, but you might be using it for the next 10 years. What makes a package *usable* is not something you can learn by watching me come up to speed on the damn thing for a few hours. Let me use it day in and day out and talk to me in 6 months. I'll have suggestions about whatever scriptability you have exposed, about keyboard shortcuts, about integration with this or that... none of which I will be able to tell you in your three hour usability focus session.

Re:What "usability testing"?

[Eil]

Real usability testing is not market research. It's measuring how well people did on tasks, not what they said they liked.

On the other hand, it's hard to blame TFA for their usability testing methods when Gnome, Unity, and KDE have done no usability testing at all. (And then tell their users that they're wrong for liking their old workflows...)

Re:What "usability testing"?

[frisket]

It's measuring how well people did on tasks

Actually it's just measuring. Presupposing "well" and "badly" isn't part of it, if the tasks are designed to measure the software accurately.

But yes, you're right, the article is a crock, and doesn't measure anything resembling usability. User comments are very useful, but only in conjunction with some hard data.

Re:What "usability testing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that just because someone does well on something, doesn't mean they want it that way.

What does that have to do with usability testing? You should've read the link in the post you responded to, because it sounds like you don't know what it is.

What people actually tell you [...] is just as relevant.

Wrong. It's well understood that relying on what people tell you will NOT give you good or accurate data for scientific studies.

Re:What "usability testing"?

[swillden]

I've participated in such studies, and they mistake "ease of learning for a complete newbie" with "usability". They are not the same.

But neither are they completely different.

Usability encompasses not just newbie experience and not just expert experience, but the whole range.

Because of that, I found this particular article's conclusions very interesting: KDE has long held the position of most scriptable, most configurable, most integrable, etc. In short, it's been a power-user's desktop (well, out of the major options, anyway). Now it is apparently the most newbie-friendy desktop as well.

Re:What "usability testing"?

[jbolden]

KDE used to be the dominant desktop. Then a few things went badly and it was clearly in 2nd place falling. Things were going so well for Gnome over KDE that KDE was starting to get grouped with XFCE, LXDE ... in the "also rans". Now it is looking like Gnome dropped the ball so badly with Ubuntu and with Gnome 3, and KDE 4's advantages are showing through that KDE is going to get a chance to be the dominant desktop again.

Re:What "usability testing"?

[fader]

Canonical does usability testing constantly.

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-April/032988.html

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/11/user-testing-of-unity-reveals-some-surprising-results/

Best dessert?

[johny42]

Can we please spare the bad analogies for comments?

Sure there is variety between users (which TFA accounted for, by the way), but usability tests (done right) usually show quite a bit of objective facts (e.g. something is consistently hard to find, etc.).

Re:Best dessert?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, imagine there's a car, and you can eat it after dinner.

The real wtf

[ysth]

Statements in the article reveal it was written, or at least researched, 2 months ago.

There has been a lot of churn since then, including in the Gnome 2 fork MATE and the variety of Gnome shell extensions making Gnome 3 more usable.

Re:The real wtf

[ohnocitizen]

Other statements reveal either the users tested were especially odd, or the writer was really struggling for words:

For others, the fact that you can experience KDE's graphical richness without a graphics card was really humbling.

Speaking just for myself, I find it hard to imagine feeling "humbled" by a desktop's ability to display graphics well.

Determining the best turd

[Mitreya]

Ok, please don't mark this as a troll. But a study that compares each of these to Windows would probably be more useful. You can talk about many shortcomings of Windows, but they pretty much have usability figured out, right?
Why does Linux live in a separate world? I know everyone on slashdot claims that their grandma uses [some linux] for years now... but I bet that a usability study between any window manager and Windows (good Windows -- 2000/XP/7) will not go well for Gnome/Unity/KDE. Personally, I work on Linux, but my home/personal machines have always been running Windows.

Re:Determining the best turd

[rubycodez]

windows does not have usability, I have to spend hours every week showing windows lusers where desired features are buried. This especially since Microsoft introduced that ribbon, which is the result of the same fundamental stupidity of mindset the GNOME and UNITY developers are aping.

Re:Determining the best turd

[artor3]

I spent twenty minutes yesterday trying to get Red Hat to recognize my flash drive. Complain about Windows all you like. It is still orders of magnitude more usable than Linux.

Re:Determining the best turd

[Trepidity]

I'm not sure Windows's usability is that good, though I can believe it'd beat out some of the Linux desktop environments (at least for a certain class of users). To the extent that Windows turns out to be usable, I think it's mostly just through age: lots of Windowsisms are now familiar to a large portion of the computer-using population, and therefore that population is able to use them reasonably well, whether or not the features were actually good ideas when first introduced 10, 15, or 20 years ago.

Re:Determining the best turd

[bmo]

You can talk about many shortcomings of Windows, but they pretty much have usability figured out, right?

No, no they do not. And to talk to any typical Windows user, Windows is confusing to many users.

I can't wait for a fully-enabled Metro desktop to be unleashed by Microsoft. It caters to the absolute lowest common denominator of user. The rage it induces in power users is hilarious.

Why does Linux live in a separate world?

Because imitating the Windows UI is stupid and possibly lawsuit-bait. And I didn't go to Linux to just move to a cheap version of Windows.

--
BMO

Re:Determining the best turd

[jedidiah]

I've never had to coax Linux to recognize a flash drive.

On the other hand, I recently had a problem with a thumb drive where it failed for no reason in Windows and could not be read again by any version of Windows until it was first mounted on Linux (which happened automatically).

It wasn't even mine. It belonged to someone I do "Windows support" for.

And don't get me started about the page full of options that Windows throws at you when it does actually decided to acknowledge removable media. Granny just can't handle that sort of thing.

Re:Determining the best turd

[lakeland]

Windows does not score very well in usability tests - generally worse than Linux. Last I heard 7 scores better than Gnome 3, but I don't follow these things closely.

However you alluded to an important point "my home/personal machines have always been running Windows". People find it much easier to use something they're familiar with, and anybody who uses Windows fairly regularly at home or work will almost certainly find that easier than Linux.

Re:Determining the best turd

[ysth]

Could we talk about UI when we're talking about UI?

Re:Determining the best turd

[Mitreya]

I've never had to coax Linux to recognize a flash drive.

But you must recognize that you are an exception to the rule? I mean, if not my grandma, then certainly my parents (who did not grow up with computers) do regularly use flash drives to transfer/backup files.
Contrast it with me having problems (on SuSe) mounting a drive last week. Yes - it recognized the drive, but "unable to mount". Yes - eventually I got it to work. But if the solution required opening a shell, calling mount command, figuring out where in command line to say "ntfs" and guessing which /dev/sd? matches the actual flash drive, then I say Linux lost already!
Do you really believe that Linux is easier to use?

Re:Determining the best turd

[Mitreya]

I'm not sure Windows's usability is that good, though I can believe it'd beat out some of the Linux desktop environments (at least for a certain class of users).

Oh, my, I always get a sense that I am talking with someone from another planet when I hear that. Almost any solution in Linux involves command line. Have you ever tried to install drivers for hardware on linux? I once tried to get a wireless (USB) card to attach to my desktop. In Windows, I think the driver was included (or I may have looked up/downloaded it). Linux boards have first suggested that I validate that my hardware will support the card in question (the recommendation is to check before you buy). Then I found honest suggestions involving recompiling the kernel with modprobe. Bottom line is that I eventually gave up.
Just one example. I can give many more
Yes, many people successfully use Linux. Yes, Windows has many flaws. But I am regularly stumped by software installation/driver configuration/multi-monitor support in Linux. These are things that I have been using in Windows for about 7-8 years now, all the way from Windows 2000 (of which I am very fond).
You can moderate me into oblivion now.

Re:Determining the best turd

[Trepidity]

In my experience, the average person can't do any of those things in either Linux or Windows, unless you give them very precise, step-by-step instructions (and even then it's pretty iffy).

Re:Determining the best turd

[Mitreya]

Windows does not score very well in usability tests - generally worse than Linux. Last I heard 7 scores better than Gnome 3, but I don't follow these things closely.

Really? I'd be interested to see their metrics
If they consider things like a) flash drive recognition/use, b) any USB device (most notably wireless cards) and generally driver support, they may have to revise the results
Note that I am not blaming anyone here. I am aware that drive issues have to with manufacturers not providing proper drivers. I am talking about the end user result only. Although I struggle to understand why my relatively fresh SuSe installation forced me to manually mount an external hard drive a few days ago. I eventually figured it out (through guesswork of which /dev/sd? is the device in question), but Windows tends to "just recognize" a flash drive.

Re:Determining the best turd

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrast the ease of use of Windows, where if you have a Mac-formatted (HFS+) flash drive, then you have to...oh wait, Windows doesn't do that.

There are dozens of ways to transfer files between computers. NTFS-formatted flash drives happen to be a stupid one, as that filesystem is only 100% safe to write to on windows. However, some years back the open source community reverse-engineered the filesystem enough to be able to write to it fairly safely, and this was ported over to Mac OSX. You're welcome.

Most people are actually smart enough to use FAT on their flash drives, which works perfectly in every single device manufactured since 1995. You are the exception to the rule, and in that middle range where you're just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous to yourself.

Re:Determining the best turd

[frisket]

When it's working correctly, yes, a modern Linux GUI is, generally speaking, easier to use than Windows or Mac OS X.

But when it's not, it is at least usually fixable on a non-geological timescale, whereas Windows and OS X are not.

Linux is trying to be all things to everyone, and it's failing some of them. Personally, I quite like Unity (OK, so whip me :-) but I'm an end user with modest requirements: I use Linux because it provides the programs I need to use, and it does so in a usable manner — for me — which Windows and OS X don't.

I have an abiding respect for and debt of gratitude to the vast majority of developers who provide the software I use, and I sympathise with them if they feel they are being asked to emphasise eye-candy interfaces for end users when they'd rather leave it all in the config file. I also have a curious dislike of a very tiny fraction of developers who appear to be on another planet, and who include features that no-one will ever use, and omit key facilities because they themselves would never use them. Fortunately these dinosaurs are getting fewer.

Because of this, Linux will never be a mainstream end-user desktop OS like Windows. It's too clever and powerful, and that's why I prefer it. Most of it is usable: a few corners are not, and still need work.

Re:Determining the best turd

[drsmithy]

Windows does not score very well in usability tests [...]

Can you provide a link to these tests ?

Re:Determining the best turd

[0123456]

Contrast it with me having problems (on SuSe) mounting a drive last week. Yes - it recognized the drive, but "unable to mount". Yes - eventually I got it to work. But if the solution required opening a shell, calling mount command, figuring out where in command line to say "ntfs" and guessing which /dev/sd? matches the actual flash drive, then I say Linux lost already!

Oh, right. Because Windows will just oh so happily mount an ext4-formatted USB drive?

No-one who cares about interoperability would use a proprietary filesystem like NTFS on a USB drive. Or, at least, they wouldn't go whining about how no other computer can read it.

Re:Determining the best turd

[jbolden]

Windows is pretty good but not outstanding on usability. End users frequently can't figure out how to do what they want. Right now iOS is probably the usability king.

That being said Windows is generally better than most Linux GUIs. You used the term window manager, you are using it wrong. The window manager for Windows is DWM and while DWM is very cool it is not particular user friendly or unfriendly.

Re:Determining the best turd

[jbolden]

I've never had to coax Linux to recognize a flash drive.

You have a 4 digit /. number and haven't had problems with USB on Linux? Seriously during the 2.0 kernel days you didn't have those sorts of problems?

Re:Determining the best turd

[jbolden]

I'd say this.

Windows has phenomenal driver support and quite often driver bypasses that deal with buggy hardware.
Linux however had drivers that layer beautifully and that can be terrific when the problem is broken hardware.

It depends why it failed to mount.

Re:Determining the best turd

[lakeland]

Not off the top of my head but google found: http://www.relevantive.de/linux_usability_report_en.pdf
Hopefully that's enough, otherwise we might need to get someone from the Usability project to answer rather than me :)

Re:Determining the best turd

[Anonymuous Coward]

There are dozens of ways to transfer files between computers. NTFS-formatted flash drives happen to be a stupid one, as that filesystem is only 100% safe to write to on windows

Besides, flash drives are "optimized" for FAT and will be much slower when used with another fs -- their firmware makes assumptions about the position of the FAT table, and treats writes to those addresses specially.

You can even break them badly by repartitioning them with some general purpose tool, eg start the first partition at 63*512 as usual on hds.

It's pretty depressing.

Re:Determining the best turd

[Anonymous Coward]

not sure there were USB flash drives "during the 2.0 kernel days" ...

Re:Determining the best turd

[jbolden]

Depends how you think of Palm.

Re:Determining the best turd

[makomk]

I'm not sure Windows even lets you format USB sticks as NTFS by default these days...

Re:Determining the best turd

[cpricejones]

Why does Linux live in a separate world?

There are two types of people: those who fear command lines and those who do not.

Re:Determining the best turd

[Mitreya]

Oh, right. Because Windows will just oh so happily mount an ext4-formatted USB drive? No-one who cares about interoperability would use a proprietary filesystem like NTFS on a USB drive. Or, at least, they wouldn't go whining about how no other computer can read it.

No, I imagine Windows would not mount ext4-drive. This is where Linux users begin to depart from reality, you see. You can pretend that Windows == Linux, but in reality, Windows/NTFS drives hold the majority. So one option is to pretend that they don't and wait until the world eventually corrects itself and another option is to recognize that to be usable you have to deal with NTFS for now. Otherwise Linux will remain marginally useful. Pointing to Windows as being nearly equally bad is not productive.
Case in point -- the drive in question was not mine - it was brought to me by a friend. He didn't even know what file format his drive used. I am sure he'd be really excited if I had to tell him that he needs to acquire Linux and reformat the drive to ext4 before I can get the files from him (and that since he can't use ext4 on his Windows machine, this is really a reasonable situation).

Re:Determining the best turd

[Mitreya]

Oh, right. Because Windows will just oh so happily mount an ext4-formatted USB drive? No-one who cares about interoperability would use a proprietary filesystem like NTFS on a USB drive. Or, at least, they wouldn't go whining about how no other computer can read it.

Sorry, one more point as I seem to have gone off the topic in my previous response
The original article in question is about usability not interoperability. So if Linux did not support NTFS, that would be one thing. However, Linux has proved itself less usable because something that could be done in Linux failed to work automatically and could not be done in GUI, forcing me to resort to CLI fixes.
Simple day-to-day tasks should not force users into CLI resolution.

Re:Determining the best turd

[Anonymous Coward]

i tried installing windows 7 about a week ago. it failed to load drivers for my network card and sound, yet in linux mint (and various other distros) they just work. so given that the solutions for windows involve booting a linux live dvd, who's the real winner?

New user ?

[dargaud]

Where do you find somebody who's never used a computer nowadays ?!? Either it's a complete idiot who will NEVER be able to use a computer properly and hence we should NOT hear his opinion on the matter. Or it's something as rare as somebody who's never drunk a coke. Now that reminds me of a Coca-Cola ad campaign a decade or so ago... But they had to look.

Re:New user ?

[frisket]

I drank Coke once, and hated the stuff. I am nevertheless available for a fee to act as a taster for the Coca-Cola Corporation.

Re:New user ?

[perryizgr8]

guys just to be clear, we are talking about these kind of people:

One user, who had a nightmarish experience installing Skype on Windows 7...

yeah, this guy couldn't install skype on his windows 7 pc. that's about as dumb as forgetting how to pee. let me go over the steps required to install skype:
1. click blue e.
2. type 'skype' press return.
3. click top result
4. click 'get skype'
that's it. people who can't do this are the ones who are using computers nowadays. if you are going to do user-testing you HAVE to do it on such a person.

Re:New user ?

[MemoryDragon]

Jepp and thats exactly what I wrote to the Gnome people after the gnome 3 fiasco. They should stop trying to please non existent users which never will use their desktop at all but should make the life easier for their own users.
Btw. i switched back to KDE. KDE 4.7 really is a very nice desktop.

Re:New user ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't tried it for Skype, but surely there is a run installer step, and if you don't know where to look may not be easy to find. Unless Skype you some unpatched IE exploit to save users the hassle of that extra step.

Article is crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Writer is on everyone's jock and touts how good everyone's new crippled and dumbed down desktop is. Yea, people don't like it but look how shiny it is type of misdirection.

I will not support turning desktops into dumb terminals.

Re:Article is crap.

[bmo]

Explain, in as few words necessary, how KDE is crippled.

The article came down on the side of KDE, the most configurable desktop with the most tools. KDE has the opposite philosophy that Gnome and Unity have - expose all options to the user.

And if you're going to rage about dumbing down of interfaces, I suggest that you aim your rage at Metro.

--
BMO

Re:Article is crap.

[mirix]

Yeah, KDE4 was pretty buggy at first, but lately it's been great.

gnome 3 though... what happened there.

Re:Article is crap.

[perryizgr8]

Explain, in as few words necessary, how KDE is crippled.

The article came down on the side of KDE, the most configurable desktop with the most tools. KDE has the opposite philosophy that Gnome and Unity have - expose all options to the user.

And if you're going to rage about dumbing down of interfaces, I suggest that you aim your rage at Metro.

--
BMO

hey! don't be hating metro! there is a rumor that they will probably allow users to change the wallpaper!

Re:Article is crap.

[bmo]

Microsoft really is doubling-down on Metro. I suspect that you won't be able to get the regular desktop on any consumer version of Windows 8 unless you fork over for either a Small Business Server edition or Ultimate. With 7 they had the "play video in the root window" to entice you to fork over 400 bux. What better way to get people to fork over 400-500 dollars just so they can get a traditional desktop?

Gawd, the Microsoft marketing department should hire me. I can think up all sorts of evil ways to encourage upselling.

--
BMO

Never mind the usability tests

[rbrander]

...how do I get in on these scientific experiments to determine the best dessert?

Unity is one of 3 Main Linux Desktops?

[Glasswire]

KDE and Gnome obviously yes, but Unity is one of the top 3? Just because most recent Ubuntus foist this on users (and most feedback I've seen has been negative) - is there any data to show that Unity has even 10% of Linux desktops? While Ubuntu is popular, that just means it's bigger than any other. My totally unsubstantiated guess would be that Ubuntu is less than 30% of all desktop Linuxes installed and of that, not all are 11.x gen and many of those users have installed another desktop. So...
I would be SHOCKED if Unity is running on 5% of Linux desktops - does anyone have any hard evidence to counter this?
I wouldn't be surprised if Enlightenment or Fluxbox had bigger install base.
(I can't believe no one else has pointed this out)

Re:Unity is one of 3 Main Linux Desktops?

[westlake]

Just because most recent Ubuntus foist this on users (and most feedback I've seen has been negative) - is there any data to show that Unity has even 10% of Linux desktops?

I would not be in the least surprised if the majority of Ubuntu users never change the default UI

or do any significant customization whatever.

The problem with "feedback" to tech sites like Slashdot is that the ordinary user is unrepresented and strong negative opinions draw an instant response.

Re:Unity is one of 3 Main Linux Desktops?

[m6ack]

KDE and Gnome obviously yes, but Unity is one of the top 3? Just because most recent Ubuntus foist this on users (and most feedback I've seen has been negative)...

OK, I'll bite... Yes, Unity is crap. BUT IT WAS LESS CRAP THAN Gnome3.0 and KDE4.0 WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT -- and that's why i use it to this day. I am on Unity because it's not as clunky & restrictive as gnome3, and KDE was complete and "udder" stink under 4.0. But more than that, Ubuntu 6 mo. release cycles are awesome & I am hooked on that, and it's easier for me to stay on the path that they are actively developing for now. However, now that KDE4 is on the .7 minor release & seems to be looking better -- well, maybe I'll try Kubuntu in PeePee (seems only fitting that this is an LTS).

Re:Unity is one of 3 Main Linux Desktops?

[FedeTXF]

All linux desktops in my office are Ubuntu + Unity except one OpenSuse + KDE. This is like a 10 to 1 proportion. And everybody here installs whatever they want. It used to be all Windows XP 5 years ago. Now there is one Mac, about 10 Ubuntus, one Opensuse and 30 Windows.

Re:Unity is one of 3 Main Linux Desktops?

[rrohbeck]

That's why Ubuntu users are flocking to Mint.

Re:Unity is one of 3 Main Linux Desktops?

[Anonymous Coward]

You would see lots of negative feedback to Unity, it's different and people like complaining about faults or even just changes they haven't got used to a lot more than they would comment if they think it is okay or they kind of like it. Personally I kind of like it, although they could perhaps have not hidden some of the Unity configuration option in the Compiz control panel which you have to install yourself (not so much a problem for me since I tweak compiz to my liking anyway, but it would have benefited some people who complained the icons in the dock/panel were too big)

There are really only two.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Gnome is KING.
2) kde nice effort I guess.

unity does not compare for it is not a desktop environment. It NEEDS Gnome to run.

Re:Configurability - need users first

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless Google forks, or buys, one of the Linux desktop distros and calls it Droid, no regular human has a clue not gives a rat's ass about Linux on their desktop or laptop computer.

Vague rubbish.

[MrL0G1C]

Article is very vague and made up of vague anecdotes, none of the research seemed to be empirical or scientific in any way.

Overall it's rubbish.

Researchers often showed users how to achieve their goals - this IMHO means the OS has failed because the user couldn't find their way without assistance. In reality this would of entailed lots of frustration and swearing as things didn't work as expected.

KDE the replacement for Gnome 2?

[Duncan J Murray]

I'm not one for shunning the new, and certainly kept an open mind when I switched from WinXP to Gnome 2 those years ago. I appreciated the quick and direct access to various folders, and the multiple desktops, not to mention all the other benefits of using linux apart from gnome 2 (repositories, updating, stability etc..)

However, I've given quite a bit of time to gnome 3 and unity, and I really think these two desktops have lost a lot of the functionality I originally enjoyed when I switched to gnome 2 - that loss of functionality combined with the increased graphics requirements of gnome 3 is a real setback.

Specifically, try dragging and dropping files from a file browser on one workspace to a program on another workspace. In gnome 2 it is easy to use the workspace switcher to perform this task, but in gnome 3 it requires something like twice the time and fuss. The other problem I have with gnome 3 is the lack of 'places'. Unity's problem is I just don't get on with the slide-out dock - I find it interferes with any content I'm working with on the left side of the screen.

I haven't given KDE4 a proper test, but it looks like it might be worth my while!

Re:KDE the replacement for Gnome 2?

[subreality]

KDE still feels overly complicated whenever I go to configure things. Too many options makes it hard to find the one I want... And this is coming from someone who likes buying things with too many knobs.

XFCE has been treating me well. You might want to give it a try.

Re:KDE the replacement for Gnome 2?

[Bambi Dee]

KDE does have a lot of options I don't need or that don't quite satisfy. But it also has more of those I do need (or want) than any other desktop I've tried...

Re:KDE the replacement for Gnome 2?

[KugelKurt]

KDE still feels overly complicated whenever I go to configure things.

If there is anything that's hard to configure, it's GNOME. GNOME has lots of options -- most of them hidden somewhere in GConf. It's hard to get more complicated than that. ;-)

As for "KDE"... you're both wrong and right. What you described is the KDE3 attitude. In the 4.x series many config options have been cleaned up. See Dophin (compared to Konqueror 3.x), Gwenview, or Okular. In fact, I'd argue that new applications and components written for the 4.x series are among the most clean and usable applications available for Linux -- including Plasma Desktop itself.
However, there are a few black sheep: Usually applications simply ported over from 3.x like KMail whose GUI barely changed over the years because the developers were busy with back-end renovation.
That said, that article is about the desktop environments themselves, not applications usually used together with them.

Re:KDE the replacement for Gnome 2?

[subreality]

I'm sure a lot of my comfort with Gnome2 was simply familiarity, not an inherent superiority. The OP was asking for a good replacement for Gnome2... And as a Gnome2 refugee, XFCE came pretty naturally to me where KDE did not.

Re:KDE the replacement for Gnome 2?

[KugelKurt]

Xfce is one of the slowest projects of FOSS. They manage only to get a tiny release out every two years. So how can such a slow project be seriously suggested as "good replacement"? Xfce doesn't even have a GTK3 version which means that Xfce users are stuck with an unmaintained, possibly even buggy GTK version.
With its current pace, the next Xfce version will be released in 2013! Until then GNOME 3.8 should be just around the corner and the GNOME Shell extension ecosystem will have grown and matured.

Re:KDE the replacement for Gnome 2?

[subreality]

XFCE doesn't NEED to move fast. That's the whole idea: they don't keep changing it around and adding bells and whistles every six months. If you want shiny new features, it's not for you.

Re:KDE the replacement for Gnome 2?

[KugelKurt]

XFCE doesn't NEED to move fast. That's the whole idea: they don't keep changing it around and adding bells and whistles every six months. If you want shiny new features, it's not for you.

It's not about shiny features. It's about basics like bugfix releases which Xfce doesn't do!

Re:KDE the replacement for Gnome 2?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a longtime KDE3 user, I actually find the new KDE a "noisier" than KDE3. Part of this is that the default desktop arrangement has large, prominently-placed handles permanently devoted to configuring widgets and desktop content and actions and other things that, frankly, don't need to be accessible at all times from a bare desktop.

Meanwhile, a lot of functionality I did use, all the freaking time, is hidden (granted, this is more true of programs like Dolphin vs. Konqueror, or the V4 Kate versus old school Kate.

Also, while I'm impressed with KDE4's visual bang for the buck, I don't think the jazzy new effects are worth not being able to load and run smoothly on a Pentium 2. Or, say, a computer with a flakey video card.

That being said, KDE4 is worlds ahead of Unity or Gnome3 - it's still a place where you can get some work done. But I miss the hell out of KDE3, and I hope Trinity picks up mindshare and dev talent.

No fair selection

[allo]

As Gnome3 and Unity are still very new and KDE 4.7 is a matured desktop nowadays, so its not fair. just wait for gnome 3.7 and it will be as nice as kde. remember kde 4.0? It was the biggest crap. since kde 4.2 its good again. And just like this, gnome3 will just need some time to become good again.

Re:No fair selection

[KugelKurt]

Of course it's fair. They compared the latest release versions, just as when everybody pissed at KDE 4.0 and praised GNOME 2.x the latest release versions were compared.

Re:No fair selection

[allo]

which was not fair at that time, too. You cannot compare some product, which just trashed all its history to try something new with matured products. KDE4 is good since 4.2 or some release in that time, and gnome3 will become good again, too. Mint is working on the needed extensions to make it gnome2 like, other extension authors are building extensions just to improve the gnome3 look&feel. just wait until they create some useful bundle and try this one.

Re:No fair selection

[KugelKurt]

Well, I have to correct myself and agree with you to a degree: Comparisons to KDE 4.0 and 4.1 were not entirely fair because the KDE project actually released 3.5.9 after 4.0 and 3.5.10 after 4.1 which means that KDE kept the stable branch alive until 4.2 was ready.

However, there are no new GNOME 2.x releases. So yes, comparisons to GNOME 3.x are fair because the GNOME project EOLed 2.x with the release of 3.0.

Usability of the Article?

[froggymana]

Resizes automatically to fit my screen? No.
Has everything on one neat page? No.
Allows you to click on the small pictures to get a higher resolution picture? No.
Is uncluttered by random links and pictures not relating to the article? No.
Is completely free of annoying social networking buttons that track pages you view? No.

Verdict
The article is annoying and not very usable.

Re:Usability of the Article?

[sentimental.bryan]

I'd say insightful rather than funny.

Re:Configurability - need users first

[Noughmad]

Unless Google forks, or buys, one of the Linux desktop distros and calls it Droid, no regular human has a clue not gives a rat's ass about Linux on their desktop or laptop computer.

Or Apple does the same with BSD. Oh wait....

Oh really

[ArchieBunker]

Guess you haven't seen Ubuntu lately. Its a complete rip off from OSX. Down to the icon style and placement.

Re:Oh really

[bmo]

First off, how is anything you said a reply to what I've said? I didn't even mention OSX

>ubuntu is a ripoff of OSX

Explain to me how Unity, the default desktop, rips off OSX "down to the icons" when it clearly doesn't.

Explain to me how KDE or Gnome3, which are not the default desktop, is a ripoff of OSX.

>I haven't seen Ubuntu.

http://i.imgur.com/eUo63.jpg

What now, bitch?

--
BMO

Re:Oh really

[frisket]

Placement? My Unity desktop has the icons down the LH side. My Mac OS X desktop has them along the bottom. Unless you're in some kind of parallel universe where these things are the same, those are called "different placements".

Re:Oh really

[smash]

Its not a complete rip off of OS X. They just ripped off the look of the UI, the actual shit that matters under the covers is still nowhere near good enough.

Question

[chemindefer]

Do any of these offer column browsing like OSX yet?

Re:Question

[KugelKurt]

KDE's Dolphin does since ages.

Gnome? KDE? Unity?

[Tanuki64]

Could not care less. WindowMaker is my choice. And that's the reason I don't care much about such 'usibility tests': I don't need to care. On Linux I am not stuck with good, bad, or idiotic design decisions. There are plenty of alternatives for almost everything.

Re:Gnome? KDE? Unity?

[IrquiM]

That's also the reason why we ignore your opinion.

Re:Gnome? KDE? Unity?

[Tanuki64]

Who is we? Looks like someone here has a too high opinion of himself.

Competence

[sirdude]

I lost interest in an article centered on attention to detail and feedback when I read "It's an all-too-familiar sight for those who were around when KDE shocked users with it's 4.0 release." :S

Just try it. Re:KDE the replacement for Gnome 2?

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE4 is a very useful and usable user experience. My 6 and 10 year-old children don't have problems using it, nor does my computer phobic spouse. The kids also use Macs and WinXP at school, and my spouse XP and Win7 at work. I use Win7 for work. We all prefer the user experience from KDE, although I don't know that the kids make a huge distinction between the OS (as long as they can get to Club Penguin they are happy, although they are into some of the KDE educational software as well).

I haven't looked at GNOME in years, but found KDE to be a much richer experience and just put up with the growing pains from 3.5.9 to 4.0 (there were some ugly times in there, but it is now quite nice). I am still frustrated at what Win7 (which is much better than prior Microsoft Windows, but then again, compared to Vista, DOS 6.2 was a step up) just doesn't do or missing functionality. Outside of getting one commercial application to install in Linux (it comes in a Linux native form with a sophisticated installer, and I haven't had problems in the past, so it is likely something I screwed up along the way), lack of ability to switch between Intel/Ion GPU + one WiFi driver problem in my ASUS netbook, and having to restart X whenever connecting to a projector/display from a laptop, the overall user experience with KDE4.7 is nicer than Win7. Set up/install/config with OpenSUSE has always been much easier (and faster) than WinXP and Win7.

I am not a "power user" of Linux by any stretch. I do work in a tech related field, but don't do any C/Perl/BASH hacking, don't run a server, and haven't even had a chance/n to set up proper printer/file sharing/media streaming beyond simple file transfers using SSH. Of course, I don't play games on my PC (that is what the PS3 next to the PC is for), so that is perhaps one advantage to Win7.

Remember, Linux is free as in "free to choose". Download a live KDE distro from openSUSE and you probably will not miss GNOME, XP, or Win7 a bit.

The forgot to include Microsoft Bob

[Anonymous Coward]

No user interface comparison is complete without including comparison to Microsoft Bob. Maybe their next article will be a comparison of Win 3.1 UI v. Bob v. Metro. I am sure that Windows will win as it should have in the blog review.

It is also not fair because they also forgot to include the OS/2 Warp UI which is, we all know, the best 32-bit PC OS out there.

Start with the CUA and go from there

[msobkow]

First, my pet peeve about the new frontiers of user interface design:

Apple apparently has a huge legal team of people with nothing better to do than patent things which should have been published as standards for use by anyone, the same as IBM did with the Common User Access style guides that drive virtually every computer GUI on the planet to date. It's what allows one fanboy to sit down at another fanboy's machine and still get something done because it all works largely the same.

The KDE, Gnome, and Unity teams would be well advised not to ignore decades of research and practical use by the entire computing industry and user community when designing their GUIs. Start with the CUA and go from there. Any divergence from the CUA defaults should require user configuration at either the desktop or application level.

Their ideal on what should be configurable and what should follow the defaults is one area where they'd diverge.

Another area is the practical implementation of the widgets used by the GUIs. CUA is in desperate need of a widget catalogue refresh, along with standards for how the user interacts with that conceptual data. Things like calendar pickers and colour pickers should be part of a new CUA that deals with GUI and Web metaphors; CUA itself was adaptable to early GUIs, but we've got a richer set of presentation standards to add now.

Imagine having a common XML format that defines an abstract GUI, implemented by the desktop designers as a translation of that general XML description to the platform-specific widget toolkit and behaviour standards. I know I could do that with any older UI thanks to the core CUA concepts, but what else should be part of such a new CUA?

IBM did a good job coordinating the original CUA. Maybe someone can convince them to work with the desktop teams to come up with CUA2.

Re:Start with the CUA and go from there

[funky_vibes]

I was working on a project along these lines. Where UIs would be abstracted from applications as far as possible, so that they be user-configurable... but it's a huge undertaking.
One of the first things we did was drop any notions of fancy but unnecessary technologies such as the web, xml, and rdbms.
It needs to be simple, fast and work well.
Anyhow, since the project is huge, I'm only working on a small part of it nowadays and don't expect to ever be finished :P

Unity is junk

[Cherubim1]

Unity is a solution looking for a problem. It's awkward, clunky, unstable and just totally inappropriate for desktop use. On a large screen (24"+) that goddam launch bar is hideous and it wastes valuable screen space. Shuttleworth and the other clowns at Comical must have rocks in their head if they think people are going to embrace a dumbed-down smartphone interface on laptops and desktops. It's plainly obvious they don't give a rats ass about power users and those who want a clean and and functional desktop environment. They are too busy trying to copy Apple and that goddam awful Mac OS X.

Usability

[Snowy6]

Back in the day I used to love KDE, the 3.5 days :-) Then 4.0 came out and I ditched it for Gnome 2.21-32. Was good clean, friendly and usable. Now with the new "kiddie" interfaces for gnome/unity, I went back to KDE 4.7 and switched to the classic interface (since they have options!). Gnome and Unity has somehow just removed all the functionality, and made everything just unusable. Why do I need to have a whole fullscreen window of when I need to run something? And massive icons? It seems that the new generation just want's some pretty pictures to click on :-) The new UI's seems to be a fail, Computers are not Tablets people ^_^. Thanks KDE for seeing this and trying to make a better product! ie. I have tried some of the other window managers, and blackbox, e17 and windowmaker, seems too much like just a "shell". I miss my old gnome...

Can you elaborate?

[serviscope_minor]

Could you please elaborate on the following point, because I would love more information:

The people I think of as power users would have no problem hacking together a nice custom FVWM2 configuration that integrates all the GNOME3 libraries (including the internal notification and messaging systems -- they do have nice exposed interfaces after all) and applications while giving them exactly the custom experience they desire.

I assume that you mean dbus, rather than Gnome3, but whatever. I fall into the hacked fvwm config category, but not the DBUS integration. I've never really been able to get started with that. Do you know where I can begin?

Re:Can you elaborate?

[Coryoth]

Yes, I mean DBUS. It has nice bindings for many languages, but python works well enough for simple scripting. Here are some simple examples to get you started, but it should be easy to write some scripts and have FVWM2 call those to populate whatever you need populated.

Re:Can you elaborate?

[Nursie]

You really must have no real work to do...

Xfce?

[scharkalvin]

Left out of the article was Xfce (and LXDE). Both are very similar to Gnome 2 in the way they work. I tried Xfce and I could live with it. It's missing some of the applets to be found in Gnome 2 and lacks system sounds, but it's a very familiar look and feel.

The real problem for me is that in all of the latest distro's I've tried (Kubuntu, Mint 12, Mint Xfce) the latest version of CUPS is broken. I was unable to set up any working USB printers as my Epson R300 was never detected and my HP LJ1320 while detected was configured with a wrong driver (or something) and would not print. The interface to configure network printers was broken as well (might have been the lack of a setup root password) as the configuration app couldn't get permission to access the localhost:631 interface.

Lost Portability

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that Gnome, Unity and KDE has lost is portability.
I use multiple systems and have no time to configure them, and that is why I use Fluxbox.

Linux is dead. get a life

[Anonymous Coward]

Like comparing shit to piss

Marc Jacobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Bag is very important to bring the bags, others see your vision will appreciate a lot. In general, then, if you back Marc Jacobs bags and Marc by Marc Jacobs Bags. It will be brilliant. If you really like them, I suggest you take a look at Marc by Marc Jacobs Handbags and Marc Jacobs Handbags. Concerned about the Marc Jacobs and Marc by Marc Jacobs, it means attention to life.

Mod Parent Up!

[dead_cthulhu]

Poster has demonstrated insight into the subject matter, and has posted a polite and well-written response.

sure

[ArchieBunker]

http://www.looks.gd/media/UbuntuDefaultTheme_01.jpg

Yes that looks nothing like

http://celettu.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/osx-leopard.png

Looks like someone is getting mad when I rag on their OS

Re:sure

[bmo]

1. No they don't look the same. Ohhh, they both have a top bar, icons, and windows, but that's where the similarity ends.

2. That's Gnome 2.3, not Unity. Ubuntu hasn't shipped with 2.3 as the default desktop for a year now.

3. Gnome 3 is radically different, which is why a lot of people don't like it, and it looks absolutely nothing like OSX

The only person here who hasn't used Ubuntu, apparently, is you, because you'd know this.

>I'm getting mad

I don't suffer idiots gladly.

--
BMO

its relative

[Fujisawa Sensei]

As a nerd, I do have room to talk I'm quite familiar with the likes of Molly Hatchet, but I'll stick with my oddball geek, nerd stuff.

I will admit, they had good album cover art.

But I would prefer to be listening to May'n, Nanase Aikawa, or Dir en Grey and hanging out with their fans, than Molly Hatchet and similar.

Not moving my monitor for a GUI

[Syberghost]

The inflexibility of Unity for anyone who uses two monitors and has Linux on the right-hand one led me to switch to KDE. This is most likely a permanent switch.