Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] The next Linux desktop



On 02/10/2012 01:51 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 2/10/2012 12:37 PM, Jerry Feldman wrote:
>> The main question is "what is right". I used to like KDE, then I got
>> used to Gnome 2, and I am getting comfortable with Gnome 3 (and the
>> extensions I added). There are certain features that Mac users would
>> like to see, and other features that Windows users want. Then there are
>> some features that old command-line Unix users want. I think it is
>> difficult to come up with a common ground. That is why we always have
>> had multiple Windows managers and desktop systems. All have to be able
>> to work in a client-server Linux/Unix environment.
>
> I want to work backward through this.
>
> First of all, the OS doesn't matter.  X11 is its own environment.  An
> X server doesn't need an operating system.  The X11 protocol suite was
> designed with "dumb" X terminals in mind.
>
> This leads to a disconnect.  What various OS users want out of their
> OS is orthogonal to what an X-based desktop should deliver: a
> consistent, elegant, functional experience.  It's funny, but TWM did
> that better for me than GNOME ever did.
>
> *WHICH* GNOME 2 were you comfortable with?  Red Hat's version? 
> Debian's Version?  Ubuntu's version?  It seems like a silly question,
> but really, if you put the three side-by-side you can see just how
> different they are despite being the same thing.  This is simply
> terrible for getting non-technical users to accept Linux on the desktop.
>
Certainly the OS or the underlying environment itself is irrelevant as
long as it provides the services the desktop environment needs. the big
difference between Windows and Linux/Unix is that in Linux you have an
underlying OS that does not care what is on top of it.  If I want a bare
command line I can have it. If I want a GUI, I can let it run. But, what
I am really talking about is the style of the desktop. Some people want
a start menu, a panel and a task bar, and maybe another tool bar. Other
people just want 1 tool bar. Other people just want a desktop with all
the icons they want. And yes, each vendor has customized.  But Linux is
choice and self customization. People get used to the things they have
been using for a while. I was a KDE user, but then I had RHEL on my
systems at work, and Ubuntu on my laptop. Gnome3 with the customizations
I stole from Finnbarr  Murphy. I want a desktop that works for me, and
otherwise others have the same requirement.

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90 
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90





BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org