What is Digg?50 Comments
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Very nice. We need more "Here Are The Many Options" articles for new people....instead of lame one-sided "GNOME Sucks" or "Only Use Ubuntu" articles.
Shows how insanely customized you can make Linux, which is one of its great qualities that people overlook when they shove things like Ubuntu down your throat 24/7. - aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17...I can choose my OS
- MWeather, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20I hate people who shove Ubuntu down your throat. Kubuntu and Xubuntu are also perfect good Distros :)
- lpcustom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Oh god now we have a hate war between the different version of Ubuntu. You can have all those friggin desktop environments in Ubuntu. What's the big deal with you guys? One guy says Kubuntu isn't that great of a distro but Ubuntu and Xubuntu are. Uh they are the same damn distro. I can install Ubuntu and use apt to install xfce4. Yay now I have xubuntu....no wait..I still have gnome so I have Ubuntu.......you could also install the meta-packages for the different version of ubuntu. kubuntu-desktop and xubuntu-desktop...that'll give you all the art for each.
- dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8 Why would anyone think they should automatically know how to do the most complex tasks on an OS they've never used before? It takes time to learn how to do things, even simple tasks, if you've just started using an OS that's new to you.
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12The key issue is that of perception. Over the years people are taught to accept and cherish the 'one size fits all' approach. Myths and stigmas must end.
This article can hopefully give a practical lesson to those whom you identify---narrow-minded folks who rarely explore better working paradigms. Different tools for different tasks. We have more than one brand/type of vehicles out there, don't we? - spinalcracker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7In response to the comment about Ubuntu taking a lot of resources...
I see nothing wrong with that at all. OSX and Vista take a ton of resources too.. if Ubuntu wants to promote itself as a high end cutting edge OS that gobbles resources, but is easy to use and has all the bells and whistles, then that's their thing. Apple and Microsoft do it for the their flagship OS's, (I'm not saying Ubuntu is the flagship, but I think they are trying to be!)... at least Xubuntu is offered as well for older hardware, which works perfectly btw.
Just my 2 cents. Now digg me down. - motang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yeah I agree and it is also nice to see that the article went over xfce, as majority of time it is skipped. IMHO it is a very good desktop envorinment for older hardware, it's also very fast.
- demonicume, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12last night, i set up one of my pc's as a LAMP and another as an Ubuntu box. now that i've done that, i'm at a total loss as to what to do. when i search for information, its way more complicated than it needs to be. i dont need it spoon fed to me like some kid. i am very Windows and Mac savvy... but when a tutorial tells me to enter some long-ass command, it should at least tell me where i'm supposed to enter it. if i were Linux savvy, i wouldnt be reading the damn tutorial.
so... got any linux resources that'd help me learn the system without making me wanna slit my own wrists? i wanna learn, but the linux wizards dont make it easy. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"If you enjoy a lighter environment and find GNOME and KDE too robust, then Xfce should be on your list of things to try."
Robust? I do not think that word means what you think it means. - afex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i put xubuntu on my laptop (evo n800w) and when i have any problem i literally google 'ubuntu n800w [device or app]' and i get forum after forum of people who have done the same thing. worked on my wireless card, my m-audio usb capture card, getting tightvnc going, getting wine going, etc. and previous to xubuntu i could literally count the hours i'd spent in linux on one hand (a couple in fedora, a couple in gentoo, and a couple in xebian for xbox). and if google/forums fail you, IRC is packed with people that want to help!
- siliconbits, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Is it me or with any new versions of Ubuntu, more and more computer resources are needed to get it to run properly?
- lost.sync, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@demonicume
any commands given are meant to be typed in a console. any console, it doesn't matter. open one from the menu, or drop to a tty via ctrl+alt+f1 and enter your commands there. if you find yourself wondering what exactly a command does, you can always type that command plus --help, i.e.: "sudo --help"
poke around on del.icio.us for some good linux starter texts - understanding the tree structure does wonders for linux's usability. a crash course on bash is also a good idea. for help with speciffic problems #ubuntu on irc.freenode.net, ubuntuforums.org, and the ubuntu document storage facility are all great resources. - Strokemouth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I've got Edgy running on an older P4 1.6 with 512MB of RAM and it's silky smooth, even with Gnome/Beryl. It's not the oldest hardware around, but it's still rock-solid and a pleasure to use. It would still run very well on lesser hardware without all the fancy effects turned on.
- Shadowman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Phocion55
I agree. Unfortunately looking at most of the comments you would think the article is a "Beginners Guide to Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu Desktops". - Bonzodog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3heh..I use Openbox. It's like fluxbox, but even lighter.
- vixenk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Then use Windows. This article isn't trying to get you to switch... it's for people that have already switched and haven't yet explored any DEs other than whatever comes default with their distro.
- 0siris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i have ubuntu w/gnome running on a 333mhz ppc imac with 32 mb of 133 ram, and a 6 gb hd. Its been running smoothly for around 2 months without a restart aside from updates.
- lpcustom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3w00t!!! amen!!!!
Everyone say it with me, "Ubuntu is not a desktop environment." You bunch of noobs describe it as if it were Gnome. Get this, you can install ANY desktop environment in Ubuntu. My install has XFCE4, Gnome, and KDE. Which version of Ubuntu would you idiots say I have? You can download and install Kubuntu and then install Gnome with apt....OH MY!!! Which do you have now?
Morons, quit arguing over which flavor of Ubuntu is better. They are all the same distro. - tropican8, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Ubuntu" is not a desktop environment. If you dislike the modifications they apply to Gnome, you are free to use your own. Gnome is weird in that the team doesn't really give you a usable desktop out-of-the-box (at least for me, maybe for some people it works), they rely on the distros that stock it to make it usable. Individual people are free to customize it as well, don't forget that and get intimidated by your own OS.
- kc8hr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It isn't Linux or the distribution that eat up resources, it is the desktops.
Both Gnome and KDE are require fairly large memory resources. I have 256MB on an Athlon 1800XP, and both are very slow. I would recommend at least 512MB to run either. - Renolc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2An excellent article covering many of the more popular DE's.
- damentz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They stick ads in it now, they dont update packages, not as cool as it used to be.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The replacement shells for Windows aren't very stable. That's the problem. X11 is designed to have multiple WMs and DEs. Windows needs to be hacked to do so.
- Lobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am using JWM (Joes Windows Manager) the most stable small window manager is IceWM and Xfce is luvvly. I have always prefered Gnome to KDE. Linux = choice. Windows = take it or leave it.
I left it. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes all the Linux desktops have copied the Fluxbox merged windows remorselessly haven't they. Its probably the coolest useful feature out of anything in the Linux desktop world and has been left behind in your drive for mediocrity measure.
Also look at the designs for KDE 4, its very different from anything that has come before. - uzytkownik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It describes advantages and disadvantages of each environment. There are no conclusion - which is good (everybody could make their opinion).
One bad thing - in description of XFCE it's said that it's based on gtk+ so gnome apps will work fine. On Gnome works Kde apps and on Kde Gnome's - they are probably less integrated[1] and some of them could slow down[2] but they work.
This only mistake I've found.
[1] However there are big movements to integrate them
[2] 2 graphic libraries in memory. Probably other untiles as well. Some of them could be swapped. - afex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@demon
really? i've had quite the opposite experience... - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now evilWM truly is evil. Probably the most minimalistic WM I've ever tried. I do not recommend this for any new user ever since nearly everything runs via an xterm (or at least does so until you've configured it properly). Very nice if you just want to use X11 for its original purpose, running multiple consoles side by side. It can run modern GUI apps of course but it is designed with terminals in mind.
It has no borders and no title bar for the apps and most resizing is done via keyboard commands. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The hard to use lie. Fluxbox setup properly is as easy to use as anything else. Setting it up requires more knowledge because it doesn't have all the config tools of KDE, GNOME or XFCE. Even then Fluxbox config files aren't difficult to alter.
It runs great on my older boxes. It's just nice to have a Gentoo/Fluxbox setup when you must squeeze the clock cycles. - kc8hr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The author does indicate that Fluxbox is hard to use. Wrong! If your computer bogs down under Gnome or KDE, try Fluxbox.
Fluxbox forever! - subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On a fast, well maintained computer KDE is crisp and very nice. Elitist nerds live in a parallel reality. I wish you would stay there.
- emptymind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wait for the final release of e17, or use the alpha version, like I do.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Windows = take it or leave it."
Not true. Here's a list of alternative desktops/shells for Windows:
http://newshells.notlong.com
Most people never bother probably because just like with Linux, the replacements for the most part aren't really any better, just different. - demonicume, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@afex - maybe i'm looking in the wrong places. suggestions of where i should look?
- Varean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0E16 is nice, but it should have been replaced by E17, its much more stable now and most people use it over E16.
- crossers, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0I never use different desktop environment and this article is very interesting for me!
http://www.shpe-sac.org
http://www.ocflex.com/
http://www.trgovinca.org
http://www.chasr.org/ - tlastrange, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Where's twm?
- tupperbacharach, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This article does well to make newbies aware that there are other desktop/window-manager possibilities. However, it probably could have gone a little further, and it could have been a little more accurate.
Instead of just saying that the article was "... merely scratching the surface..." of the available desktops/window-managers, it would have been exceptionally informative to have also merely included the link provided above by ZeroA4 in this forum:
http://xwinman.org/
There is a world of choice out there!
FROM THE ARTICLE:
"While GNOME shares similar goals as KDE, that's where the similarities end. The environment as a whole is completely different, and is reminiscent of Mac OS 9 in terms of layout. Whereas in KDE, all of the programs, launchers and applets are crammed into a single bar (which is why it's so large by default), GNOME splits this into two parts. On the top of the screen you will have your menu, clock and quick launchers. On the bottom, you have your currently used applications and also the desktop switcher. It may seem like an odd setup if you've never used GNOME before, but after some usage you will quickly understand how much sense it makes."
This paragraph includes a few of the many misconceptions involing Linux desktops/window-managers. The default layout of a desktop is usally determined by the specific Linux distro, not by the creator of the desktop/window-manager. Here is a screenshot of the KDE default desktop in the recently-released, mini-edition of Sabayon Linux (a distro mentioned in the article):
http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opensource/linux/screenshots/original/SabayonLinux%203.2%20miniEdition/14.gif
As one can see, part of the task-bar is defaulted to the bottom of the desktop, and the other part is defaulted to the top. So, Gnome isn't the only desktop/window-manager that has this capability -- not by a long-shot. And, from looking at the KDE panel-configuration window, it is obvious that task-bars (and portions of task-bars) can be arranged in almost any way that one desires, including along the sides and corners of the desktop. I would guess that Gnome is just as configurable.
I'm also guessing that many Linux distros having KDE as the main desktop choose to default to the large task-bar to accommodate the 4-paned, square arrangement of the "virtual desktops." Perhaps the distro creators want new users to know that the square arrangement is a possibility, in case the new users are only familiar with the side-by-side configuration. At any rate, in KDE, it probably only takes three or four clicks of a mouse to change to one of the smaller task-bars, with side-by-side virtual desktops.
I don't know if there are prescribed, default layouts from KDE or from Gnome -- the screenshots from the KDE site show a few typical layouts with a few uncommon ones:
http://www.kde.org/screenshots/
I couldn't find any screenshots on the Gnome site.
The author gives no reason as to why the Gnome layout shown makes so much sense. After years of reading the opinions of countless usability "experts," I believe that the best layout is the one that the user prefers, and there are zillions of other layouts possible in Gnome, KDE, ROX, WindowMaker, Golem, E17, 3d-Desktop, XFCE, *-box, JWM, Oroboros, PAWM, etc... By the way, I currently enjoy IceWM with one tiny task-bar on the bottom, with side-by-side virtual desktops (four) and with no icons.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
"When you first login to a new GNOME environment, you will notice how incredibly clean it is. The desktop only has a few icons (unless you have files already there) and the theme is simple, but visually appealing."
There are only a few desktop icons on the default Sabayon, KDE desktop shown in link above, and this condition is true of the default, non-Gnome desktops of many Linux distributions.
The visual appeal of a desktop or window-manager is subjective, and relies primarily on the specific theme/configuration that one chooses or modifies or creates. And themes are portable -- if someone creates a popular theme in one desktop/window-manager, that theme is often ported to other desktops/window-managers. Most of the established desktop/window-managers have a wide selection of themes/configurations.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
"All of that said, once you have GNOME installed you will have a desktop like seen at the top of this page. Although it's such a full featured DE, bloated is a word that doesn't come to mind. It's fast, versatile and reliable."
Again, it might be that not all Gnome desktops will appear like the one shown in the article.
Also, I don't know much about Gnome's current state, but I would be surprised if it has overcome the size and bug problems that have plagued it in the past few years. KDE is also huge, but, as I understand, it is easier to compile.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
"Fluxbox, E16, FVWM-Crystal"
"Warning: Hardcore users only! Minimalistic environments are just that. They are designed for a variety of users. First, you may have a super old machine that you want to set up as a file server. Or, you may want the smallest environment possible for performance reasons, or enjoy having a lot more of your screen available for windows at any given time. Lastly, you may be one of those Lunix hax0rs that would feel more more leet by using a more hardcore environment."
Let's not scare people unnecessarily. Fluxbox, E16 and FVWM-Crystal are incredibly easy to use. I'm positive that my 81-year-old mother could easily navigate through any of these three window-managers (she runs Mepis/KDE!).
The true minimalist environments are Ratpoison, Ion, evilwm, BadWM, Stumpwm, etc., and these window managers are extremely fast and efficient. Here's a screenshot of Ion:
http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/ion/screenshots/ion3-1.png
Hope this helps. - leed25d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I use Ubuntu at work and an experimental Elive (17) distro on my home workstation; other machines at home run OpenBSD and FreeBSD. I would not even consider running a firewall or a server on anything other than BSD
- entr0py, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1But what if a significant portion of our computer usage is using windows tools? Photoshop and Steam games? Cakewalk studio...?
- digitalrift, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I find it odd.. yesterday I burned an a copy of ubuntu and went to go boot from CD, and it didn't recognize my usb keyboard, and got to the part where it was decompressing the kernel before ***** in my face. it's not like it's an old archaic set of components too:
logitech G15 keyboard
abit fatal1ty mobo
amd x2 4200
nvidia 7600gt
1GB RAM
250GB sata hdd - ZeroA4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@TedyBear
If i got it right from tfa FVWM-Crystal is a fork of FVWM. not an enhancement for Fluxbox. I mean FVWM is NOT a acronym for Fluxbox but another Window Manager
"FVWM-Crystal is built on top of FVWM, a basic window manager."
http://xwinman.org/
http://www.fvwm.org/
http://fvwm-crystal.org/
http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/ - bluntarski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Like I've said before: Xfce is my window manager of choice. kde and gnome are bloated pieces of crap that try to be ms windows. Afterstep is another one to try if you aren't a noob.
- TedyBear, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I will definetly have to try the FVWM-Crystal enhancement on Fluxbox, I've been using vanilla fluxbox for a long time and it never crossed my mind you could have something like that... The versatility of linux is unmatched.
- liminaldust, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0This article's not worth the read. If you even read just a little bit about DE's, you'd know everything he talks about. The pros and cons of each desktop is generalized too much, with no detail. That said, it's nice that he talked more a bit about Xfce, which is just as good as gnome and kde. I liked watching through the Xfce demos a lot more than reading the bull that he wrote.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"First, you may be bored of the one you are using..."
That's it? The primary reason to switch is because you're a bored OS hobbyist?
There can never be a "better" desktop. If one ever does introduce a significant new innovative feature, the others will just copy it. "Survival of the fittest" is the Open Source theory but reality is more like "co-existence of the mediocre".
So why not pick one and anoint it as the "Linux standard" desktop? Business tends to prefer a standard for training reasons and the OS hobbyist wouldn't be left out as he could still choose to switch whenever he becomes bored. Everyone could be happy, no? - damentz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Kubuntu is not a great distro, I suppose xubuntu and ubuntu are though. Although it looks great when you first install it, its the little things that make you change back to the comfort of the previous distro you used.
- iqula, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Kubuntu is king and easy to install for the beginner another very cool to checkout these desktops quickly in full action with no iso download is at http://www.cosmopod.com, one can actually own a desktop online free with 1GB online diskspace here
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Poll: If you could chose your OS, which one would it be?
http://www.pollburner.com/takePoll.php?id=1be05bfeaf15
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
