digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at linuxhaxor.net

A Better Introduction to Linux User Interface

linuxhaxor.net — Linux is more than Ubuntu and Gnome.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ptFoe, on 07/10/2008, -22/+9just showing a bunch of screenshots of the various window managers available in Linux is useless too.
    • RX9735, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1Yeah and Ubuntu is the Obama of distros. Promising change and all we get are hundreds of updates....
    • MWeather, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2They change every 6 months, between that we get updates. Perhaps you'd be happier with a rolling distro.
  • mzucker007, on 07/10/2008, -5/+40The point in showing all the screenshots is to emphasize the variety available to the Linux user, which is much richer than that offered by Vista. Watch the youtube video...Compiz Fusion blows Aero away!
    • Castor385, on 07/10/2008, -10/+4I wonder what the designers thought when creating all these effects in Compiz Fusion. I don't think they do the user experience any good.
      • itsbradman, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1I have never had to reinstall after multiple upgrades. OE, is all I can say.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Yeah, because Fading Windows, Blur and 3D Window Switch in Vista are also saving the user so much time. Seriously, the only thing remotely useful is 3D window switch and they did that pretty poorly too - Compiz has things like that, and stackswitch, and a few other ways of switching windows, and ways to group up windows, and multiple desktops represented a couple of ways (obviously the cube is the most popular and easiest way)
    • itsbradman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4I agree, but man are they fun to play around with!!
  • eleete, on 07/10/2008, -2/+31Open Source seems to have so much on proprietary software, so much more secure, reliable and it's free. Not only free to download, but free to give to friends, free to alter if you know how to program, sometimes you don't even need to know how to do that. It uses less system resources, and has a lot of people looking at the code so it's constantly revised and updated. There's so much more evolution to it, and the community really gets involved with user issues. The learning curve is there for sure, but the advantages are exponential, possibly endless.
    • bratterscain, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Exactly, nature doesn't call out and say, "wtf, this is a binary file, I can't do ***** with it". Open source, just as evolution, is a collaboration of many events combining to refine a product. And the quality depends upon the numbers and powers behind it. The more people that use Linux, the more it's developed for. Win for devs, win for users.
    • DreKor, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I ask this as an ignorant Windows user: What makes Linux so much more secure? Once Linux (or open source in general) goes mainstream, what is going to protect it from stupid users and malicious coders who now have a larger target. For years, Apple's security was lauded over Microsoft. Now, it seems like that security is degrading as they garner marketshare.
      • Thom98, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I think you missed one very important point that eleete already stated: The code is watched by millions and millions of users, so if there's ever a vulnerability, at least one of those millions will see it before the bad guys can act and will tell the rest of the community.
        But it's true that there will be more exploits coming out when Linux goes mainstream, just because more blackhats will see potention to bring down lot's of people at once. Never the less, I think Linux will stay more stable and secure than Windows for the next few years!
      • eleete, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Lest we not forget, Millions of web servers, In fact, FAR more than Windows IIS servers are Linux/Unix based, and the answer is right, with so many eyes on the code, as soon as someone even thinks theres a bug its reported and dealt with (usually). Not because of the Money, but because of the need to survive. If they abandon the code, someone else will pick it up, build upon it, secure it and it will evolve to something new.
  • whiteguysamurai, on 07/10/2008, -31/+26"Linux is not ubuntu"
    No, but it should be.
    Each person who makes a new distro further handicaps the proliferation linux, because it's just one more confusing choice to make, and less time they could spend on using their skill to polish and refine packages, for ubuntu...The dominant disto.
    And here i am thinking GNU was beyond ego, but i guess i was wrong.
    • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -7/+12Maybe confusing to you. Some people, however, aren't too brain-dead to try new things and discover for themselves what works for them.
      • estvir, on 07/10/2008, -8/+8It's not intelligence or the like that stops people, it's simply people DO NOT BLOODY CARE.

        The computer is the computer, that's all there really is to it, most people about as much thought into buying a PC as they do a toaster.

        Next to no one is going to any research and so on and the people who will bother experimenting with a multitude of distributions is incredibly small and chances are, they already have.
      • whiteguysamurai, on 07/10/2008, -6/+4The idea is to get people to use linux, and it's hard to do this if they can't identify what version would best fit their needs.
        Not everyone is like you, and not everyone has the time that you have.
      • darkharmonics, on 07/10/2008, -4/+3Having choices is not a bad thing at all. If somebody doesn't care to look into it, they wont get the most out of it. Its the same as anything. Disbanding the other distros would lose linux users not create them. People are just afraid of linux because it is HARD TO USE.

        Every distro requires the user to drop to the command line.I love the command line and so this is great for me. When you need to fix a problem, dig into the internals of the system, it is almost always necessary to go to the command prompt.

        I am an ubuntu user btw but after getting into it, i did try a few other distros.
    • invidious, on 07/10/2008, -2/+28As an Ubuntu user, I can see your point. I'd love it if Ubuntu reached some sort of critical mass; it'd ensure more hardware support, drivers, software, developers, etc.

      At the same time, I think that eliminating other distributions undermines the fundamental principles on which Ubuntu was built because Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian. Someone clearly thought that Debian could be something more if it were modified in ways that didn't mesh with Debian's design philosophy and development team. That Ubuntu is so successful is a testament to how important the freedom to diversify is. That Debian continues to coexist with Ubuntu demonstrates that Debian continues to fill an important niche. That's the freedom of choice. Linux itself exists because UNIX didn't fit the bill and wasn't open to change.

      Forks unfortunately fracture the community, but one size doesn't always fit all. The freedom to wander off the beaten trail to greener pastures is one of the reasons why there are so many great open source projects today.
      • bratterscain, on 07/10/2008, -4/+5Why can't Linux just have a flagship distro as Ubuntu and the things they want to change, they can. Just as Vista and XP have different shells, people can just develop different shells and so on, not have to create entire distros around them. I agree choice is good but more focus creates better competition which gets more users and devs, which then want and create more choice.
      • brettalton, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2"Someone clearly thought that Debian could be something more if it were modified in ways that didn't mesh with Debian's design philosophy and development team."

        I think Mark Shuttleworth was a Debian package maintainer when Debian first started in 1995, just FYI.
    • xsquirrel378x, on 07/10/2008, -12/+3Slackware is the only linux distro that doesnt feel like a cheap hack. But a true elegant UNIX style OS. Why the hell would the linux community get behind noobuntu? moron
      • smotpoker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7Overall I agree with your assessment but I'm unclear as to how you define the "linux community" and feel you are coming off as a bit of a dick. The linux community (as I understand it) would support ubuntu for a couple of major reasons: It is the most polished and popular of the desktop-distros. Also, especially if you include debian and other debian-based distributions, it has about the biggest share of the linux-desktop market and the most packages and developers.

        Slackware and gentoo are my distros of choice for my personal systems but for larger deployments, computer illiterates, embedded devices and other criteria there is substantial incentive to prefer ubuntu, suse, debian, lfs or some other package-based distro. I agree that *most* of the hundreds of distros seem pretty superfluous but that does not imply slackware is the only decent one that deserves support.
      • xsquirrel378x, on 07/10/2008, -3/+4I meant the linux community as a whole. I switched over to BSD (FreeBSD on my laptop, OpenBSD on my old desktop) and am much happier. The linux kernel is a bit messy for my taste. BSD may lack certain features and support you get with linux but more than makes up for it in its design, transparency, ports system and does have linux binary compatibility as well.
        And I wasn't implying Slackware is the only distribution that deserves support. I just think BSD style linux distros like Slackware, Arch and Gentoo are nicer.
    • trispear, on 07/10/2008, -1/+20Choice is hard, me no like choices. Please Microsoft, make computer easy!

      You know how long people have been saying this mantra about distros? I heard it since the late 90s, and I'm sure it's been around since the second or third distro came out circa 1994. Think about it - Ubuntu is a latecomer to the game. If Shuttleworth listened to this, there would be no Ubuntu. Did his distro "further handicap the proliferation liunx"? Because I know it's the first distro I could stick with and not go back to Windows.

      But looking at distrowatch, I see not everyone is like me and some don't like Ubuntu. Should I eliminate their choices? Maybe openSuse or PCLinuxOs or Gentoo or Linux From Scratch is for them for various reasons.

      Choice is what linux and open source is all about. Newbs might get bewildered, but they usually ask a geek friend in the first place and most geeks would probably suggest Ubuntu.
    • pfranz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+17Yeah! Who would ever want a distro with a specific purpose like being incredibly small (damnsmalllinux.org), or tailored for a standalone firewall box (ipcop.org), for a PVR (mythtv.org), or to create their own distro to try something so innovative that it's almost expected of a mainstream distro just a few years later (knoppix.com).
    • ninesky01, on 07/10/2008, -2/+8thats the mentality of nazis, bro... so short sighted...

      you need to lighten up and let freedom reign... diversity is key to the future of human kind no matter where you look.

      one race of people. one style of house. one type of car. one type of bike... geez. people like you are ***** retarded. go home idiot...
    • Origin415, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5People who are new to Linux should definitely go with Ubuntu or OpenSuSE, but people who use linux have no reason to give up on Gentoo/Arch/Debian/Fedora/etc.

      Plenty of innovations were made in each of these distros that made linux as a whole better.
    • javaroast, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3No, it shouldn't be just Ubuntu and no having a choice of distros isn't a handicap. The reality of the situation is that someone wanting to migrate to a Linux can choose ANY of the major distros and be just fine. Using your logic... Ubuntu wouldn't even exist. When Ubuntu started there were already a number of established distros and Ubuntu itself was creating a further proliferation.
    • bitbytebit, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1actually it shouldn't .. Ubuntu is in many ways worse than windows (out of the box/live cd) .. obviously you can customize it, but its a bloated POS at first. IF (and its a big if) there should be a 'flagship' distro, it should be something basic like DSL or something.

      Im all for newbies coming to linux, but stop hailing Ubuntu like the 2nd coming
    • nmnnotmyname, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Oh my goodness, Are you ***** serious? If Linux == Ubuntu then I'd rather just be on OS X right now.
    • linuxpenguin, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3I'd like you to look at a timeline and tell me what percentage of distros were created AFTER Ubuntu. I think you'll find that most of them came about BEFORE Ubuntu took off - Debian, Slackware, Red Hat, Fedora, KNOPPIX, Gentoo, Linux-Mandrake. . . just to name a few.

      I don't mind Ubuntu, but it sucks in comparison to some of the others IMO. Too much hand-holding for me, and it seems to sort-of lock you into one particular UI, set of programs, etc - to the point that people have actually made their own distros specifically for other UIs (ie, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Mythbuntu. . .) - in Debian I can get KDE, GNOME, Xfce4, etc. and it's all still Debian - without any letters changed or added onto it.

      The hand-holding is really the main thing that separates Ubuntu from the others. Which is nice if you need/want it, but I don't - at least not to that degree.
  • myhairispurp, on 07/10/2008, -2/+22Hey, where's fluxbox?
    • nycthbris, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Or openbox for that matter...
      • Amiga501, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Cockbox
      • nmnnotmyname, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3...Oh come on, can't you atleast try to make sense?
        It's bad enough that you understand so little about the things you comment and troll on, but you just do it for self amusment. People, think about how much more serious this is than it looks: Some dude is sitting behind a monitor, typing this *****. I think it's ***** someone is stupid enough to type that out and not think, "What the hell does that even mean?", or "Why would i spend time doing something like this?"

        Actually, it's so unbelievable it's almost amazing. I mean can you think of the stamina involved? I mean really, This is one poor fool. He really thinks he's atop it all with his logic. Like it actually matters what he thinks. And after this, what will happen? Everyone will eventually leave this page, and _absolutely nothing_ will happen. Why? Because he's a pointless fool. He shouldn't waste his time typing something that doesn't make sense but he still does because his life is that worthless - it's so bad he actually has nothing better to do. It's the most productive thing he can possibly do.
      • Amiga501, on 07/12/2008, -2/+0You bored me by the third sentence. Try harder, or don't try at all.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2Here, this about sums it up: You're useless ramblings make no difference, you make no sense half the time because you troll things you know very little about, and you need to get a life.
  • LightSpeed4, on 07/10/2008, -15/+40.01% of pc marketshare. Owned.
    • itsbradman, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1You sir, are an idiot. Linux market share can never be measured. How in the hell would you track it?
    • brettalton, on 07/10/2008, -1/+450-70% of server marketshare. Un-Owned?
  • sinatosk, on 07/10/2008, -9/+2First of all... Linux is a kernel ( Operating System )... NOT a User Interface

    Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Fluxbox, LXDE ( those are the only ones I know so far ) are User Interfaces.

    I'm glad Linux is picking up more... great actually... but come on.... if you gonna talk about something.... make sure you get it right for ***** sake....

    hate this misleading *****.... had enough of some people thinking Ubuntu is Linux when it's not.... now Linux is a User Interface?... jeeezz

    with that said.... I can.... partially understand what this and the cnet article from yesterday are saying/trying to do...
    • KloroFormd, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3"Linux is a kernel ( Operating System )"

      No... not exactly.

      A kernel just bridges the gap between hardware and software. It doesn't take any user input directly.
    • wolferz, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3god not this ***** again.

      Very well. I want you to take a Linux kernel, and ONLY a Linux kernel, and use it as your desktop os. No bash/ash/sh, no Xorg, no gcc, no libraries, no boot loader. Just the kernel.

      All a kernel is, without all the stuff that goes with it, is a useless hunk of code. Are you really trying to say that's all Linux amounts to?

      I think I've made my point. Linux is more than just the kernel... it is everything that is used, along side the Linux kernel, to provide a functioning software environment in which one can do whatever it is one wants to do... and yes, that includes the various window managers.
      • lickmyback, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2You've made no point. You're saying that the Linux kernel cannot be used as an operating system by itself, and therefore Linux must be an operating system.

        'Linux' refers specifically to the Linux kernel and only the kernel - it's not pretending to be an operating system nor can it be used on it's own. When people call an operating system 'Linux', what they really mean is 'Linux-based operating system' which normally consists of GNU or other open-source components as well as the Linux kernel.

        Yes it's true that people refer to the entire OS as Linux which makes sense and I can understand completely (who wants to go around saying 'Linux-based operating system'), but what you've just said is complete rubbish.
      • wolferz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2My point, as you seem to be unwilling to understand, is that in the end Linux is effected by all of it... because if any of it has a problem Linux has a problem. You take all the other stuff away and Linux is useless... it is dependent on gcc and the bootloader and bash and all the other stuff to work properly or it will remain useless. If gcc has a problem it is a problem for Linux as well because Linux is dependent on a functioning gcc. So yes... at the end of the day the separation between Linux the kernel and the operating system normally referred to as Linux is rather blurry at best.

        Furthermore, It's ridiculous to even point out that, yes, Linux is actually just a kernel. Why even say it? What's the point in it? I'll tell you what the point in it is. It's a way for Linux fanboys to isolate Linux from being part of the problem when something else is amiss.

        "Yes I know that having to use the console sucks but that's not a Linux problem... Linux is just the kernel." I've heard arguments like this used again and again and... seeing how there is no other reason to insist that people only refer to the kernel as Linux except being anal... I tend to think this is the reason such is usual mentioned.
  • srg13, on 07/10/2008, -5/+4Is it just me, or was the only nice looking screenshot there XFCE? Everything else looked pretty bad imho.

    Although I'm sure most window managers can be made to look far better - my Gnome desktop looks much more attractive than the default, or any of these, for instance.
    • rockefeller2, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Maybe you should get you one of those "Arrogant Linux Elitist" t-shirts.
  • rationalbeats, on 07/10/2008, -9/+5Ohh ok.

    Thanks for wasting my time.
    • itsbradman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3You knew what the article was about and read it anyway. You wasted your own time, idiot!
  • Ademan, on 07/10/2008, -1/+12Dugg for afterstep. (flux|black|open)box are all missing though, as is awesomewm, ratpoison, and ion3 (heck and many many more). but really, if you want to talk about elitist, you NEED tiling window managers... lol
  • estvir, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4What XFCE theme is that? It's one of the few times I've actually liked XFCE..
  • Evolutuon, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3I think that article could have been presented more thoroughly, he failed to mention thats theres Kubuntu (KDE) and Xubuntu (xfce).
  • marine63, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3what's a good light desktop environment that doesnt look like crap?
    • baithe, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2e17 (enlightenment) ftw! Light + eyecandy if you can handle the occasional instabilities -- it is technically alpha software.
      • BurgerPunch, on 07/10/2008, -3/+0and has been for SEVERAL YEARS

        terrible development team
    • mithrasinvictus, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7xfce
    • waspbr, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5considering that the desktop environments are highly customizable, they a can look like anything you want.
    • mossblaser, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Basicly any of the *boxes, fluxbox and openbox are two particularly good ones.
  • wolferz, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3I don't agree with some of his assertions regarding Linux... however, I think his over all message is a huge step in the right direction for Linux. Dugg
  • salazarmark, on 07/10/2008, -12/+7Exactly why normal people won't use Linux, you have to have a full article explaining the different types of interfaces available instead of just having "An" interface. Normal folks could care less if you can control every little thing on the OS, they just want something that when you open everything is there and you just hit the power button, follow a few prompts, then presto it's ready to use. I wish all you narrowminded borderline stupid people would recognize that.
    • lickmyback, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7COULDN'T... it's COULDN'T care less. If you can't get that much right it's no wonder that you can't come to grips with the lofty complexities of choosing an interface.
      • wolferz, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1nice strawman argument... two of them infact...
    • daftman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Car analogy:
      Ever being to a car dealer? Does the car dealer ever try to sell you ONE type of car?
      People who shop for cars like choices. Not to mention there are other mode of transportation like trucks, bikes, van, SUV, etc. Each is used for different things by people with different taste.
      But hey, I guess it takes a little more brain cells to realize that.
      The problem here is not Linux, it's the unwashed masses. If you teach a dog one trick, that's the only trick he ever going to know, just like you.
    • linuxpenguin, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Normal folks don't go into the Linux/Unix section of Digg and bitch about Linux either. Get a life.

      And if they do, they get told that YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ALL THAT *****. You can if you want to, though, and that's the whole point. If you want a quick, easy setup and to not do ***** - then just don't do it. There's no reason why you need to. If you want to customize and install a GUI you like better, then you can.

      It's like a bike. If you don't care about all the options and just want to ride around the park, just go to the store and buy whatever the hell you want. If you do care, though, you can look around for the bike with the best features - and maybe even buy some upgraded parts if you're really into it. Most people could care less about buying those petals that lock to your feet, a Bike Club lock that you need a hacksaw to get through, a speedometer, or any of that other stuff.

      But if you're really into biking, you know that the lock-in petals can give you a good power boost by letting you use your legs' power when pulling up as opposed to only when you're pushing down, you might feel it's worthwhile to get a real nice bike lock with some sort of warranty, and you might want to know how many miles you go each ride, how fast you go, your max speed, etc.

      If you don't like it, don't do it.
    • TnTBass, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I would argue the opposite. Users love flashy new things. You can easily have multiple window managers for one Linux distro, giving the user the ability to switch between different flashy looks without having to upgrade to a new OS. Sick of gnome? Use KDE. Sick of KDE? Use fluxbox. Sick of fluxbox? Use
  • c89a, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Linux is simply a different means to an end. I don't think its "better" or "worse" than Vista or OS X just different. They all have there positives and negatives. Personally I have a winbox(XPSP3) and a kubuntu(KDE3) box and they both work great in different ways.
  • dbusby, on 07/10/2008, -7/+0Looks like another "fluff" article, intended to make windows users less paranoid of linux, the simple fact is I can not see Linux becoming a general "household" operating system, as whereas any sysadmin can make it jump through hoops, it's not linke they have a vendor to ring up and complain for the general end user ... and nor should they being GPL after all.

    The problem with the general user is, give them something for free, they will think you owe them something for using it, and whine like a scorned child. A jaded view, but most will agree acurate, this is where MAC (no I don't have one yet) steps up, they have the corporate stucture for the whiny end user, and the BSD evolved os with a little work and patience can keep the most hardy sysadmin happy.

    As much as I would like linux to become mainstream as I hate windows with the power of OVER 9000 suns, I can't see it happening
    • Sairgem, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Actually I'm pretty sure it's a response to that "Intro to the linux interface" story that was submitted earlier. The one that showed Ubuntu with gnome and the default theme, and ONLY that. That article gave people no real idea of what was available to them if they gave a Linux distro a try. Way to go off on a rant over nothing.
      • itsbradman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Um, it was an intro right? Hell, let's give um an intro to chmod a+x, ./configure, make, make install, tar -xjvf, sudo apt-get, mkdir, etc. Let's just overload the new guy!!
    • paulsmith288, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1how many computer users do you know that have phoned up Microsoft and whined?
    • daftman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3> The problem with the general user is, give them something for free, hey will think you owe them something for using it, and whine like a scorned child.

      Look Asus, Dell, Best Buy. Linux can be sold.
  • HUKI365, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1I want that T-Shirt from the thumbnail!
  • tnoy, on 07/10/2008, -5/+9Ubuntu is going to be the face of Linux on the desktop for the next few years, and the Linux community needs to get over themselves and accept this fact.
    • manishsinha27, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Very true.. Maybe its not good, but no doubt its the future...

      Others should humbly accept this fact.. Even if they wont like it. It was ubuntu who brought linux to masses...
    • tj111, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3I use Ubuntu myself, but I dugg you down. Ubuntu isn't "the face of Linux" for years to come, it's just currently the most popular distribution of desktop Linux (at least for home users, I'm not sure about the corporate environment). I love Ubuntu, use it on my Home PC, recommend it to my friends / family, etc etc, but people acting like Ubuntu is the end-all-be-all of Linux Distributions is why there is so much animosity towards Ubuntu and its users from the seasoned Linux crowd.
      • tnoy, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2I call it "he face of Linux," because it is the most popular. It has also had the most widest acceptance, thus far. It's also used as 'the' example of Linux by most all non-Linux centric publications. Its going to be 'the face of linux' simply because it is the most popular. Most people starting on Linux are going to now be starting with Ubuntu.

        Like I said, get over yourself, and accept this fact.
  • caoine, on 07/10/2008, -6/+0Compiz is like Michael Bay and George Lucas teaming up for desktop effects. Ie, it looks great if you like sparkly garbage.
    • itsbradman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3actually, for desktop management, it can't be beat. Overkill? Sure, but it can do wonders for productivity once some keyboard shortcuts are learned.
    • srg13, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Only a small set (usually the most overdone flashy and superfluous) of Compiz Fusion's capabilities are shown in the demo videos...

      It really does have many really useful plugins for desktop management, accessibility and so on, as well as some nice (and subtle) effects on the side.
  • Zaggynl, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3Linux is about choice and freedom, back stuff up and tinker away!
  • itsbradman, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Good article, but he shouldn't have misled the already confused people that he was aiming for. He stated that the screenshots are of other "distros", when they are not. They are of other desktop managers. Any of those screenshots could have been Ubuntu. Are there some distros that look like that right after install? I am sure there are, but now people who don't know will try to find KDE4 and will be all kinds of confused. While I do agree that when most people think of Linux, they think off the desktop manager and all, not just the kernel, and they should. The article is great for showing the many different "faces" of Linux, and I think the diversity is wonderful. It's one of the reasons why I only use *nix based systems. The author should have been more clear in what he was referring to. You simply cannot expect a non technical person to understand the difference between a desktop manager and a kernel. Heck, most people don't get the difference between win98, xp, vista, etc., only that it looks different, and that's only when they have had experience with both. Some people don't even get it then. I know, I talk to them everyday. As much as I hate to say it, the diversity is the Achilles heal of Linux. Take something that is user friendly and stick to it. Windows isn't stupid proof by a long shot, but the interface has stayed basically the same for years. People have gotten used to it. Mac? OSX is probably the most intuitive gui I have ever run across with gnome being a close 2nd. All of the window managers for Linux are great, but most people just want something that works, is easy to use, and doesn't take forever to learn. Click, drag and drop, should be able to handle 90% of what a desktop user needs to do. Simple and elegant. To take up market share GNU and FOSS needs to focus on that; certainly for the desktop crowd.
    • wolferz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Rule number one of computer tutoring/training: If you need to rely on terminology to explain something you are going about it the wrong way.

      Distro? Window Manager? People not only don't know what these are, they don't want to. He could have called them Window Managers and wouldn't have been any less confusing.

      Terminology is great when you want to give some one a name for a concept you have taught them... but the concept has to come first. That Linux has multiple sets of terminology just for describing it's various parts is an indicator of just how convoluted Linux still is. Each of those terms has a separate concept behind it... one not shared by any other operating system except, perhaps, BSD. Each of those concepts needs to be understood by a user to properly understand a conversation regarding Linux.

      Meanwhile windows and os x are the same conceptually... they are only different in execution of those concepts. Also, nether Window nor Os X deal with concepts that don't exist under Linux... making Linux the more complicated of the three.
      • itsbradman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Exactly, but if you are going to use terminology, get it right. Imagine the guy, who doesn't know much, tying to find that cool KDE operating system. Good luck!
      • brettalton, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1So what do you call Windows and its window manager? That doo-hickey? Linux isn't convoluted, computer operating systems are.

        I think of these terms merely as an extension of computer science reaching out into the public. If you want to install Ubuntu and go like most people do with Windows, you can, but if you start researching more about Linux then naturally terms like 'window manager' come up!

        If I was interested in the biology of fish, I shouldn't be frustrated that I heard the term 'dorsal fin' and now know its meaning. Once you learn a term, you can apply it to many other things. It's call learning.
      • wolferz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@brettalton

        "So what do you call Windows and its window manager? That doo-hickey? Linux isn't convoluted, computer operating systems are."


        I call it "Windows." Since windows only has one by default there is no need to point out the concept of a "shell." FYI, that's what a window manager is called in windows, a shell. A rare case where the Linux terminology is more descriptive than it's windows counterpart. Then again Linux uses the term shell as well... for it's various command line interfaces. Windows just uses the same term both places as, other then one being graphical and one not, they are the same thing and serve the same function.

        It is true that the windows graphical shell can be changed (see window blinds) but the few people actually interested in doing this have the OPTION of learning what they need to to set it up. On the other hand the linux (and open source for that matter) community forces the need to learn this down the users throats while simultaneously telling them it is for their own good.

        Don't get me wrong, customization is great. Any one that lays eye on my windows desktop will see that in action. But it should not be necessary to be aware of the concepts behind customization unless some one is actually interested in it. It should be possible to make Linux completely user friendly just by standardizing it to one default configuration and then, if the user wants to, allow them to customize it with settings that are not "in your face" but not necessarily buried ether. A have your cake and eat it too scenario.

        This is probably the thing I like most about Ubuntu... the WM is gnome, period. If you want to change it you can but it comes set up to use gnome. Unfortunatly each and every distro tends to have their own oppinion regarding this. This is great for people who want choices... but it is very very bad for people who want something that "just works." (which doesn't mean "works on a technical level", it means works for their needs)

        "If I was interested in the biology of fish, I shouldn't be frustrated that I heard the term 'dorsal fin' and now know its meaning. Once you learn a term, you can apply it to many other things. It's call learning."

        What if you weren't interested in the biology of fish... you just want fish for dinner. This is the mindset of the average user... they are NOT interested in how a computer works... they just want to use one.

        When designing something like a computer or os or a piece of software you should always remind yourself that "no one wants a copy machine... they just want copies." It's an extension of the KISS principle that engenires are taught when they are trained.
      • wolferz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1wow I butchered "engineers"... was trying to get in under the edit timer...
    • linuxpenguin, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Yet somehow, with all these super-confusing options that no one cares about or understands, Linux has gained popularity over the years.

      Because you don't need to understand or know about all these options - you can just install Ubuntu, or Debian, or Fedora, or whatever distro and just go with the default options. It might be confusing, or hard to understand, or weird - but if you find it that way, you can just ignore it.
  • mynameistux, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I really have to try some other DE's and WM's,
    Also
    Linux MCE FTW!!!!
  • cbeach, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1The various distributions and window managers cause unnecessary confusion for new users. If we have a genuine need for different distros, then we need to ensure they're named meaningfully. None of the names mean anything. People complain about the confusing array of Vista versions - but at least they have names like "Home", "Business" and "Enterprise". Or Mac OS X - with a clear distinction between the platform for home users and server users.

    You could claim that I'm missing the point of distros altogether, and that there shouldn't be just one "home edition" or one "server edition". But why is that? Provided you can install any Linux software on any distro, why can't we get some focus into the OSS community and create some specialised Linux platforms?

    We only (really) need one OSS browser. Firefox is proof that if the community focusses, they can create something that's so damned good, we barely need any other choice. And lack of browser choice is not a problem because if Firefox doesn't work for us, we can take the code and modify it, or install an addon.

    If linux had just a few specialised flavours whose choice was not the near "philosophical" debate it is now, then consumers would be much more interested.
    • linuxpenguin, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Firefox isn't proof of anything. Mozilla is also open-source, but people don't use it. The community did focus on Mozilla for quite some time - until finally the Mozilla folks figured to hell with this, let's just build a new lightweight browser that's only a browser.

      Firefox is good because it took the best ideas from the currently-existing browsers and built upon them. It's only better because of what we have to compare it to.

      Linux is good because of all its distros. You may not see it, but they're all different. People take what they like from one distro, and they take out what they don't, and thus create another distro that they see as being better. Many people like Ubuntu, but I don't think I'd ever go back to Ubuntu on the desktop for the same reason why most people like it - Ubuntu doesn't give you all the options. They might confuse you, but they don't confuse me and I want them.
  • ardnut, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3That's a pretty old screenshot of mythweb
    • paulsmith288, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2i saw that. Whats with a screen shot of mythweb. Why not a proper myth frontend shot?
  • canadalolz, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2dugg down for not knowing the difference between "then" and "than"
    • bitbytebit, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2yeah thats a GREAT reason to bury .. you are a 'moran'
  • craigp, on 07/10/2008, -6/+2I take exception to the phrase 'Linux User Interface'. This implies some degree of thought (with relation to users) went into the interfaces we see on Linux. I see none of that. All I see is engineers throwing buttons, grossly superfluous options and information, and we-did-it-cos-we-could-rather-than-cos-we-should eye-candy all over the screen. Linux is an amazing operating system for advanced users, sys admins and businesses wanting to prevent vendor lock-in for their server software. Its user interface is still some considerable way from being usable for the majority of the population - and until that time, it will still be stuck in server rooms making no head-way on Windows and the Mac on the client-side.
    • Sairgem, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4Uh huh... When was the last time you touched a linux desktop environment? Try a distro from the last 5 years before you rant about your *****. If gnome or KDE is "far from usable" for you, you might consider shooting yourself.
      • wolferz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I'm using linux right now, and I agree with him

        And in respect to interface linux hasn't changed much in 10 years, much less 5.
    • TnTBass, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1My gf can use KDE just fine, and she's very computer illiterate. When is the last time you used Linux? What distro? What WM?
      I can't help but think you haven't used Linux before, or at least not for years. Get a live CD (obviously Ubuntu comes to mind first, but I prefer Kubuntu myself... try the KDE4 version, I am partial to it myself)

      Oh, and don't shoot yourself. It won't really solve any problems.
      • wolferz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I use Ubnutu with Gnome on a weekly basis... sometimes every day for weeks at time. I agree with his assessment, especially if it is applied to versions of KDE before 4 (from screen shots I've seen KDE4 looks better but I haven't laid hands on it to really try it out).

        I also use Gentoo with Xfce4 in various virtual machines that I use every now and again. Last time was about a month ago.
  • chickenbandit, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1That's right Gnome...go pound sand!
  • dr-steve, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6Linux is about...

    GETTING YOUR TASKS DONE!!!!

    The CNet article is closer than this one to being on target for "regular" users.

    Linux is about staying out of the way. Letting you do what you need to do to get your tasks done. Writing, calculating, databases (OpenBase sucks, by the way), linking to that pesky shared printer on someone's Windows box, using a few shared directories on other systems, being either Win or Mac or Linux, playing games, web, keeping a calendar, notes (Oh, for OneNote).

    Linux isn't about the plethora of UIs. A good UI is learnable and usable (I use KDE, Gnome, Win, Mac (both 7.5 and X).) If I can do what I need to do effectively, I'm functional.

    Yes, when I was younger, I learned a lot by playing with different UIs. Different concepts on how to get things done. Now, I'm on the far end of the curve, learning a new UI presents no new concepts, just new methods, and the time spent on learning a new method for the same endpoint is wasted time (for me).

    The non-CS person is in a similar boat. They're not interested in the conceptual structures, only on the endpoint. The UI that is the closest to what they know, the one that they can become functional upon with the least effort, is the best.

    With that in mind, I *like* this article! It could be improved a bit, discussing for each UI its strengths and weaknesses, what it is most and least like.

    And I *like* Linux's approach, which makes it a strong and flexible adapter. This is needed as it is trying to fit in to a set of established cultures. If these cultures didn't already exist, there'd be less a need for the UI flexibility...
  • Vadi0, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2That's actually a pretty horrible introduction.
  • loconet, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Since we are going to be a little pedantic..

    I guess part of the reason why I was "ok" with the "GNOME - Ubuntu" article the other day was because it kept it simple with less confusion - at least for the uninitialized. The point of the article was to establish that Linux's UI does not have to be a confusing & scary world. It doesn't have to be *that* much different from Windows on the outside, although it can be if the user chooses.

    Having said that, with so much choice on Linux (something I love and dislike at times) even the author here makes a minor oversight. He's saying there is much more than Gnome (a desktop environment) and compares it with IceWM, Enlightenment, and AfterStep. All of which are actually window managers. Classic oversight in such a rich set of features offered in the Linux world. Ubuntu actually uses Metacity (window manager) by default along with Gnome. Not to mention Xfce which is actually based on GTK - same as Gnome .
  • Aleksej, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1If you want something that is even “more” than the desktop environments, check Eagle Mode (http://eaglemode.sourceforge.net/) which is currently in development. It is a Zooming User Interface environment. It currently has a file manager with image viewing and video playback support, two simple games documentation to view and some fractals.
  • brettalton, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Ubuntu is good for competition, period.

    Ubuntu won't be in the lime-light forever, so we need other distros to continue so they can take that market share when Ubuntu falls.

    Let other distros, other Linux users, other Unix-variants be jealous. This jealousy will only lead to better products and innovations as they will always be trying to steal users from the most flavourful distro.

    I say "Let Ubuntu reign supreme for now, take users from Windows and Mac and let us rejoice in Ubuntu's popularity. Then make a better product and crush Ubuntu's aspirations."
  • itcoll, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2linux is getting way better than windows xp .
    • tomd123, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2correction, GNU/Linux is way better than windows xp.
      • tj111, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Nay.

        GNU/Linux > Windows NT > DOS.

        Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE, etc > Windows XP.
    • bitbytebit, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2its always been better, its the desktops that have been (and are in many ways) worse
  • magus_melchior, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Hey, Mike Horowitz! THIS is a proper introduction to Linux UIs.
  • Canadian0207, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1True story: I got head from a girl while compiling source code in linux terminal.

    It was the greatest, most manliest/geekiest moment in my life.
  • sol0, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Linux is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.