Moving Toward a Single Linux UI?

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.

They already have a common UI.

80x25 white on black bash, baby.

Re:They already have a common UI.

80x25 white on black bash, baby.

If I wasn't such a geek, I would have interpreted in such the wrong way. :P

Re:They already have a common UI.

I love command line, but why use default 80x25?!

Add this to your boot prompt in grub on the
vga=775 and get some good 160x60 loving 1280x1024.

Re:They already have a common UI.

Because I can waste more time "reading log files" by having to scroll right on every line. :)

(Whenever someone walks in my office I just go "hmmm......" and act like I'm seeing something interesting, then they leave and I go back to sipping my drink and daydreaming)

Re:They already have a common UI.

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 /var/adm/messages and it tells me that my window is too wide, I am forced to type the date command again.

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.

 

Re:They already have a common UI.

What's funny about this?

What's funny about this?

Slackware?

Ouch, Slackware, never gettin' no respect. Slackware 12.1 was recently released as well.

Probably a bit of both

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.

Re:Probably a bit of both

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.

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.

Multiple UI is probably a good thing.

I'm all for choice. True, that can make it a challenge for Linux adoption, but we all know what happens when a product becomes a defacto monopoly.

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.

Re:Multiple UI is probably a good thing.

Plus, KDE and Gnome are both getting quite bloated and complex. Sure, I use KDE on my main 3GB multicore desktop Linux machine, complete with all the Compiz thrills and wobbly transparency wow's. But they are completely unsuitable on my thin clients. IceWM to the rescue!

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

I don't mind the different eye candy.

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.

UI maturity

The Gnome and KDE desktops are fantastic for mid-to-high-end machines, particularly when used with enhancements such as Beryl or Compiz/Fusion. For those still on Pentium I boxes or those who just want a more responsive experience, "flat" window managers such as Icewm or fvwm(?) do the job just lovely. They all have their own quirks and other ways of doing things (such as rclick application menus or Darwinian "docks" or even NT-like interfaces, but it's that kind of choice that draws me to Linux for pretty much everything. The simpler interfaces also make it easy for Grandma to use (ever tried administrating Vista? NIGHTMARE!) but there is always room for improvement. Come to think of it, you don't even need a GUI. The ultimate speedfreaks among us can use the command line for even more speed and not only that, even more control over applications.

twm for me

I am an atypical user for sure. Check my Slashdot ID, I've been around a while. I'm 35 and have used the SAME X11 configuration since I was a 19 year old sophomore at CMU in 1991. That's 17 years of twm goodness. I have no window decorations of any kind - no titlebars, resize grab areas, etc, etc. Moving, resizing, iconifying, etc, are all accomplished by either keystrokes or keystroke/mouse button combos.

I would not recommend my environment for anyone but myself. I've been with my wife since 1996 and she has NEVER been able to figure out how to do anything when sitting down at my Linux desktop. If I open a mozilla window for her she can just stay in there and be fine. But anything else, forget it.

The first thing I do when I install a modern Linux distribution is turn off all of the services that support Gnome and KDE programs. D-Bus, avahi, etc, etc, there are tons of them and they all just choke up the system when you are not running Gnome or KDE (and even if you do, but at that point they are a necessary evil). It's getting harder and harder to install new Linux distributions and manage to clean out all of the desktop related stuff that they install and run. All I want is X11, twm, mozilla/firefox, emacs, xterm, and a few other odds and ends. It annoys me when I install programs like ImageMagick and they require libgnome. Why? I don't run Gnome, why should the program require it? But I am being pretty curmudgeonly here. Aside from the minor annoyance of having to have libraries on my system that I "shouldn't need" (to continue to live in the early 1990's), there's really no harm in it.

I keep telling myself that someday I will have to suck it up and start using Gnome or KDE. But that day never seems to come because I don't *need* those things, and they never work seamlessly enough anyway to make them worth my while. I know that eventually I will *have to* because no Linux distribution will support my ancient way of working someday. But until that time comes I am unlikely to change.

Re:twm for me

"I have no window decorations of any kind - no titlebars, resize grab areas, etc, etc. Moving, resizing, iconifying, etc"

Your 35 and you haven't lived at all~

Re:twm for me

Gentoo, or Linux From Scratch. You should use it.

Does it matter?

Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

I would say, neither.

If you're using Ubuntu, Fedora or Suse, then there's a possibility that you're an average Joe and you use your computer for general things like web surfing, email, word processing, perhaps even movies or managing your music collection. Or, you use it at work and only care about its general productivity applications. If you're this person, then a uniform interface across distros isn't a big deal. If you can point, click, and drag, then you probably won't ask for much more than that.

If you're a "power user" on any *nix distro (be it the three above or any others) and you like to customize every aspect of your kernel, desktop environment, and everything in between, then you'll already know which environment is your favorite and you're going to set it up the way you want it, anyway. So it doesn't really matter what the distro has by default.

So whatever a distro has by default really shouldn't matter, be it varied or vanilla.

What is this about anyway

"Here's a compilation of screen shots and descriptions that make it appear to be the case" I honestly don't get it. Those screenshots and descriptions do not have no connection to the summary. The summary makes no sense. What's the point of this story really?

Re:Precisly the missing part of Linux

I think the opposite goal is more desirable - a platform standard which allows you to run your GUI on any machine.

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

No, I don't think so really. The problem is a Mac is considered to be a Mac, it has its own interface that people are willing to use because it is a Mac, not a PC but a Mac. When someone installs Linux, they expect it to be like Windows because it is on a machine that had Windows on it, when it isn't the cheap copy of Windows they were looking for they don't bother to learn it and dismiss Linux as having a horrible UI because they won't learn it. The concept of an operating system that runs on most computers has been lost and is replaced with Windows running on X86 based computers (PCs) and OS X running on Macs, so often it seems that in order to explain what Linux really is you have to compare it to Windows, from there people get the wrong idea that the interface is just like Windows and see it as a free copy, when they see GNOME/KDE/XFCE they are confused as it isn't Windows.

Re:Precisly the missing part of Linux

See, a really good UI is what makes OSX stand out of Unix and makes it popular.

Nah, it's money and marketing that makes it popular. We don't have fashionista-designed shopfronts for Linux in every town, for example.

Re:Precisly the missing part of Linux

Microsoft... mostly consistent, but there are some old windows 3.1 holdeovers (control insert to paste) and a lot of their apps don't adhere to the look and feel (Expression, for example). X is probably the worst in this regard, being a hodge podge of different toolkits, raw xlib, control-v vs alt-v vs middle click to paste, etc.

Right, yes, Microsoft has a very consistent GUI [arstechnica.com]. Those are the latest versions of Microsofts own appliactions. Not only is the look different from one application to the next, but how the program actually operates is different. Some have menus, some don't. The menus aren't even consistent across the set of applications that do have them. Several applications, while similar, just work slightly differently for various things like opening files, or setting preferences. Hell, they can't even decide whether the text of the titlebar is supposed to be centered to left justified!

But what about X11? Well, these days, if you're using GNOME, or KDE, or Xfce, and applications written for those environments (which is to say most modern applications for X11 desktops) then you only have two toolkits, which can be themed so they render using the theme of the other (using either GTK-Qt theme, or QtGTK Style), and has consistent cut and paste that works across (and between) them all. Yes, you can get some Xlib applications if you hunt around, but then you can get ugly Tk applications on Windows if you hunt around (or X11 applications on the Mac). The reality is that, these days, the Linux desktop really isn't that much more inconsistent that Apple or Microsoft. Actually, I would go so far as to say that it is actually more consistent than what MS is currently producing.

Re:Not one - just a default one

The problem is though, what I find is easy might not be what you find is easy. What a lifetime Mac user finds is easy isn't what a lifetime Windows user thinks is easy. There are interfaces that are "easy" already out there, the problem is, to many, easy is simply little customization available. A common interface though, isn't what every computer needs though. For my aging Pentium III, JWM might be great for it, for someone with a quad core CPU and a fast graphics card Compiz-Fusion might be great for it. My aging Dell with a Pentium 4-era Celeron is great when using Xubuntu, however regular Ubuntu or Kubuntu is too slow for it. Different situations need different solutions. Different people need different solutions. Myself I find that Ubuntu is by far the easiest to give to a new computer user, for the long-term Windows user though, Kubuntu seems to be better. The thing that makes Linux great is there is no one thing that a Linux distro is, and thats part of the reason it is growing.

Re:mod me down, but picking just one would be grea

I think the best thing that could happen for Linux on the desktop is for one of the two major environments (I don't care which) to become THE standard, supported Linux X desktop standard.

I know, choice is good. So is focusing your efforts on making one usable product that people can standardize on.

People keep bringing this up, but it just isn't going to happen. FOSS developers will work on whatever they want to work on, and as long as there are different philosophies involved different projects will attract the interest of different developers. And there are very different philosophies driving the different desktop environments: GNOME is pitching for something simple and elegant above all else; KDE is far more interested in being configurable and cohesive; Xfce has efficiency as one of their primary goals; and the list goes on. With such divergent focus you are not going to get people (neither developers nor users) to all agree on one philosophy.

What you can do, however, is work on standards and interoperability of protocols that underly the environments. You know, like Freedesktop [freedesktop.org] do. That means common standards for inter-application communication (from cut and paste to DBUS), standards for how applications expose themselves to menus, standards for syustem trays, and so on. This effort is still ongoing, but the end result is that GNOME, KDE and Xfce can share application menus, system trays, clipboards, icon themes, and more. With other things like the GTK-Qt theme [kde-look.org] and the QtGTK Style [trolltech.com], we're steadily heading toward the point where applications will be able to slot in seamlessly competing desktops.

So in some sense what you want is being done, but it is not going to involve one desktop to rule them all. For that you need dictatorial control from on high to simply say what is "right". You won't get that in FOSS; it's just not how it works. If you want that you need something like Apple or Microsoft, and the consequences that come with such choices (although, to be honest, I'm not sure they offer models [bla.st] of perfect consistency [arstechnica.com] either).

Re:Winners and losers

Anyone looked at KDE 4.0?
  I cranked it up in a VM and had to look twice to be sure it wasn't GNOME. Most of KDE's signature customizability is gone, and (like GNOME) it's not just a matter of missing GUIs for tweaking settings; the settings themselves are gone into hard code.

This is temporary, and is a common complaint about KDE 4.0. The idea with KDE 4.0 was to ship what they had to encourage further application development. There are lots of changes to KDE, including using a new version of QT (the underlying toolkit).

The basics are there, but customizeability, as you noted, is lacking. From what I understand, that flexibility (especially in terms of the main panel) will return with KDE 4.1, to be released this July.

KDE 4.0 isn't for everybody. After reading about some of these limitations, I decided to wait until KDE 4.1 before upgrading my Kubuntu laptop's KDE version. As I understand it, KDE 4.1 will bring applications like the PIM framework up to speed, and I should be able to make my desktop look and work like I'm used to with KDE 3.5 (a substantial alteration from the default).

KDE hasn't abandoned the philosophy of a very flexible user interface, it's just taking time to re-implement the features in the serious overhaul that is KDE 4. I can wait.