Very Computer

This is a response to a comment by Chad Meyers that "Linux can't
even get a desktop GUI working right".  I'm starting a new thread
to hopefully garner a new debate.  Note that I'm not cross-posting.

I hope I'm not being too dense here, but just what is the definition
of "right" here?  If anything, Linux's desktop is more flexible than
(stock) Windows (obviously, things such as Zones and Windowblinds (?)
are available for Windows to improve functionality in this area).

Of course, I'm a bit confused as to what precisely is a "desktop"
anyway.  It may be a change in nomenclature: the standard Linux
installation has something like the following:

- Linux kernel
- utilities [mv, rm, dd, cp, cat, ifconfig, mount, etc.]
- games (in some cases)
- X server
- X utilities [xset, xsetroot, xmag, xdpyinfo, etc.]
- widget set(s) [Athena/Xaw3d/etc., QT, Gtk, etc.]
- X window managers [fvwm, fvwm95, gwm, etc.]
- X session managers [xsm]
- X login managers [xdm]
- X screensavers
- X games (in some cases)

and, unless the monitor is literally built into the desk (some
ergonomic systems may have a glass panel to allow just that, with
the monitor mounted underneath), it's not clear that the term
has much meaning, from a pedantic/literal sense.  Or one can call
the raw X display the desktop, if one likes...?

Note that some window managers also incorporate file <=> icon
management capability.  I'm not sure if they're doing it or
merely subinvoking a process that throws something up on the
root window; I'd have to look. But the effect is similar
to Windows' desktop, which shows a bunch of icons; the only thing
missing is the Active Desktop web page backdrop.  (And I for one
can live without that.)

But I'm digressing.  What does it mean to get a desktop GUI working right?
One thing I like about many Linux window managers is the ability to
select multiple workspaces; Windows has some difficulties with this
without additional software from third parties.  (Maybe XP will or has
fix this, but I have my doubts.)

I've since switched back to fvwm, but it wasn't too difficult to put
icon monitors into Gnome's top or bottom toolbar.  I had pie charts
(one per disk partition) at one point; it got slightly impractical
because I have a *lot* of disk partitions (about a dozen)... :-)

--

EAC code #191       11d:07h:59m actually running Linux.
                    No electrons were harmed during this message.

Quote:>This is a response to a comment by Chad Meyers that "Linux can't
>even get a desktop GUI working right".  I'm starting a new thread
>to hopefully garner a new debate.  Note that I'm not cross-posting.

Thats alright. Nice to see a ontopic, true Linux advocacy post instead of
the usual rantings we seem to hear from the village idiots.

Quote:>I hope I'm not being too dense here, but just what is the definition
>of "right" here?  If anything, Linux's desktop is more flexible than
>(stock) Windows (obviously, things such as Zones and Windowblinds (?)
>are available for Windows to improve functionality in this area).

plus the fact to get some of the desktop functionality you have to spend
even more money. How many people do you know without the following:

1. Norton Anti-Virus
2. Norton Utilities
3. Norton CrashGuard

Just to get some semi-reliable eXPerience from their computer.

Quote:>Of course, I'm a bit confused as to what precisely is a "desktop"
>anyway.  It may be a change in nomenclature: the standard Linux
>installation has something like the following:

>- Linux kernel
>- utilities [mv, rm, dd, cp, cat, ifconfig, mount, etc.]
>- games (in some cases)
>- X server
>- X utilities [xset, xsetroot, xmag, xdpyinfo, etc.]
>- widget set(s) [Athena/Xaw3d/etc., QT, Gtk, etc.]
>- X window managers [fvwm, fvwm95, gwm, etc.]
>- X session managers [xsm]
>- X login managers [xdm]
>- X screensavers
>- X games (in some cases)

>and, unless the monitor is literally built into the desk (some
>ergonomic systems may have a glass panel to allow just that, with
>the monitor mounted underneath), it's not clear that the term
>has much meaning, from a pedantic/literal sense.  Or one can call
>the raw X display the desktop, if one likes...?

Not really, I would call xfree, kind of like a screen, by its self it does
"* all", however, with a computer it is usefull. Same situation with
the xfree. Xfree is mearly the screen, KDE and GNOME allows the user to directly
interact with the computer.

Quote:>Note that some window managers also incorporate file <=> icon
>management capability.  I'm not sure if they're doing it or
>merely subinvoking a process that throws something up on the
>root window; I'd have to look. But the effect is similar
>to Windows' desktop, which shows a bunch of icons; the only thing
>missing is the Active Desktop web page backdrop.  (And I for one
>can live without that.)

yuck! I can't stand the "Active Desktop". It is YAPOSFRINC (Yet Another Piece
Of Shit From Redmond Incorporated). I see no benefits to having an "active
background". If I want to surf the net, I'll lauch a browser. If I want to
check my email, I'll use a mail client. Hence, I see no purpose in the Active
Desktop apart from chewing valuable clock cycles and hogging memory.

Quote:>But I'm digressing.  What does it mean to get a desktop GUI working right?
>One thing I like about many Linux window managers is the ability to
>select multiple workspaces; Windows has some difficulties with this
>without additional software from third parties.  (Maybe XP will or has
>fix this, but I have my doubts.)

Nope, not available. I've tried the latest beta. All Windows XP is, is Windows
2000 Pro + GUI "features" + no JVM + a slow and unstable browser. Something
I am sure most Winadvocates will celebrate over, as if it was an "innovation".

Quote:>I've since switched back to fvwm, but it wasn't too difficult to put
>icon monitors into Gnome's top or bottom toolbar.  I had pie charts
>(one per disk partition) at one point; it got slightly impractical
>because I have a *lot* of disk partitions (about a dozen)... :-)

You may want to try is IceWM, which is a (I think) a GTK version of CDE.
Very stable, fast and reliable.

Matthew Gardiner

http://www.veryComputer.com/

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matthew Gardiner

 wrote
on 24 Jul 2001 09:01:40 +1200

Thank you, thank you. :-)  No applause, just money... :-)

Quote:

>>I hope I'm not being too dense here, but just what is the definition
>>of "right" here?  If anything, Linux's desktop is more flexible than
>>(stock) Windows (obviously, things such as Zones and Windowblinds (?)
>>are available for Windows to improve functionality in this area).

>plus the fact to get some of the desktop functionality you have to spend
>even more money. How many people do you know without the following:

>1. Norton Anti-Virus
>2. Norton Utilities
>3. Norton CrashGuard

>Just to get some semi-reliable eXPerience from their computer.

>>Of course, I'm a bit confused as to what precisely is a "desktop"
>>anyway.  It may be a change in nomenclature: the standard Linux
>>installation has something like the following:

>>- Linux kernel
>>- utilities [mv, rm, dd, cp, cat, ifconfig, mount, etc.]
>>- games (in some cases)
>>- X server
>>- X utilities [xset, xsetroot, xmag, xdpyinfo, etc.]
>>- widget set(s) [Athena/Xaw3d/etc., QT, Gtk, etc.]
>>- X window managers [fvwm, fvwm95, gwm, etc.]
>>- X session managers [xsm]
>>- X login managers [xdm]
>>- X screensavers
>>- X games (in some cases)

>>and, unless the monitor is literally built into the desk (some
>>ergonomic systems may have a glass panel to allow just that, with
>>the monitor mounted underneath), it's not clear that the term
>>has much meaning, from a pedantic/literal sense.  Or one can call
>>the raw X display the desktop, if one likes...?

>Not really, I would call xfree, kind of like a screen, by its self it does
>"* all", however, with a computer it is usefull. Same situation with
>the xfree. Xfree is mearly the screen, KDE and GNOME allows the user to
>directly interact with the computer.

>>Note that some window managers also incorporate file <=> icon
>>management capability.  I'm not sure if they're doing it or
>>merely subinvoking a process that throws something up on the
>>root window; I'd have to look. But the effect is similar
>>to Windows' desktop, which shows a bunch of icons; the only thing
>>missing is the Active Desktop web page backdrop.  (And I for one
>>can live without that.)

>yuck! I can't stand the "Active Desktop". It is YAPOSFRINC (Yet Another Piece
>Of Shit From Redmond Incorporated). I see no benefits to having an "active
>background". If I want to surf the net, I'll lauch a browser. If I want to
>check my email, I'll use a mail client. Hence, I see no purpose in the Active
>Desktop apart from chewing valuable clock cycles and hogging memory.

I use it as a "launch point"; it's a convenient method for me to
set up a root page which I can click on.  This can obviously be done
in a number of ways, however -- although I'm not a fan of icons.

Still, it's just as easy to set an IE or Netscape home page and
use that -- in fact, that's what this used to be.  I can live
with one extra mouse click in exchange for an ultra-stable desktop.

(This is at my work, BTW -- we're a mixed NT/Solaris shop, with no
signs of changing.  Some Linux systems are wandering around on an
unofficial basis, however.)

Quote:

>>But I'm digressing.  What does it mean to get a desktop GUI working right?
>>One thing I like about many Linux window managers is the ability to
>>select multiple workspaces; Windows has some difficulties with this
>>without additional software from third parties.  (Maybe XP will or has
>>fix this, but I have my doubts.)

>Nope, not available. I've tried the latest beta. All Windows XP is, is
>Windows 2000 Pro + GUI "features" + no JVM + a slow and unstable
>browser. Something I am sure most Winadvocates will celebrate over,
>as if it was an "innovation".

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.  Although I haven't found IE
especially slow, it's not clear to me that it's 100% reliable (it
hangs on occasion -- at least win2k allows me to kill it).  Unfortunately,
Netscape is extremely slow, although NS6 is fairly reliable.
(A pity.  NS also does some funny things with style sheet borders;
IE at least renders them more or less correctly AFAICT, but NS6
uses the width of the widget; if one scrolls horizontally the results
can look peculiar.)

Quote:

>>I've since switched back to fvwm, but it wasn't too difficult to put
>>icon monitors into Gnome's top or bottom toolbar.  I had pie charts
>>(one per disk partition) at one point; it got slightly impractical
>>because I have a *lot* of disk partitions (about a dozen)... :-)

>You may want to try is IceWM, which is a (I think) a GTK version of CDE.
>Very stable, fast and reliable.

It's available on Debian, so I'll give it a whirl. :-)
(dselect spoils me rotten -- although I'm not sure if anyone
else likes it... :-) )

(ObRandomObservation:  Debian has imwheel, to support "wheeled mice".
Draw your own conclusions. :-) )

Quote:

>Matthew Gardiner

>http://www.veryComputer.com/

--

EAC code #191       12d:06h:35m actually running Linux.
                    The US gov't spends about $54,000/second.  I wish I could.

Quote:> This is a response to a comment by Chad Meyers that "Linux can't
> even get a desktop GUI working right".  I'm starting a new thread
> to hopefully garner a new debate.  Note that I'm not cross-posting.

> I hope I'm not being too dense here, but just what is the definition
> of "right" here?  If anything, Linux's desktop is more flexible than
> (stock) Windows (obviously, things such as Zones and Windowblinds (?)
> are available for Windows to improve functionality in this area).
> But I'm digressing.  What does it mean to get a desktop GUI working right?
> One thing I like about many Linux window managers is the ability to
> select multiple workspaces; Windows has some difficulties with this
> without additional software from third parties.  (Maybe XP will or has
> fix this, but I have my doubts.)

The things that make the Windows desktop nice are consistency and
infrastructure. The consistency is a strong function of the infrastructure.
While they aren't perfect, the Mac and Windows desktops both provide a rich,
consistent user environment, that anyone writing an application can take
advantage of without too much difficulty.

Many of the good folks here concentrate on the features of the Linux window
managers, or even the number of them, but I think that misses the point,
just like your mention of the multiple workspaces or someone else's mention
of the virtual window that's much larger than the visible window. Those
might be features that you really like, but they're not what's really
important. What makes the Windows experience nice is that help, menus,
dialog boxes, printing, mouse clicks, scroll bars, and so on, all work the
same. Underneath the top level is the OLE/COM interface, that provides
support for complex copy and paste operations.

In contrast, the Unix/Linux world offers every possibility under the sun.
Judging from the recent posts, many of the people here would prefer a
desktop that barely supports windows at all, and only text mode windows if
there's any support at all. Moving up in support, there are KDE and Gnome,
that both attempt to provide the same level of support that Mac/Windows
does, but don't do it in compatible ways. Mawa said a while back that there
would be a software translation layer to take care of that, so that KDE and
Gnome applications could both run under the other desktop, and share data
using CORBA, even though the underlying CORBA implementations and interfaces
are different.

When I sit down at my Linux box at home, or my Unix box at work, some
applications use X, some use Motif, some run under KDE, and some run under
Gnome. If I open an xterm, the scroll bar is on the left hand side, and if I
open a dtterm, the scroll bar is on the right. Sometimes, I have to use the
middle mouse button to select with the mouse, and sometimes the left button.
Sometimes, the right mouse button copies things to the clipboad, and
sometimes it opens a context sensitive menu, and sometimes it pastes and
appends a carriage return. Some applications write their own help system,
some use Worldview, some use FrameMaker, some use html, and many don't have
any help at all. In the end, everything works, but the overall experience is
inconsistent at best. By providing the underlying infrastructure, all those
things look and act the same.

-- Mike --

        Forcing all developers to use the same widget set and desktop
environment would be pure folly and result in a system that was far less
popular. In the current variety packed system, there's something for
everybody to love, and if they do, use it. In your concept, there'd be
something for everyone to hate; I for one would not like to have to load the
10 meg QT library into RAM to run a text editor. And some people hate GNOME.
        To deal with your complaint, yet to keep the choice and variety that
makes Linux so rich, here's a suggestion; delete all your non-KDE programs,
or whatever environment you prefer. Then you will have your consistent
interface with no non-compliant programs, and the rest of us can get back to
hex editing our config files and playing 'nethack' on the console :)

Richard

It was the Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:37:49 GMT...

Quote:>  Note that some window managers also incorporate file <=> icon
>  management capability.  I'm not sure if they're doing it or
>  merely subinvoking a process that throws something up on the
>  root window; I'd have to look.

Nautilus, for one, simply treats the desktop like an additional file
manager window.

Quote:>  But the effect is similar to Windows' desktop, which shows a bunch
>  of icons; the only thing missing is the Active Desktop web page
>  backdrop.

It could be done quite easily, but I feel like nobody really wants it.

mawa
--
I had just settled onto my barstool, when I felt the firm grip of a
biometallic hand on my shoulder.
                     -- Mark Leyner:  My Cousin, My Gastroenterologist

Linux is for those who want to avoid uniformity and develop their
minds. To think ... to explore ... to build their dream.

The greatest strength of Linux is its diversity and the fact that
every time you want to do something it is accomplished in a different
way.

Every program is different. Every time the --help command is typed it
reveals fresh new worlds to explore.

Variety is the spice of life and this is one heck of a spicy system.

Were you a "flower child" of the 1960's?

Just curious.

flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
"The best reason to NOT use Linux is to TRY Linux"
"Friends don't let friends use Linux"

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, flatfish+++
<>
 wrote
on Tue, 07 Aug 2001 16:18:19 GMT

Interesting non-refutation of his points. :-)  However, I'll also,
bizarrely enough, point out a counterpoint to his theme (with the
rider that Win2k can also do most of this, but most people don't
bother for some reason).

Linux can be tightened down so securely that no one can change
a thing on the box without the express authority of IT; the
system can be carbon-copied with such tools as rdist and
xcdroast.  A comprehensive and uniform patching strategy without
regard to (or worry about) licensing issues can be easily set
up and all patches distributed through either a centralized
server or a distribution tree, with a little work.  DECUS
was doing this a decade and a half ago, and they probably
weren't the first.

Whether anyone would actually *want* to do this may depend on
the application, and where; a factory floor, for instance, might
want a control panel that can't be user-modified (at least, not
beyond controllable variations), whereas software, hardware, or
other development nodes may require a different setup.

One simple method of doing this might be a Java GUI; this GUI
would basically set up a master control panel the size of the
X window.  Such a GUI would be fairly simple to set up within,
say, JBuilder, generated from HTML or XML, or just hand-coded.
The information station would communicate as needed with
other stations and/or a central server.  This GUI can even
have built-in help (a text or HTML widget).  Of course, Windows
can do this too (there's a registry entry somewhere for the desktop
task), but it's not quite as controllable, as far as I can tell.

If one doesn't like Java, one can use GTK, QT, or even Motif.
A tiny front-panel process could read and write an intermediate
format (the current fashion trend is XML, which is an engineeringly
ugly but simple-to-understand format), which can feed to the back
end running on a central server.  This is apparently the essence
of RMI, or SOAP.  Various methods exist to feed this format
to the back end; TCP/IP sockets come to mind, but one can also
use UDP (SNMP, for example), NFS (by dumping files into a
known place where they can be "eaten" and processed), a database
such as Postgresql, mysql, or msql, or even Unix sockets or pipes
(if the server's on the same machine).

An alternative, almost anarchic system, can be set up as well.
Basically, the engineers could be given an extremely basic
system and told to "load what they want", and various passwords
or other authentication to central CVS servers (this could be
handled in a number of ways using PAM).  Engineers would
check out what they need, make the mods, build locally, test,
and then check back in; QA would build from the repository
and test, then release to Production.  This has the slight
drawback that QA is primarily responsible for the quality,
but any smart engineer will mirror the production system
in at least part of his or her setup, and do at least a
sanity test prior to checkin.  And Engineering would probably
be firewalled off from the rest of the world. :-)

Depends on the company, I'd guess.

[.sigsnip]

--

EAC code #191       26d:12h:48m actually running Linux.
                    You're going to do *what* *where* *when*?