KDE and GNOME, the open-source software projects that together form the face of most Linux installations, have undergone revisions that boost their usability and enterprise readiness – advances that build the case for Linux as a viable alternative to Windows on mainstream corporate desktops.
eWEEK: GNOME, KDE Aim at Windows
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Nice article, but the headline is misleading because windows is mentioned only in the first paragraph. the article is more a comparison of the two leading DEs on Linux. Maybe the author had another text in mnd.
First, I agree with the previous post. The connection is indirect in the fact that the author is asserting that the Gnome and KDE improvements are going to challenge Windows by talking about how much better they’ve become rather than saying that these improvements threaten windows.
Having said that I think both desktop enviroments are excellent. I personally prefer KDE but Gnome has the appeal of being slick and simplistic in its function. Also, both have become much more integrated with the various programs that come with each. Both development teams are doing a great job and are making huge improvements with each release
Well I think that the editor who choose that headline was on to the fact that the secret to making a good DE for an OS is out and M$ might just be lossing thier lock tight hold on the desktop design. But still poor choice in headline wording.
Poor Linux (Kernel) integration, see Mac OS X for a good example of integration. Too many operations require the use of a Terminal (bad).
When distros mature enough and get rid of the need for a Terminal then it’s going to be ready for desktop use.
Too many operations require the use of a Terminal (bad).
Any examples ?
GNUstep, http://www.gnustep.org/
Live CD,
http://www.linuks.mine.nu/gnustep/
Why not? Apple did it with OS X, did they not?
You don’t make an OS written “by a developper for the developpers” a desktop OS without rewritting it…
—-
on the same argument the windows OS was made for the desktop. rewrite it for the network servers?. it doesnt work that way buddy
I’ve tested several Linuxes (mostly the Knoppix LiveCD). I am very disappointed that big companies with a lot of mancraft and money (like Novell, IBM) never change the way of how Linux basically works. On the over Hand, the useability has definetly beeing increased – but many things can only be done below the interface and that works in the same way like it worked for UNIX in the past 30 or 40 years.
From this poit of view I agree with with Leo.
NeXT was aimed to be a useable UNIX for Developers as well as for Desktop Users like grahics designers and layouters – this is an essentially different target than Linux’s (beeing a free 386 UNIX for Students and Hackers). With MacOS X it became a system that a new user wouldn’t identify as an UNIX System.
I really see a wanted development from the Linux sponsors to make Linux not an easy to use system – such systems didn’t need service and administration. So especially IBM won’t make Linux easier. Easier to work with sure, but not easier to maintain. IBM has always been a company that sold service to normal persons. That’s why homecomputers were invented – to stop IBM from creating Computers no normal person may use. And with Linux IBM puts us in the same position like before the homecomputers – thanks
This is more about messanging and mail clients, how is a backwards desktop going to replace windows just on a couple of apps like that? Fair dinkum you blokes! These guys must be desperate for these DE’s to be accepted to publish rubbish like this. Like what do I do once I’ve checked my mail, boot back into windows to get some real work done?
Quote:
“Like what do I do once I’ve checked my mail, boot back into windows to get some real work done?”
Firstly, the average person uses email and IM quite a fair bit. And web browsing i’ll add. I’d say that for the average person, those 3 items take up 90% of the usage time. The rest most probably goes down to writing documents via MS Word etc.
How do you define real work? Please explain. Are you referring to Windows ONLY based applications, that have proprietary lock-in methods? I’ve been using Libranet for nearly a year now without any need for Microsoft Windows. And guess what? It does *everything* that I need. Without any issues. So, by my experience, your argument is moot. If, of course, you are referring to using proprietary lock-in applications, then your comment may be right. The funny thing is though, Linux and BSD have quite a fair number of replacements for nearly every type of application that you could use in Windows. Not all of them are totally polished, or have all of the features of their Windows counterparts, but they’re pretty damn good nevertheless.
One more thing:
Away get thee troll!
Dave
“When distros mature enough and get rid of the need for a Terminal then it’s going to be ready for desktop use.”
Funny you should mention – eliminating the <strong>requirement</strong> to use a terminal for things like configuring printers, networking, etc, is an explicit goal for Fedora. (I don’t have the link handy – sorry, I tried!)
The terminal has little, if nothing, to do with desktop usability. In fact, the terminal should remain a key part of administrating systems on a local machine or on the network.
Graphic user interfaces should provide spartan, frequently used and less intimidating functionalities to users. The terminal’s role is to provide administrators, and power users with advanced techniques that are awkward, or inefficient, to simulate with a graphic user interface.
The GUI should compliment the CLI and vice versa, not replace each other. Advocating that removing the CLI from the desktop will improve desktop computing is erroneous. If anything, it will make your GUIs cluttered with functionalities and options that hinder user productivity.
I wouldn’t say that Mac OS X has a good integration between the kernel and the GUI. For
example in the terminal a path looks like /Volumes/Files/foo.bar, while everywhere else it
is a fake Mac OS classic path, like Files:foo.bar. Should we consider this consistent?
Mac OS X has done many things right, like the pseudo filesystem for Audio CDs, but as an
example for good integration between kernel and GUI I would still only name BeOS.
Exactly! And I might add that for an operating system to be easy to use you have to understand how to use it. Unfortunately that’s not very possible when you’re restricted to the GUI, since there HAS to be innerworkings behind the UI.
Yes, there are always going to be people who refuse to understand how their computers actually work (which is a sketchy way to live, I might add, not understanding things you come to rely on). However, for these people we are making great strides in UI administration for just that, configuring the UI. I’m of the mind that actual system configuration should be done automatically and not clutter the UI. If something breaks then then tech support can help you fix it via the CLI.
Then there will always be those of us who prefer the CLI as our UI.
What is the real work for you? I use Linux and many KDE/QT-Apps for real work I earn money with. And no, it has nothing to do with system administration or other stuff that requires a good Linux-knowledge. I am writing and do some graphics stuff. The reason why I use Linux is that i does everything I need for a reasonable price. The invitations I made for the 50th birthday of my father could have been done on Windows, but I would have needed some programs that would cost real money. With Linux, it took 5 minutes to download/install Inkscape and Scribus to get the job done. Same with my work. Todays Linux-Desktops can do the same for you as your average windows-box. Who needs Photoshop? 80 % of the users won´t need it. Office-programs? Which home-desktop needs more than OOo (Togehter with a good dictionary like “Duden”)? It is sufficient for almost every job (Which writer needs more than an text-editor with counting-capabilities and Rich-Text?).
Why should anyone use a System that costs him a lot of money when he can have a system that comes for free? That is much more flexible? That doesn´t crash (at least, not for me in three years)? That has more eye candy (if you wnat that)?
Exactly! You’ve hit the nail right on the head Jan.
Dave
Too many operations require the use of a Terminal (bad).
Any examples ?
Here is one:
Handling of posix ACLs. Most modern unix file systems now support posix ACLs so I think it would be nice if this more advanced permission control system would reflect on the GUI.
This would be very welcome especially if you intend to share files with samba.
Most of my basic computing knowledge comes from the days when I had a small, slow but reliable Mac. This Computer doesn’t even had a Shell, but a good manual and a good logical interface.
Understanding what computers are really doing is not necessarily a need, if the computer just works as it’s expeted to do. But that’s really another question and another topic.
Thank you, David!
It´s all about rational choice. What do I need? How can I get it? How much do I have to pay? I did apragmatic choice after dual-booting for two years and realizing that I rarely needed the command line and that my work could be done on Linux with less trouble and less money.
I understand that some people need their windows machines or Macs for some reason. but I can´t stand it when someone is generalizing, that real work only can be done on Windows and Linux is only for Freaks with too much time and no real life. That was the case years ago I think, but with every new Linux-app developed Linux becomes more of a mainstream system that can be used for real work.
First, I did mean to say that for an operating system to be easy to use you need to understand what it’s doing. You got that, but it’s not what I actually said, so I wanted to clear it up.
That’s how I started out too (the first Mac, in fact). Yes, I knew how to use the word processor, the paint program, and how to do most things within the UI. However, if someone had gone and changed how you launch programs it would have taken time to figure that out. Now I can change between window managers freely, and not only have absolutely no problem finding the root menu, but I have no problems finding how to add and remove entries, even in the likes of Fluxbox and XFCE and their absence of menu interfaces.
Of course, we both have probably always had the understanding that computers are a tool, to be used as an extension of ourselves. That they only do what we tell them to. People who don’t understand that stand out like a sore thumb, getting frustrated easily when the computer doesn’t just do what they want. With just a little bit more understanding of how it actually works would allow them to take a deep breath, step back for a moment, and figure out how to do what they want.
In the other direction, I believe the ideal Linux system would allow you to boot into a GUI and accomplish all of your tasks, yet be simple enough under the hood so that a user can dive into the command line and begin to learn what they aim to. I think most people can handle this if the UI guided them into it and provided more accessible info pages. As it is, Windows won’t even allow this, and while some simpler Linux distributions don’t provide much impediment, the more popular ones are far too complex, resulting in roadblocks. While allowing people dive deep into the operating system is great, I think what’s needed is to tweak the OS so that the OS teaches about itself, reflexively.
Of course, this stems from my philosophy that it’s not healthy to rely on things you don’t understand. Maybe we fundamentally disagree there.
——————————-
Too many operations require the use of a Terminal (bad).
Any examples ?
Here is one:
Handling of posix ACLs. Most modern unix file systems now support posix ACLs so I think it would be nice if this more advanced permission control system would reflect on the GUI.
This would be very welcome especially if you intend to share files with samba.
————————
Oooh, yeah, i get what you mean!! My father and my grandmother
would absolutely hate it if i told them they could not
handle their POSIX ACL’s with a GUI!! …
hmm.. then again, they might just give me a blank stare
and ask me what the hell am i talking about…
> “When distros mature enough and get rid of the need for a Terminal then it’s going to be ready for desktop use.”
Even under windows you still need to use a command line for some things, no matter how mature an OS you can’t not have some kind of terminal.
“Even under windows you still need to use a command line for some things, no matter how mature an OS you can’t not have some kind of terminal.”
That is very true. I can think of two examples right off the top of my head:
1) Symlinks. Windows has the feature but for some idiot reason, there’s no gui way to use them
2) Rename multiple files. ren *.htm *.txt simpler than going around and clicking each file, press F2 and then rename.
my gauge has all ways been the media player. mplayer and realplayer, I have not been able to use at PBS online newshour. Until now. Just yesterday, using Slackware current and Gnomeand mozilla, i was able to watch the videos at online newshour using helixplayer. I have yet to try it at ifilm.com. the integration of java and mozilla was the trick and Slackware made that easy to do. the only real work on my part was copying the plugins into the mozilla plugin directory. soon, hopefully i will never need XP again.
I have been redmond free since October 2003.
I do “everything” now in Slackware Linux and Dropline GNOME that I used to do with that redmond platform.
I do all my personal and off-site work-related activities in it. It increased my productivity levels. No more infernal reboots, constant patching, redmond-targeted viuses or worms, or easy cracking by outside malcontents.
Having a powerful CLI in terminal beats the limited legacy crap from Redmond.
Basically I agree with you, Michael. This would be a good way of a Linux I think. Working with something you don’t understand can be a risk of course.
All other things rely on Trust. For example most people are not able to know exactly what the CPU is doing at this moment, except the ones who created the CPU. So I have to trust the manufacturer that the Device is not doing anything stupid at this moment. This basic problem will never disappear.
I would like to see some kind of an “Edu” Linux that allows you to learn all the vital basics about UNIX without confrontating you with 100000s of files and folders.
Matthias
This reviewer doesn’t have a clue about Kontact. Kontact:
1) Does offer the option to view html without downloading anything. It is just not the default option.
2) The scroll down is not a bug: it is a design decision. You can select the next message with the left and right keys. Try it! If you don’t like it, then change the key bindings.
An expert in the eWEEK lab should know better.
Hmmm… an “edu” distribution… now you’ve gotten me thinking. Something documentation driven, like Linux From Scratch, but binary and with a strong package manager like that in Arch Linux. It might not even be that difficult of a project, tweaking routines and rewriting documentation, since man and info are already quite powerful.
As far as hardware and trust, I think that really comes down to the centralization of our economy into big business. On the software front we’ve obviously begun to transition into a solution with OSS, but hardware is going to be much more difficult. Given, I don’t think we have much to worry about with the hardware in our boxes at this moment, but there is some frightening legislation going on right now (INDUCE for example). Still though, the situation is sketchy at best, in my opinion.
That is the clunkiest interface of them all!
Oooh, yeah, i get what you mean!! My father and my grandmother
would absolutely hate it if i told them they could not
handle their POSIX ACL’s with a GUI!! …
hmm.. then again, they might just give me a blank stare
and ask me what the hell am i talking about…
I guess they would give you a blanc stare if you mentioned standard unix permissions such as read, write and execute as well. They would probably run as root and have all file permissions for all kinds of operations.
In fact, you could say that Unix, winNT/2k/XP is not suitable for use by people like this. These OSes are all full of features needed in the office that only is extra trouble on a single user machine. They would probably be better of running win98, and I would not expect much growth for the free desktop for these types of customers.
However, if we look at whats needed in the office it looks quite different. Here files need to be shared and accessed by the right people with the right permission. The ability to set permissons on a per user basis, rather than per file owner basis is extremely useful.
The Unix admin may also be annoyed by the fact that Windows users can use the GUI of windows to set permissions on his Unix samba server that he only can change, and even worse, only can see from the command line.
If the admin turns off the ACL stuff, his windows users will wonder why that samba server acts so strangely when he tries to give some friend some permissions to a file.
Seriously, if there was a style of KDE or GNOME that simply skinned Windows, it would make transitioning a lot easier.
Not many people will uninstall Windows, but many people will play with its look and feel.
GUI ACL Manager:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/guiaclmanager/
GTK-ACL:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/gtk-acl/
Linux is a kernel! Only a kernel and nothing more. Any discussion about interfaces and terminals should be directed to Gnome/KDE. Hmm isn’t that what the origional article is about?
except that GNOME and KDE aren’t themes, skins or even window managers. They’re desktop environments. You can make them look however the heck you want. A “GNOME skin” or “KDE skin” for Windows wouldn’t make any sense at all.
Yes, Mystilleef’s comments are correct. A famous quote that circulated when the GUI was first developed is that it would “make simple tasks easier and hard tasks impossible.” Many UNIX developers were unimpressed by the original Mac when it was unveiled as they felt “there was nothing to it.” In a sense they were right as it was extremely simple and lacked “power user” functions. However, it met the needs of most users most of the time.
Other operating systems have since attempted to eliminate the need for a command line by putting power functionality into the GUI. As a result, the ease of use which is the main advantage of the GUI has diminished as it becomes cluttered with ambiguous icons, overwhelming dialogue boxes and “hidden” functionality which is difficult to find.
A system whereby the GUI remains extremely simple, “dejargonised” and limited to most common tasks would allow non-technical users to achieve their work without difficult, provided the command line was available for power users with a stronger understanding of how their computer works to do more complicated tasks. In this way, I believe that GNOME, combined with the Shell, are the best alternatives on Linux. I do not believe GNOME is yet mature but it is making progress and truly becoming inuitive. OS X, with the option of a terminal are also heading in the correct direction.
Another thought to bear in mind is that not all people are visually-oriented. Many of us work better with language than graphics and actually find the command-line easy to use. Some people struggle with commands for years and fidn the learning curve extremely difficult, whilst others grasp it easily.
@Moderator: poor share of Linux on Desktop speaks for itself… Oh, wait, maybe within 4 more years and 4 more layers (X, KDE,…) it will (again !) be ready for the desktop, who knows after all ?
Leo.
Quote:
“poor share of Linux on Desktop speaks for itself”
Ahh! How about blaming Microsoft for having an illegal monopoly that the US government refuses to deal with for monetary/fiscal reasons? How about blaming the fact that Microsoft quite happily stifles any real development that isn’t its own?
Imagine if hardware vendors weren’t forced to sign ludicrous licensing agreements with Microsoft that forbid them from either selling hardware without an o/s, or with an alternative o/s? mmm? Microsoft is so afraid of getting its butt kicked badly by “alternative operating systems” that it’s forcing the hardware vendors to either play by its games or not at all.
I still fail to see how the US government could not find fault with this system, nor how they could still allow it to continue, despite complaints from Dell during the US DOJ investigation of Microsoft. But that’s another story of corruption and corporate greed. I *bet* if we removed this sort of licensing power of Microsoft that things would actually start to change, and change for the better and then there’d be *real* competition in the market.
No more “Dell if you ship Linux instead of Windows on your PCs we’ll stop giving you Windows at $39 and you’ll have to pay our ‘normal’ wholesale price instead (circa $200)”. That’s really not being anticompetitive, honest guv’nor. Note the sarcasm. It’s another reason (along with broken patents system, broken copyrights system, US corporate greed) that I cannot endorse the American way of living.
Dave W Pastern
Linux’s share on the desktop is of the same magnitude as Mac’s. So are you saying that Apple’s small marketshare suggests poor quality of it’s products?
This is insane, I have had my kids on Linux (Debian with KDE)
for about 2 years now. they can do everything that they where doing in windows. my kids ages range from 5 to16.
none of them have a problem, they logon get there work done,play there music, videos whatever. these (reviewers) and Other barely computer literate people say how “Linux” is not ready, and such and such needs to be done is utter nonsense.
linux on the desktop is ready now, some of the major work that needs to be done are drivers, which are beening handle by the venders themselfs. and improving X, which is also beening handled.
the “command line” needs to be More powerful not less, i am a sysadmin, and I can not tell you how many times, i wish, things where more easyly scriptable in windows, without using vbs, or having to install perl, or the fact if i want to login to windows machine without a gui, and not use telnet. your screwed. you have to install 3 party apps, and stuff not very cool for production servers.
but:
my Linux and other *nix servers. i have ssh, and everything i can do in the gui i can also do in the command line.
very useful,
-Nex6
—
I guess they would give you a blanc stare if you mentioned standard unix permissions such as read, write and execute as well. They would probably run as root and have all file permissions for all kinds of operations.
—
Well, no. They run win2k at my sister’s, and My parents
borrow my linux (and only) box whenever they need
to do anything (email, office). And they use my (always
open) normal user session, they never need anything
that’s outside the home directory, and hence they
never run into permission problems.
—-
In fact, you could say that Unix, winNT/2k/XP is not suitable for use by people like this. These OSes are all full of features needed in the office that only is extra trouble on a single user machine. They would probably be better of running win98, and I would not expect much growth for the free desktop for these types of customers.
—–
I would say that permissions are always an advanced
topic, and since we are discussing desktop operating
systems, my point is that permissions and ACL’s, however
difficult to understand, should never be a problem.
Simply because in regular desktop use, you should be
able to use your computer without knowing anything at
all about the issue.
—
However, if we look at whats needed in the office it looks quite different. Here files need to be shared and accessed by the right people with the right permission. The ability to set permissons on a per user basis, rather than per file owner basis is extremely useful.
—
This is the job of the sysadmin. Not of the user
of the workstation. Where i work there are public
shares, there’s area-spceific shares, and only one
person in each area has admin permissions on his own
workstation in order to do several things such as
investigate new programs to do his job, or share files.
We use samba and our server room is 90% Linux, and
we never have encountered a single permissions problem
with this.
But then again, I supposed we were talking about the
desktop. my original (sarcastic) post was trying
to make a simple point: If we are discussing desktop
use, stuff like ACLs do not matter at all.
—-
The Unix admin may also be annoyed by the fact that Windows users can use the GUI of windows to set permissions on his Unix samba server that he only can change, and even worse, only can see from the command line.
—-
The Unix admin *should* be worried if people can change
file permissions on a share they do not own at all.
Especially if there are different shares and servers
precisely to avoid this need.
—–
If the admin turns off the ACL stuff, his windows users will wonder why that samba server acts so strangely when he tries to give some friend some permissions to a file.
—–
If the desktop user needs to waste time setting
permissions on network shares, then the admin is not
doing his homework.
When distros mature enough and get rid of the need for a Terminal then it’s going to be ready for desktop use.
So why is MS trying to bring back the terminal and strong CLI command line scripting language and tools ? Your statement here as others have mention is plain dumb. The command line is linux is not the problem in fact it’s a high point IMHO.
Hello.
A CLI is faster of course – that’s why CLIs are existing. Faster in the way of responsiveness, faster drawing and of course much faster workflow if you know the commands.
A good GUI can make Systems easier and more intuitive to use. A bad GUI can opposite that effect.
But in General that Linux isn’t applicable to Desktops is not a basic descision between CLI or GUI. It has to do with buisness and of course the way Linux handles things like installing drivers, software …
@Michael again
Yes, it won’t be too hard. Maybe you know some guys who could do such a thing. I’m more or less a BeOS/ZETA User and I even have no idea who I should ask
Matthias
I don’t think I know enough for it yet, but maybe in a year or two I’ll be ready to handle the documentation myself. Then I’d just need someone to handle the code and scripts.
I use myself KDE and has been since KDE 3.1. I also use gnome occasionaly, like when I have installed latest(beta) KDE and something has gone wrong
. Of course Gnome is a very nice Desktop Environment, userfriendly with lots of features but compare to KDE and its set of applications it is weak (especially for a developer).
The reviewer mentioned that in Kmail you could not scroll through your mails by up and down arrow. That is correct, in Kmail you do that by right and left arrow and you use the up and down to scroll through selected mail. This is much better instead of using mouse highlighting the right window again and agin to scroll in, and very simple to pick up.
The other thing of which I am a bit confused at is that Evolution is not part of Gnome, it is a standalone gtk aplication which you download through Novels homepage. But Kontact is within the KDE project.
I don’t understand why people would want to get rid of the terminal either, as if thought of properly, it makes tech support much easier.
Imagine a user calling because their DNS aren’t being resolved properly. Using the GUI you tell them to, “go to this menu, now this submenu, choose networking, click the DNS tab, type XXX.XXX.XXX.XX here, and click add, now choose OK and see if it works.” All the way they’re responding, “which menu? I don’t see that menu in this menu, oh wait, there it is, but where’s ‘Network?’ What is a DNS anyway?”
Or you can just tell them to, “open up a terminal and, as superuser, type ‘echo XXX.XXX.XXX.XX >> /etc/resolv.conf'”
Also, with most problems a script can be written much more easily to save the customer trouble, making it a viable option in more cases. Plus, I’d think remote administration is a much simpler matter on the command line.
Not to mention you can just do more. Extra commands don’t clutter the interface, while just a few extra check boxes of configuration options on a GUI drastically hurt the users ability to actually comprehend what they’re doing.
But I’m still rather new to *nix, so maybe I missed something or wasn’t quite right about another.
>Ahh! How about blaming Microsoft for having an illegal monopoly that the US government refuses to deal with for monetary/fiscal reasons?
If you really think 90% (and maybe more) of computers in the World are running Win while they could run Unix/Linux only because of MS policy: maybe you should think again. There are surely sheeps… But not every Win user is a sheep. Far from that…
Leo.
Keep in mind that Gnome isn’t packaged like KDE, so you have more apparent options, and you don’t have as much tendency to be dragged into one application if you just want another. I would suspect that Evolution is a standard choice in corporate Gnome environments, if such a thing can be said at all, because of both it’s functionality and the fact that it’s Novell.
I’m glad you’ve found happiness in KDE, but keep in mind that some people prefer a simpler interface with less functionality they’ll never use, and still manage to get just as much done. There’s no one just right for everyone.
It is, ihmo, a desktop that works as millions of users expect it to, and are used to: Windows.
It’s a desktop where you don’t need to compile your software, or to know about “root” and permissions and “dynamic device driver creation” in order to just plug in your camera and see it’s pictures, where you don’t have to handtweak obscure .dotfiles to obtain what you need or to create a fake mixing device in alsa to have more than 2 audiostrems together…
This is what millions users expect: plug in my scanner? Voilà!
Users do not have *any* need to be forced to understand things, they have instead *all* the rights to expect the system to work.
But Windows’s got problems: security, stability, you name them (forget for an instant only being closed source).
What can Linux do? It can become a Windows *better* than windows: same easy, no trouble!
Hey, my Slack10 has been up for a week with periodical suspend/resume cycles (it’s on a laptop), and still *not* a problem!
So give the users a easy to use graphical interface, and make it easy to configure a printer, scanner, tv tuner or similar widespread peripherals, a environment like windows, but without it’s flaws.
*Then*, we have Linux on the desktop.
And about the CLI, it can and must remain, it is not part of a desktop as we defined it; there is *no* need *at all* to make a average user interested in work to be done to mess with commands, pipes and whatever; MacOSX allows this, Linux must allow it, to be Ready-for-the-Desktop; powerusers will still have it and manage remote systems and program (and maybe forget X and use latex for their documents), but why do they seem to be willingful to force normal users to use a terminal?
Wasn’t Linux about choice?
most of the time if someone plugs in a scanner or something in windows what you get is a popup asking for a cd or similar.
and its been a long time since i had to compile mainstream software for linux. obscure window managers and DEs maybe but not mainstream software like spreadsheets, image software and so on.
and lately gnome have support for dbus, meaning that if you plug in a usb camera or any other device that use the usb removeable storage protocl (or similar generic prtocols for usb) to id itself, you should get a icon on the desktop and the system allready mounted. and when you close all windows/software that use that media it should automaticly dismount.
the real problem with hardware support are the makers of said hardware and the fact that they dont want to play nice with the poen source community. this means that the community often have to play a guessing game with said hardware, trying to figure out how to talk to it.
this is very troublesome with stuff like printers where every printer driver seems to have its own translation layer so that what generic printer traffic windows (for example) creates gets translated into hardware specific speak and then spit to the printer, no standards, nothing. atleast this is for home use lexmarks and so on. office and high end printers often talk postscript directly and then there is no longer a problem.
basicly computer hardware have the same problem that mechanical hardware had at the start of the industrial age. every maker of screws used their own set of inhouse standards for size of windeings and so on (classical customer lockin). only when they realy standardized this across the board (thereby makeing screws a commodity) did things realy take of, only that now we have 4-5 diffrent screw heads (that to greater or lesser degree are all compatible with the basic flat head screwdriver).
only when computer hardware become so mutch a commodity that you dont have to see driver prompts or the os have to try and id the hardware inserted to any greather level then its generic type (hmm, thats a printer, thats a digital camera, thata a keyboard. ok i have all the drivers right here) will we see the dream of plug and play realy come into being.
right now its kinda like that old ford statement, “you can have a ford in any color, as long as its black”.
I totally agree with the CLI and GUI complimenting each other. I get frustrated using windows at work because EVERYTHING (except ping and nslookup) is graphical. and I get frustrated at home using linux, cause sometimes i wish i could just click a few radio buttons rathan than dig through a bunch of text-files. But CLI can be really powerful if used right, so i see no need to get rid of it. Just add some more graphical configuration tools for those non-power user types.
this article was poorly named. i’m so sick of linux being ready for the desktop articles. was win 3.0 ready for the desktop? opinions vary. it’s just whether or not people will adopt it…
You are wrong. Evolution is a part of GNOME
http://www.gnome.org/start/2.8/notes/rnwhatsnew.html (see under applications)
actually, the way I work in evo is to have my cursor hovering at the bottom of the scrollbar in the preview pane. I hit up to get to the next unread mail, click click click to page through it, hit up again, rinse and repeat. kmail sounds like it’s just as efficient. I’d say there’s no difference between the two once you know the trick of each.
good point. I work for a company that provides internet service, among other things. When people have internet problems we do some troubleshooting from GUI and some from CLI; for checking whether the computer has pulled an IP address, and getting it renewed, it’s much easier to walk them through using ipconfig from a command line than trying to do it any other way.
but I *do* think that. Imagine if the situation were reversed, and 99% of the world’s computers were supplied with a preconfigured Linux distribution. Do you really think 95%, 50% or even 5% of people would go out, buy Windows CDs, and install Windows on those systems?
“or to know about “root” and permissions and “dynamic device driver creation” in order to just plug in your camera and see it’s pictures”
you don’t. try mdk 10.1, or the latest version of SuSE, or one of those kooky desktop distros (Lycoris or whatever). plug in camera. see photos. done.
“This is what millions users expect: plug in my scanner? Voilà!”
on any reasonably modern desktop-oriented distro, this is exactly what happens.
KDE is made of smaller packages, you could choose to install Kontact, Kmail, Kalendar and other applications or not.
The packages necessary are kdelibs, kdebase and a couple of packages taking care of artworks in KDE.
The terminal, command line interface, prompt is very useful. For an administrator on a network it much easier to log into the computers on the network and make the changes alone from one workstation. The terminal has commands that may never be duplicated in task or capability by graphical user interfaces alone.
However, for the home user, having the capability to do everything without the need for a terminal is useful in terms of ease of use and lowers the barrier for learning a new OS.