One of the major roadblocks for Unix was the lack of one single standardized platform for applications. Linux seems to be following along the same line, although on a different parallel. To compete head-to-head with Microsoft, Linux advocates should standardize the platform, A. Russell Jones says.
Linux vs. Windows: Choice vs. Usability
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
While consistency might be nice in a UI, the question is, whose consistency? People are different, and UI people refuse to acknowledge that.
1) I *hate* drag and drop. Detest it. Never even consider using it in an app. It drove me insane that BeOS (an otherwise finely designed UI) didn’t have copy/paste for files. For some unfortunate reason, Drag & Drop seems to be all the rage in UIs…
2) I don’t like tons of icons in my toolbars. I don’t like toolbars in general, actually. Windows apps (especially Microsoft apps) are replete with tiny cryptic icons in three layers of toolbars.
3) I hate task-based UIs. Very inefficient and time-wasting. Similarly, I hate wizards, because I can never be sure if they’re doing exactly what I want to do. Again, Windows is full of them.
Now, a standard Linux GUI looked anything like the Windows GUI (which seems to be popular), I’d have to put up with an interface I absolutely cannot stand. What do I do now?
I have to bring this back to my assertion that the people bitching about consistency aren’t really Linux users. The “commercial developer” examples prove it. Almost no Linux software is made by commercial developers. Its all OSS software, mostly specially tailored for your desktop environment. Certainly, all the little apps I use on a daily basis are like these. When you do use commercial software in Linux, its for stuff that there are no OSS counterparts for. Photoshop would be a good example. The nice thing about these apps, though, is that are so powerful that the interfaces are pretty specialized anyway. Certainly, a knowledge of basic Windows GUI workings doesn’t get you very far in Photoshop or Matlab! Thus, for these apps, it doesn’t matter what toolkit they use! Just looking the same (via themes like Geramik or Bluecurve) is enough to bring the consistency level about up to that of Windows!
Sorry, that doesn’t work. If you don’t want choices, then you can’t have choices. Choosing in Linux really isn’t that hard. It consists of two major choices:
1) Desktop Environment
2) Distribution
Once you have those two, all the other apps fall out from there. If you go with SuSE, your package manager becomes YaST/RPM, your desktop becomes KDE, your standard office suite becomes KOffice, your AIM client becomes kopete, etc. Its really quite easy.
PS> I think this “freedom not to choose” idea has an air of bullshit to it. Its not like you don’t have to choose in Windows. Why do you use Word rather than Lotus WordPro? Why do you use AIM rather than Trillian or MSN? Why do you use Visual Studio rather than Borland C++ Builder? Why do you use KaZaA rather than Overnet? Why WinZip rather than PkZip? Of course, its because you know the Windows computing culture, and you know what apps are popular and which ones aren’t! Without this same knowledge of Linux culture, you’re really in no position to bitch about too many choices. And if you talked less, and listened more, maybe you’d have this necessary knowledge of Linux culture. Let me give you a very simple example:
Should I use AbiWord, OpenOffice, or KWord? Does this mean I have to go and research the features of all of them? No!Its an absolutely simple question for Linux users. If you absolutely need a lot of power, you have to use OpenOffice. Otherwise, if you need something simple and light, use whichever goes with your desktop: AbiWord for GNOME and KWord for KDE. Linux users know that, just as Windows users know that AIM is most straightforward if all your friends are on AIM, while Trillian is the one to use if you have friends on IRC, AIM, and MSN.
1) I *hate* drag and drop. Detest it. Never even consider using it in an app. It drove me insane that BeOS (an otherwise finely designed UI) didn’t have copy/paste for files. For some unfortunate reason, Drag & Drop seems to be all the rage in UIs…
Well, so BeOS didn’t have copy&paste. BeOS is not Linux, so that’s really off-topic. Also, drag&drop is completely “invisible”, since adding drag&drop doesn’t take away screen space.
So why don’t you just use beloved copy&paste instead of drag&drop and shut up?
2) I don’t like tons of icons in my toolbars. I don’t like toolbars in general, actually. Windows apps (especially Microsoft apps) are replete with tiny cryptic icons in three layers of toolbars.
Well gee, then don’t use the toolbars. If you don’t like the fact that toolbars take away space, you can usually hide/remove them in Linux applications.
3) I hate task-based UIs. Very inefficient and time-wasting. Similarly, I hate wizards, because I can never be sure if they’re doing exactly what I want to do. Again, Windows is full of them.
I agree with you in cases where there is no way around the wizard. However, usually there is.
Now, a standard Linux GUI looked anything like the Windows GUI (which seems to be popular), I’d have to put up with an interface I absolutely cannot stand. What do I do now?
You configure it to your liking. That’s the whole point.
I have to bring this back to my assertion that the people bitching about consistency aren’t really Linux users.
I believe that’s true. However, it’s not because of the reasons that you seem to imply.
I believe the people bitching about consistency aren’t really Linux users, because if they were, they’d know that it’s really not as bad as they make it sound.
Seriously, the fact that checkboxes in Gnome apps don’t look exactly like checkboxes in KDE apps simply isn’t that big a deal, it’s just graphical fluff. My (virtually computer illiterate) parents make occasionally remarks that it’s “weird” how OOo looks so different from KDE. But it doesn’t confuse them or make them slower in their work.
There _are_ some consistency things that matter a little bit more, e.g. that the order of Ok/Cancel buttons isn’t the same across KDE and Gnome. This reverse-order thing can be slightly confusing unless you remember which toolkit the current app uses – and that’s not something one should have to do (yes, I’m a programmer and occasional driver hacker, but I *really* don’t want to deal with this stuff even though I know how; it just takes away time).
The more serious problems of “the Linux desktop” have nothing to do with consistency, but with interoperability, i.e. standards – and I’m not talking about the kind of toolkit monopoly that the original article promotes, because that would be just plain dumb.
Standards are necessary, because without them, a barrier exists between different applications that stops the work-flow. If you can’t drag&drop some text from a word processor into an E-mail client, something’s seriously wrong. I know, copy&paste usually works today, but there’s no excuse for the fact that intra-toolkit drag&drop works perfectly while inter-toolkit drag&drop doesn’t.
And yes, I’m talking about the standards that http://www.freedesktop.org/ is working on, like Drag&Drop, standardized application menu layout across desktops, application embedding, and so on.
And the good news is: Yes, somebody is already working on it!
There are people who already know what is needed to improve “the Linux desktop”. It just takes some time to get there.
> To compete head-to-head with Microsoft, Linux advocates
> should standardize the platform, A. Russell Jones says.
A $100,000 Merc doesn’t need to compete with a $5000 car
made in late 80’s. Linux doesn’t need to compete with
(*** fill with the words of your choice *** ;-)) Windoops.
>>I have not read the article … from what I see here it seems that most people simply don’t see the point the author is trying to make. <<
That is a bit of a steep assertion to make, seeing that you haven’t even read the article and only the title !!!
Anyway on a different note. The problem is not GTK or QT (on a look and feel note: distributions have unified themes so apps look similar) the problem is whether developers adhere to the HIG. Gnome (especially Ximian’s) has a very good HIG, yet if developers don’t bother with it – that is when you get inconsistancy – a problem that certainly is not unique to Linux – Windows has tons of 3rd party apps that behave differently to the MS Windows / Office apps – so i don’t understand the problem. in terms of unification, well freedesktop.org is working towards some of that establishing guidelines for GUIs and Window-Managers.
I guess the point i am making is, that the article is pretty irrelevant, because
A) the same issues arise in windows (unless you use exclusevely MS products, which is hardly the case)
B) steps are already taken towards more standards
C) MS Windows is not user-friendly par se, it simply is because that is what most people are used to – give people a week or two to play around with gnome or kde and i bet people would adapt very easily.
anyway – please read the article before you comment on the article or the comments
You seemed to have missed my point
I think I’m on your side in this argument. The reason I used those examples was because they are irritants that plague me when I have to use Windows but don’t in my beloved KDE. My point was that a “standard Linux GUI” would most likely adopt these popular features, which would defeat the purpose of my using Linux to get away from them!
I believe that’s true. However, it’s not because of the reasons that you seem to imply.
>>>>>>>>
My implication was that the people complaining about Linux consistency don’t understand that while consistency is nice, the form that consistency takes is very personal. KDE and GNOME exist seperately because they are different. They are internally consistent, but are different from each other because their userbases have different tastes. Its the freedom to use the environment that’s suited to your taste, not the one foisted upon by standardization that makes Linux special.
I believe the people bitching about consistency aren’t really Linux users, because if they were, they’d know that it’s really not as bad as they make it sound.
>>>>>>>>
I would agree with that. While I don’t share your view that KDE & GNOME are very similar, I have said many times that within KDE or GNOME, the level of consistency is far higher than you’d find on your average Windows desktop.
The more serious problems of “the Linux desktop” have nothing to do with consistency, but with interoperability, i.e. standards – and I’m not talking about the kind of toolkit monopoly that the original article promotes, because that would be just plain dumb.
>>>>>>>
Again, I complete agree. I mentioned exactly that type of work (specifically freedesktop.org) in an earlier post
“The more serious problems of “the Linux desktop” have nothing to do with consistency, but with interoperability, i.e. standards – and I’m not talking about the kind of toolkit monopoly that the original article promotes, because that would be just plain dumb.
Standards are necessary, because without them, a barrier exists between different applications that stops the work-flow. If you can’t drag&drop some text from a word processor into an E-mail client, something’s seriously wrong. I know, copy&paste usually works today, but there’s no excuse for the fact that intra-toolkit drag&drop works perfectly while inter-toolkit drag&drop doesn’t.
And yes, I’m talking about the standards that http://www.freedesktop.org/ is working on, like Drag&Drop, standardized application menu layout across desktops, application embedding, and so on.”
I’d agree with that, I can easily live with applications that look different, but I’m unwilling to put up with not being able to cut, copy and paste between apps. Hopefully freedesktop.org will manage to get basic features like that standardized sooner rather than later.
‘”…leave it up to the user/distro to make sure it works.”
Which is exactly the problem with Linux. Most users don’t have the ability or want to screw with learning how or even attempting to “make sure it works.”
Windows runs out of the box.
OS X runs out of the box. “
Mandrake runs out of the box
Hello? It sounds like two-thirds of those commenting missed the entire point of article, as usual, and the thread degenerated into a squabble about the finer points of why it would be impractical/impossible/undesirable to have Linux standards. It sounds like they read the words but didn’t hear what he was saying, or else they translated it into something that fits their own agenda. Having standards that Linux developers can agree on will only help the Linux community.
Anyone who badmouths this article must want MS to keep their evil regime going. This article is excellent, describes the main problem with Linux and why it cannot yet compete w Windows or Mac. Thanks to the author, A. Russell Jones.
This article is excellent. But I fear Linux will never really compete with microsoft for desktop because Linux advocate dont really want this. I’ve read so many post and those linux advocate sounds like 3 years old boy. Their point is always the same : “If someone doesn’t like linux, it’s because he’s too much inexperienced”. (In others words : look at me how good I’m with linux).Well, imagin if their OS they feel so great (better than usual users) gets common as Windows.. they will need another “marginal” OS. The author is unfortunately one of a small group which could make linux a good desktop OS. You should listen to pple like him.