| Edgy
Penguins - CompuRants - The
Battle for the Linux Desktop |
|
Introduction
Without a graphical user interface, Linux is a black-screen, command-based system that cannot escape comparison with DOS in terms of basic operation. While some hardcore geeks may prefer things that way, the majority of users out there, geeks included, prefer to work with some sort of graphical desktop environment. Unlike Mac OS and Windows, there are actually quite a few of these out there, and these are usualy divided into two groups: window managers and full desktop environments. To the newbie, it may be a bit difficult to distinguish between the two without some hands-on experience, as window managers seem, for all intents and purposes, to be desktop environments. To simplify things to an obscene degree, let's just say that the "desktop environments" are more fully feature and are, thus, quite similar in concept to what you've come to know in Windows and Mac OS. They also include a window manager as part of the environment. The "stand-alone" window managers, on the other hand, lack some of the taken-for-granted features you've come to expect in an OS, take a bit of getting used to, but run faster. The window managers include Enlightenment, BlackBox, WindowMaker, IceWM, and FluxBox, to name but a few, while the desktop environments include XPde (a Windows XP look alike), XFCE, Equinox (a Windows 98 look alike), and the two biggies, GNOME and KDE. You can check out the XWINMAN page for more details on any of these and more. As GNOME and KDE are the two
environments most commonly bundled in most
Linux distributions, and as these are the two most user-friendly
environments, I will focus on these two. The others, after all, seemed
to be designed to keep geeks a-geeking. BothGNOME and KDE are capable
contenders, and both have
their fans and detractors. In a way, this situation all very much
reminds me of the
battle for hearts and minds in the eternal rivalry between Mac and
Windows users as to whose system is best, a battle which has itself
primarily focused on the respective desktop environments.
All
that said, let's look at the realties of the Linux world today. It is
fair to say that the
majority of Linux distributions out there in the world today come with
KDE as their default desktop environment. Red Hat's products, such as
Fedora Core, are some of the few exceptions. In fact, many of the
smaller one- or two-disk distros come with only KDE. Why this would be
so, and why so many tout KDE as more user-friendly than GNOME,
continues to baffle me, as GNOME seems so much better, so much more
user-friendly, and so much better suited for the Linux newbie. Despite
the realities of the market place, if it is indeed fair to describe the
primarily free software Linux world as a market place, I still try to
push GNOME, especially for new users. For those of you interested in my
point of view, I will try to briefly lay out my case.
Look and Feel Count The very fact that these desktop environments are graphical points to the fact that looks count. After all, Apple didn't go through all the trouble of giving OS X so much eye candy merely to satisfy Steve Job's personal sense of aesthetics (at least, I can't imgae that being the case - or then, given what we know about Steve, perhaps I can). No, it was to attract users by making the desktop look so absolutely tasty that people would want to use it for that reason alone - and, in fact, many people made the switch for that reason alone. While looks, or at least how a user reacts to such looks, is a matter of personal taste, I cannot help but prefer the cleaner, smoother, and less-cluttered look of GNOME. The same hold true to the feeling of a GUI. While I admit that many people are not so sensitive to such subtleties and, in fact, often fail to notice any difference, I still contend that GNOME just feels better. The way that menus pop-up and windows move is just smoother, providing a more sure feeling to the whole experience. You've Got to Be Easy to Deal with GNOME is also plain easier to deal with than KDE. KDE offers the user too many choices in its various menu items, which, while good for the advanced user, is kind of an off putting pain for the newbie. GNOME has such things hidden away as they should be. KDE also has some choices that are unclear to any normal human being. It seems at times that the KDE interface was poorly translated in places. Reated to both this area and look and feel, is the fact that KDE tends to be all too cluttered. The comparison between KDE's Konqueror and GNOME's Nautilus file managers is a case in point. While Nautilus has a easy-to-understand almost Mac-ish interface, Konqueror is a cluttered mess with a very annoying method of viewing files. It's almost as if the Konqueror team set out to package all the quirkiest features of Windows and bundle them together in one package. Nautilus also allows you to view and resize (for viewing purposes) image files within the same Nautilus window in which the file is saved, while KDE utilizes another application. And there is the topper: CD burning. GNOME's Nautilus allows you to easily prepare CDs to burn with your CD-R/W drive through a simple drag-and-drop procedure. It even automatically pops up the appropriate window when you pop in a blank CD in your drive. While this feature is apparently available for KDE as an add-on, and my make its way into the base system in the future, it isn't there now. Customizing's a Breeze in GNOME When it comes to changing your window borders, icons, and various application controls, GNOME beats KDE hands down. Adding new themes to your system in GNOME is a simple drag-and-drop procedure - you don't even have to extract the compressed files that such customization files come in. In KDE, on the other hand, you have to first extract the files and compile them before you can use them in the system, which can be a pain, especially when something doesn't seem to work just right (or at all). And while we're on the topic of compiling, I might as well throw in the fact that KDE apps take so much longer to compile and seem to have so many more dependecies than tose for GNOME that one must think twice before even bothering. Wrapping Things Up I could go on a bit more, but I have given the basics that would be of probable concern to you. Just to be fair, however, I should state that KDE is no dog. In fact, the first Linux desktop environment I used was KDE, and it was sufficiently impressive to reel me into the Linux world for good. Still, once I took a whirl in the land of GNOME, it was no turning back. Of course, you are free to make your own choices, but you know what my advice is. Enjoy finding out which environment is best for you by playing around - that's half the fun, after all. |
| Navigate |
CompuRants
Main |
Edgy Penguins Main |