Is the Linux Desktop "On Par" With Mac and Windows? No Way!

Linux.com ^ | 14 August 2011 | Carla Schroder

[ShadowAce]

Where is the Linux desktop going, and where should it go? This is a hot topic, and an important one. Unfortunately the discussion usually starts from the wrong premise, that the Linux desktop has only recently achieved parity with its Mac OS X and Windows cousins. Not so! The Linux desktop has been superior since its early days, and would have to go backwards to achieve parity.

Now which Linux desktop are we talking about? That's a good question, and that is superior item #1: multiple desktop environments and window managers to choose from.

A Mighty Power Tool

The PC has been a mighty multi-purpose power tool from its humble beginnings. Unlike a lot of multi-purpose tools, it can do many things extremely well. You other old geezers probably remember when hardware was the limiting factor, and impatient do-it-ourselfers were continually upgrading just to keep pace with the software. Then in the early 2000s hardware caught up, and now even cheap commodity hardware has more power than we need. (Except for ghastly script-heavy poorly-coded Web pages that bring quad-cores to their knees; I laugh when people say all they need is a cheap low-power gadget for email and Web surfing. Good luck with that!)

The benchmark for the user interface has always been Windows. This is understandable due to Microsoft's lock on the market. Back in the olden days of Linux most Linux users came from Unix backgrounds. Anymore I'll wager that the majority of Linux users learned Windows first, and a goodly number of Mac users as well. Which has little to do with preference and merit, and much to do with lock-in. I started with Mac, then Windows, then Linux.

I don't like to see Linux chasing Mac and Windows, except for copying the good stuff. For the most part Linux chasing Windows is going backwards. Especially the part where each release grows by gigabytes without providing any additional functionality. Windows 7 Pro eats up a good 22GB, while Windows XP Pro consumes less than a gigabyte for itself. What do you get for all those extra gigabytes? Minesweeper, Solitaire, Notepad... um... oh yeah, drastically higher CPU and RAM requirements. Maybe to power all the nagware.

Chasing the Mac interface might make sense. But listen to Ingo Molnar's extremely insightful comment on user interface design:

"I think what the KDE4 and Gnome3 folks are doing is that they have picked Apple (and to a lesser degree, Google) UI products as their role model...the problem as I see it is that they tried to achieve this by mimicking Apple products, instead of implementing a high quality UI development process...You cannot really gap that difference by taking a giant leap in the "product space", regardless of the existing user base and regardless of the quality of the landing...

"I think OSS UI projects are also making a big mistake by mimicking the development model of closed-source projects...We should realize that our future OSS developers are sitting in front of the device they are using, most of them are at most 100-200 msecs away from a server that the developers are using - they only have to be engaged intelligently ...

"Yet we are doing everything in our power to create silly artificial walls between developers and users."

Discarding Treasure

Linux already has everything it needs to provide a superior user experience. Which users, you insightfully ask? Not Jim and Jane Sixpack, who find iPads too complicated because they can't decide which finger to poke it with. Jim and Jane aside, tablets and smartphones are wonderful devices filling a long-unserved need.

But, they are not PCs. Ever since the early days of Linux the Linux desktop it has run circles around Mac and Windows. Even back when it was raggedy and unpolished it was bursting with functionality. What good is pretty if it can't do anything, or doesn't let you do what you want? First make it do cool stuff and be reliable, then you can always pretty it up later.

Here is a partial list of things Linux can do, some new, most old, many of which Mac and Windows still can't and won't even try, or only with expensive third-party add-ons:

1. Multiple window managers to choose from.
2. Multiple desktop environments to choose from.
3. Multiple virtual desktops, as many as you want and your hardware can handle.
4. Live bootable CD, DVD, USB.
5. Portable applications that run from USB on any computer.
6. Easy to get what you need to fix it-- you don't have to keep the exactly right installation media for each PC you own, or the special secret codes, or hope and pray the authentication server actually works for once.
7. Adaptable to multiple roles, from tiny low-power embedded systems to giant workstations with multiple monitors.
8. Multiple mouse buttons.
9. Complete keyboard controls.
10. Endlessly customizable: make it your own.
11. Give it your own corporate branding, roll your own customized distro and replicate it all you want to.
12. Secure remote graphical desktop and helpdesk.
13. Classrooms via remote graphical desktop, with the options to let users make changes or lock them out.
14. Seamless integration of command line and graphical environment. You can have the console, graphical environment, and X terminals all going at the same time.
15. Hall of mirrors: run multiple nested graphical sessions.
16. Multiple simultaneous graphical sessions, not nested.
17. Multiple monitors in all kinds of configurations.
18. Easy software installation over the Internet.
19. Secure remote networking.
20. True multi-user.
21. Easy patching and updates.
22. Or manage software manually, from source code if you prefer. Say, Apple and Microsoft, where is that source code?
23. Better Mac and Windows rescue tools than Mac and Windows offer.
24. No silly artificial distinctions between desktop and server, business and home, big business, small business, etc. designed only to pry more money out of your bank account.
25. ncurses: graphical environment without X11.
26. All this newfangled compositing and fancy special effects are not my cup of tea, but I recognize their coolness, and they should drive video hardware support past its current dismal state.
27. KDE4 Activities turns virtual desktops and multiple screens into independent environments, which is something nobody else does.
28. You can be a fan and make suggestions without having attack lawyers sicced on you, like Apple did to a little girl.
29. You can wade in and contribute without having attack lawyers sicced on you.
30. You can talk directly to developers, or at least read their deep unfiltered thoughts on their blogs and mailing lists.
31. Real interop, not the fake kind the Brand Xs peddle.

The better approach is not to throw all this great stuff away in the name of simplicity, of dumbing it down drastically to appeal to "the masses." An awful lot of Linux fans have this idea that when the Linux desktop reaches the perfect level of eye-candy one-button one-finger fabulousness then the masses will flock to it. And in a way they're right, as evidenced by the success of smartphones and tablets. But — and I repeat myself — PCs are not tablets and smartphones. And, for those good people who believe that a great GUI is "intuitive", meaning anyone can pick it up and instantly start using it, guess what the consistently-best selling O'Reilly books are: iPad and iPhone books. Go see for yourself. (The supposedly-superior Windows is there too.)

Freedom

Freedom. This is the biggie. It seems a lot of Linux fans are squirmy with talking about freedom, like it's weird old hippie stuff that nobody wants to hear about. But the reality is that many people are interested. Many computer users, especially frustrated customers of the usual closed, proprietary vendors, are very interested in freedom: they like the idea of Richard Stallman's classic Four Freedoms, and recognize that these add considerable value to software.

They like the idea of freedom from crazy licensing schemes designed to confuse and overcharge, freedom from crazy unilateral end-user license "agreements" that dictate what you can do with your own property, freedom from lock-in, freedom from artificial barriers to interoperability and open standards. They want honesty and accountability, and freedom from the heavy overhead of managing proprietary licenses.

Cathy Malmrose, CEO of independent Linux vendor ZaReason, told me once that they investigated selling Windows, perhaps in dual-boot configurations. But they would have needed an extra staffer just to handle the compliance paperwork. It's just as bad for a business running even a bare complement of proprietary software, what with server licenses, client licenses, client access licenses to the servers, remote access licenses, terminal server licences and so on, all calculated for maximum redundancy. It's nuts.

So please, friends, don't sell desktop Linux short. It already towers head and shoulders above its proprietary cousins. We don't need to apologize for it because it has long provided a superior computing experience, and will only get better — as long we don't get derailed chasing inferiorware.

[kevao]

No, it was only Linux Mint that didn’t recognize my wireless card. Ubuntu worked great with all my hardware. I just didn’t like the way Ubuntu looked. It just didn’t click with me.

[kevao]

I surprised PCLinuxOS doesn’t auto configure your shares.

I haven't started my networking project yet, so I can't say. I'd be surprised if it didn't though, because everything has really been so easy for me on PCLinuxOS.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Linux is here to stay - it’s a fact of life. All the haters and the doubters can hate and doubt all they want but it’s a significant portion of the computing infrastructure. If someone prefers Windows or Mac to Linux then great - have at it - as with most things in life it’s all about a series of tradeoffs.

One truism however is that free as in beer and free as in speech is a compelling value proposition for many, many applications - and the the other two OS’s will never ever match that.

[ctdonath2]

Agreed, the PS/2 keyboard was the best ever made.

[B Knotts]

I’ve used Linux for years, but recently got a MacBook Air so I have something small, light and reliable for use out in the field.

I can’t wait to get my new desktop machine so I can get back to Linux.

Mac OS X is not horrible, but it’s not the pinnacle of perfection that it’s claimed to be. And it’s not very configurable.

[LexBaird]

First, it would be helpful to learn the way that file permissions work on Unix systems. It's usually not a good idea to be logged on as root (administrator), so "sudo" is your friend. Second, the copy command is "cp source_file target_file". So typically that would be "sudo cp source_file target_file" and then authenticate as root. To move a file, the command is "mv source target".

This is the problem. The average user has absolutely no desire to have to know this. It's like expecting people to know how to rewire their house to change a lightbulb, when all they want is to see the hallway. It's great for wireheads who want home brew, home built, tweaked hardware, and ultra-customized systems. But, most people just want to balance the checkbook and surf the net.

[stripes1776]

This is the problem. The average user has absolutely no desire to have to know this.

I agree. That is why Mac OS X is the first Unix to become popular with the home market. Apple has created a beautiful and easy-to-use graphical interface on top of Unix.

[stripes1776]

Mac OS X is not horrible...it’s not very configurable.

Mac OS X is highly configurable if a person takes the time to learn the commands. But most people don't want to spend time configuring their computers. They just want their computers to work without a lot of fuss. And I would say that the Mac does that better than any system I have ever used.

[B Knotts]

B.S.

There are many, many things that you can configure in, for instance, KDE, that you cannot configure in Mac OS X.

For instance, window focus policy.

People want their computer to “just work,” until it doesn’t work like they want it to work.

The UI has quirks that are not necessarily the best solution, like leaving a program running after closing all of its windows.

Meanwhile, Apple is changing fundamental behavior in Lion, like how scrolling works.

[Lees Swrd]

I go here and read a lot LOL. You might want to give Salix OS a spin sometimeits great on older hardware. I think they have a live version on their homepage but most you find are install disc PC Linux is a great distro might not want to change!

http://distrowatch.com/

[stripes1776]

Meanwhile, Apple is changing fundamental behavior in Lion, like how scrolling works.

Scrolling is configurable for anyway you like it in Lion. Mac OS X is highly configurable.

The default configuration has changed because most people on Macs now use a Trackpad instead of a mouse. Does your Linux box have a Trackpad? Probably not.

Here is how you change the scrolling:
1. Go to System Preferences: 2. Go to the Trackpad tab: 3. Configure scrolling the way you want. Notice that there is an animation on the right that will show how you have the system configured and will reflect any changes you make to the configuration. Does your Linux box have a video like this to show how you have the system configured?

As for scroll bars, you can configure that as well:
1. Again, go the System Preferences.
2. Select the General tab.
3. Configure it the way you want:

Does your Linux box give you this variety of configuration options?

[B Knotts]

Yes, my Mac has a trackpad. I have not yet installed Lion on it, so I don’t have to deal with the scrolling direction issue yet.

But, yes, you can configure a *lot* more in KDE than you can in Mac OS X. The argument from the Mac partisan would be that there are some things you shouldn’t be able to change/configure, but I disagree.

[stripes1776]

The argument from the Mac partisan would be that there are some things you shouldn’t be able to change/configure, but I disagree.

First, I am not a Mac partisan, any more than you are a KDE partisan. That is an exaggeration on your part. Second, I think it is clear that I have been using Linux a lot longer than you have and have a lot more experience on that platform than you.

The argument on the Mac is not that somethings should not be configurable. The design of the graphical interface is based on what has been called the 90/10 rule. Most users spend 90% of their time using just 10% of the features of the graphical interface. So that 10% is easy to configure. The other 90% is configurable, but it's not obvious how to do it to most users. You will need to go to the command line. But I am a long-time Unix user. I spend a lot of time at the command line. How much time do you spend at the command line on your Linux box? From your responses I would say very little. You have not yet discovered the power of a Unix operating system.

[B Knotts]

Heh...you don’t know much about me. I’ve been using Linux since 1.x kernel days and SysV and BSD UNIX and VMS before that.

[kevao]

Try Rhythmbox or Amarok and add gtkPod.

Thanks for that. I got it to work now with gtkPod and Amarok. What sucks is the system won't automount the IPod. It will recognize the device only if it's plugged in on a boot-up. I went into my Device Notifier Settings and the IPod was listed there, and I had the option to check "Automount on Attach," but still no luck. Only shows up when I restart.

But I can easily live with this.

[papasmurf]

There are several methods to manually mount it. In that you are using PCLinuxOS, and I’m not familiar with the nuances built into that, you would want to ask in your forum for a “how to” manually mount a device. Heck, even in Ubuntu it has changed over the years.

Good that you got it up, though. :)

[stripes1776]

Heh...you don’t know much about me. I’ve been using Linux since 1.x kernel days and SysV and BSD UNIX and VMS before that.

In that case you won't have any problem figuring out how to configure your Mac from the command line. But if you prefer KDE on Linux, OK.

[kevao]

Thanks again! I found out how to manually mount the IPod. That will get gtkPod to recognize the device. I use “dmesg” at the command line and read what the IPod’s boot sector is — it’s like sdb1 or sdc1 (different each time). Then I go “mount /dev/sdb1 /media/IPOD” and — viola! — gtkPod sees the device.

However, neither Amarok nor Banshee will see the device unless I reboot the computer with the IPod connected. That sucks because only with Amarok or Banshee could I add or delete files to the IPod; gtkPod gave me errors when I tried to do this.

But that got me thinking, since I needed to mount the IPod as “root” (using “su”), maybe it was a permissions problem. Sure enough, I logged in to the desktop as “root” and was able to save and delete files on the IPod using gtkPod. But I know it’s not a good idea to be messing with things while logged in as “root,” so now I need to find out how to grant my username write permissions for the device when I mount it under “su”. So I’m almost there....

[papasmurf]

There are ways to automate all of that. It’s a bit complex and lengthy, but you’ll only have to do it once. Maybe someone in your forum will post it, and you can copy/paste through the terminal. Then create a symlink to it.

[kevao]

Let's say I was logged in as "user." I plug in my iPod, then go to terminal to mount it. Then, as "su", I launch gtkPod from the terminal. That would give me root power in gtkPod to do the add/delete operations I need to do on the iPod, but without being in a "root" desktop session, correct? Or is it that, whenever I do a "su" in terminal, my entire session goes from a "user" session to a "root" session?