Moving Toward a Single Linux UI? 441
Anonymous writes "With the releases of Fedora 9, Hardy Heron and OpenSuSE 11 so close together, it's looking more than ever like an evolution to a common interface for major Linux distributions. Here's a compilation of screen shots and descriptions that make it appear to be the case. Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?" There are plenty of other options out there, of course, even considering only Linux distros that are based on Gnome and KDE, and plenty of wilder (or at least less common) desktops to choose from besides.
Probably a bit of both (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess that if we're keen on getting more people into Linux, then some commonality across the major distros might be a good thing. On the other hand, it's not so great for the smaller distros if we get a kind of monolithic Linux which dominates the market and means that people are less willing to try something different.
Still, there'll always be enough of us who want to use things because they're different - and because they are better at doing exactly what we want rather than being more generic, suit-everyone tools.
Multiple UI is probably a good thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm convinced that 'competition' between KDE and Gnome has only help to improve the quality of both interfaces. Furthermore, having Xfce, KDE, Gnome, etc, gives the user choices not just in the colour, but in the actual design and philosophy behind the UI. In other words, there is plenty of room to try out new and exiting idea that would be difficult would there be a single, monopolistic desktop UI.
My $0.02 CAD.
mod me down, but picking just one would be great (Score:3, Interesting)
I know, choice is good. So is focusing your efforts on making one usable product that people can standardize on. Don't even think of it as a product, think of it as a protocol. HTTP won out over Gopher, and the first is everywhere and makes all kinds of apps able to talk to each other; the second is a (fondly, for me) remembered also ran. And that's a good thing.
Re:Precisly the missing part of Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should I learn Gnome or KDE if I already know Aqua, or vice versa?
The best solution would be an interface definition standard that lets you use KDE on Windows, Mac or Linux with no installation or configuration necessary - just download your profile from a server or USB key.
Oh, yeah, and I'd like a pony too, as long as I'm wishing on pipe dreams...
Re:Precisly the missing part of Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
But actually, we do have something like that -- it's called X. The problem is, of course, that Windows and OS X both threw away decades of work and started from scratch, so you can't just write an X window manager and expect it to work anywhere but Linux. (Or BSD. Or OpenDarwin. Or Plan9. Or Solaris. Or Cygwin. Or...)
Personally, I think the better solution would be a common runtime -- either high level (think Java, or the Web/AJAX) or low level (think x86_64 + Linux + X.org) -- so that I can customize my environment as much as I want, and then run the apps I want in that environment. Much more flexible when I can actually write brand-new window-managing software than try to create a common spec for configuring existing window managers.
Re:Multiple UI is probably a good thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, I agree with you that Gnome vs. KDE probably has improved both a lot. But there is no denying that it also holds back some types of application development. I don't know the answer, but just try to enjoy the ride.
The UIs are not the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
What matters far more is standardising the way the distros handle other things so that HowTos, installation scripts/instructions for printers etc can be written once without a whole lot of "On Ubuntu do this, on Fedora do that" stuff. Things that would help a lot:
*Pick one printer handling mechanism.
*Pick one package manager.
*Standardise one one usb/udev/pam.
*Pick one wireless management policy. Hide madwifi/ndiswrapper etc.
Re:From TFA ... page/slide 8 ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Second: Does Mandriva use them as the default, "integrated" or not?
Ubuntu is big, and popular, and distributed by Dell. What does Mandriva have that Ubuntu doesn't?
But more importantly, I think it is quicker and cleaner to simply talk about a distro, without mentioning Linux. It won't piss off RMS quite as much, as we are clearly talking about a distribution and a derivative work -- it's Ubuntu, not Ubuntu/Gnu/Linux. And it'll avoid people making embarrassing mistakes by mentioning a feature that "Linux" has, but might only be present in KDE, or only in GNOME -- or only in proprietary software, or, in fact, only a particular distro.
Ubuntu has them. Mandriva also has them. Both of these statements are correct.
"Linux has them" is actually less correct, as Linux is just a kernel, and you can have a working Linux systems in all kinds of places which physically don't support a GUI, let alone desktop effects.
Re:UI maturity (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Precisly the missing part of Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
There is nothing inherently wrong with the tools and UI available in Linux distros when compared to MacOS. It is just a matter of the lack of a centralized company that strongly enforces consistency and a single set of tools. Also, development effort is split between competing UI's under Linux. Is that a good thing or a bad? You decide... good arguments can be made on both sides of the table.
Anyway, if you run a KDE environment and use ONLY KDE applications (or Gnome and used ONLY Gnome applications), things look, feel, react very consistently and pretty seamlessly and with a modern look and feel.
Re:"wilder" desktops to choose from (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Probably a bit of both (Score:5, Interesting)
I hardly think it would stifle innovation (open licenses are so important in all of this). But it might make people think a little more carefully before innovating. That is, there will be yet greater emphasis on integration and interoperability with the other available applications.
And if anything, the need for lightweight desktops and specialized linux distributions is growing with the accumulation of older computers and the advance of the second and third worlds to the computer age.
Re:They already have a common UI. (Score:5, Interesting)
I prefer black on white, and I always have terminals beyond 80x25, but aside from colors and window sized, I think that the cli is _the_ UI for Linux, and it is better than any other *NIX out there in that department. Most other *NIX's have died out, but the cli for Solaris makes me type date and make sure that it really is 2008. I'm not knocking Solaris in terms of its kernel and Sun's hardware can be good (sometimes it sucks). But in 2008 if I do vi
A little more on topic, I think that it will really take a commercial company to make a GUI for any *NIX that is worthwhile. It just seems too big of a project for open source to come together and do. The best that we have to date are two windows ripoffs with the groovy option to have wiggly windows and stuff.
My rank orderings of GUIs are:
1) OS X
2) Windows
3) other
Hint. I don't use windows, and I don't see that happening for another 5-10 years. I'm a Linux/UNIX fan. I like what is under the hood, and to me it just "makes sense". For me, windows does not, under the hood nor the shiny exterior. Today, OS X is UNIX with a good GUI thrown on top. Sure, its not perfect, but I'm at home and looking at my nice OS X GUI after looking at my Gnome desktop all day at work makes my eyes feel better. I also find it ironic that of all the terminal apps I've used, OS X has the best Terminal app out there. Its also nice to have the hard stuff in Linux taken care of by the GUI in OS X.
Now the BIG difference here, is that I would not want to run OS X on all of the servers that I manage under Solaris and Linux. Why? Like Windows, the GUI is the OS.
This is really tough, but there needs to be a GUI that works with Linux that can help novices with the basics, but those GUIs can't break if a "power user" comes in and modifies the config file in a text editor and now the GUI is either broken or it screws up the config file. This is _NOT_ a trivial task to accomplish, and this is one of the reasons that a good GUI has not come to surface for Linux.
In fact, I think that the GUI experience was better like 10 years ago under Linux with things like AfterStep and WindowMaker, and Enlightenment. I even know some older *NIX folks that still use FVWM, and I liked that back in the day too. So, I dunno, maybe 2009 is the year of Linux on the desktop. However, unless an excellent GUI comes out for it, I don't think this will be the year.
UI choice (Score:4, Interesting)
My main bone of contention with X11 is that it's not being developed seriously as a GUI interface for modern machines. It seems that most of the development is going into code cleanups (important), bugfixes (important) and other maintenance functions. But that's just it - this is all maintenance stuff. The tree needed the reorganization, the code needed to be more modular, etc - nobody is disputing that. On the other hand, threading is overdue and secure X11 channels are insanely overdue. The configuration file changes make things simpler, but it makes it harder to maximise the use of the monitor and graphics cards, even though it's easier (and safer) for the "standard" modes. Simplification is good, but any loss of capability is a regression.
The console is good - and fast - for many tasks, and with the introduction of framebuffers some time back, is capable of many of the tasks people had to use GUIs for in the past. To make the best use of it, though, you really need GNU Screen, and Screen just isn't being maintained that much any more. Really, with framebuffer support and other graphics features for consoles being considered, some of the features of Screen might have to be moved into the kernel in order to function correctly.
I don't use the option of serial-port consoles, so I'm not sure how capable those are these days. PCs are not in the same league as minicomputers or mainframes, so I doubt anybody is looking to hook up a couple of hundred VT220 terminals any time soon, but it is an interface and the underlying code for a terminal is independent of where that terminal is physically located. It should make no difference to Linux whether you are using the local keyboard/screen, a terminal on the end of a serial cable, or indeed a terminal on the end of a USB line.
UI in the middle (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They already have a common UI. (Score:3, Interesting)
The big issue with GUIs in Linux/BSD/*Nix is that almost invariably, you'll have those one or two applications which require you to install the other one. Or to install both of the biggies if you aren't using either Gnome or KDE. A much more important change would be getting all the programs to cope with and be useful without having to mix and match libs and toolkits from multiple set ups.
Seriously though, just choose a sane default and provide a reasonable means to change it. If the distro makers do that then it doesn't really matter, most people will be happy with whatever the default is, and the rest of us can change it if need be.
I personally like fluxbox, or XFCE if I feel like using something more full featured, but there are a huge number out there that I haven't yet tried. Just provide me with a reasonable choice and I'm not going to be too upset about the defaults.
The one feature common to all now - bloat and slow (Score:2, Interesting)
Well one thing the distro's seem to have agreed upon - foistering bloated slow software on their users.
I tried to install Fedora and Ubuntu on an old laptop last weekend and had no end of frustration, and even after considerable tweaking the experience is far from perfect. This is a machine on which I easily developed 1000's of lines of code running emacs and netscape and gdb and evolution (ok it struggled a bit with all that at once, but only then).
The main problems are:
Re:It is a necessity to have a common GUI (Score:2, Interesting)
While it's indeed a colorful blend there is still enough common ground to call it "somewhat consistent" which is more than I'd say about most linux desktops. First and foremost: All apps use the same fonts and font-sizes. Almost all icons obviously come from the same set (color scheme). Button sizes and ordering seem to be fairly consistent, too.
Now look at your linux desktop. The fonts in GTK apps looks different than those in QT apps. Button sizes and icons vary *wildly*. Etc. Etc.
I hate windows like the next guy (and consider the UI ugly) but calling it a more inconsistent UI than linux is not fair. KDE and Gnome still have a long way to go before I can't tell a GTK app from a QT app at a glance.
Re:The UIs are not the problem (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Multiple UI is probably a good thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They already have a common UI. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:They already have a common UI. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:UI contracts go far deeper than visual guidelin (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They already have a common UI. (Score:2, Interesting)
I loathe the days when KDE, and then Gnome came to be. Whithout them, all these efforts would have been invested into it, afterstep and Enlightenment.
We'd be lightyears away from windows by now.