The Inside Track on Firefox Development.

« Pinstripe for MacFirebird | Main | Happy Holidays »

November 12, 2003

Linux on the Desktop

Review: Fedora Core 1 is a Mild Disappointment - OSNews.com

I love that half of the screenshots on the first page are of error messages or crashes.

While graphically some apps have improved a little since the last time I tried to use seriously back in 1998, and there are now a couple more serious/decent emailers, productivity suites and web browsers, the core system is still a pain in the ass. UI is wrong in abundance. Wrong headed and inconsistent designs prevail. Rather than being a slick, integrated environment like some systems, it really shows itself to be the sum of a thousand motives.

I'd argue that some aspects have become worse - back in the day I used to be able to easily track package dependencies through GnoRPM, that software seems to have ceased development and is not included with RedHat these days - these days I need to rely on knowing command line flags, or RedHat's buggy GUI RPM manager.

None of the GUI file shells would let me move Firebird to an independent application folder (alongside the distribution's default install of Mozilla) because I didn't have sufficient privileges, and offered no way to authenticate to complete the move.

The RedHat menu (like the Start menu) is filled with dozens of small, identically sized icons that all have similar colouring making them hard to distinguish, menus for "Settings" and menus for "Preferences", seemingly forty tools to do the same or variations on the same task etc.

Oh, and the graphics system still seems years behind Windows and especially MacOS X.

I agree with Jamie Zawinski now as much as ever - "Linux is only free if your time has no value." Windows is a gigantic hack yes, and not really a paragon of usability itself but it is somewhat usable, and it's fast in areas where fast is needed. But with MacOS X, Apple has shown it's possible to craft a GUI desktop environment of exceptional quality on top of Unix. Why is OS X so successful? Because Apple has complete control over the system, the desktop manager, and most of the software they ship. They establish rigid guidelines for application development that are revered and followed.

Before a company can distribute Linux and really have it succeed with normal desktop users, even power users like myself, it needs to look a little closer at what Apple has done.

Posted by ben at November 12, 2003 8:52 PM

Comments

Damn straight. I really want to like using Linux, but I have to come to terms with the fact that I hate using it. "the sum of a thousand motives" sums it all up.

Posted by: Josh at November 12, 2003 10:49 PM

For those of us who can hardly afford a legal copy of mswin (don't even talk about a mac), linux looks like a good option as any. My time has value, guess it just isn't as valuble as yours...

Posted by: basic at November 12, 2003 11:52 PM

Contrary to your points and speaking as a UI fanatic and proud long-term Apple user, I've been highly impressed by the number of F/OSS developers who quite clearly 'get it' these days (possibly due to exposure to Mac OS X).

I note that your complaint about moving files without the correct permissions only became possible through the GUI with the latest rev of OS X i.e. in the last month.

I'll also note that 'complete control over the system' for Apple obviously includes synching with FreeBSD 5.0, shipping CUPS & Gimp-Print drivers, Apache, Samba, etc. etc. which somewhat undermines your point.

Also, have you read the Gnome HIG? (http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/) It's followed within the core Gnome suite about as well as Apple follows theirs within their OS bundled apps. Of course neither has much control over 3rd parties and they both have issues with 'foreign' apps (Java, KDE, QT, OS 9 etc.)

Ironically, as that rather poor review you link to shows, the people who have trouble with Linux are the people who know enough to get into trouble.

I'd happily recommend Linux for a granny (assuming Mac OS X was impossible for some reason and as it was installed for her) as email, web and other basic functions are more than taken care of.

Posted by: dave at November 13, 2003 3:41 AM

dave -

The value of Fedora's draconian permissions scheme is certainly apparent on corporate networks where users can and will break things on Windows that cause sysadmins to waste time. The value for a novice granny who relies on her experienced grandson to make all changes and uses the system only for a number of predefined tasks is also clear.

Once a user rises above that most basic level however, Fedora conspires to hurt them. "Know enough to get in trouble" really boils down to, in this case, "Know enough to install software." Fie on she who needs to install a new accounting regulations documentation package, or he who needs to install a new encyclopaedia for his children, or any other manner of task such as might be reasonably performed by an average home user. It is in software installation where Fedora soundly thwarted me this week.

And FWIW, MacOS X has allowed me to install my own programs without authentication since OS X 10.0.

Posted by: Ben at November 13, 2003 11:51 AM

That review is horrible. The reviewer refused to use yum, the dependancy-resolving package install tool that comes bundled with fedora, and instead used the unsupported apt and later on *ugh* manual compiling (if you have to resort to manual compiling for running regular apps on any modern distro, you're doing something wrong).

Then, when she has succeeded at destroying the system, she makes a catalog of exactly in how many ways it broke. Not helpful in the least. The only thing that review proves is that fedora is not idiotproof.

I don't get the argument that linux is only free if your time has no value. I spend just as much time maintaining my w2k box than I do my linux box (in both cases: very little time). Maybe they mean "take longer doing tasks in it", but my personal experience contradicts that too. And just like with linux, it took me years to pick up my windows knowledge.

Clearly mac os x is the best desktop os out there, but imho linux (and specifically: debian) is the best desktop os for x86.

Posted by: Joeri Sebrechts at November 13, 2003 2:55 PM

To clarify:

Until Jaguar was released there was no way to move files to areas you didn't have permissions for without resorting to the command line.

This may well be the reason that Apps are (by convention) stored in a globally accessible area, rather than in a ~/Applications folder (i.e. per user) leaving /Applications for things that someone with admin access wants to make available to everyone.

Yes, installing apps in Linux generally sucks but you can avoid most of the trouble if you stick to the items available through your supplied package manager.

Posted by: dave at November 14, 2003 6:41 AM

Respectfully submit that A)you kinda don't know what your talking about B) Apple and OSX are Not GOD and everything about them is not perfect C) My Gnome 2.4 desktop looks a hell of lot better than either XP or OSX out of the box D) Things have changed a HELL of a lot since 1998 and Linux is easy than Windows to setup and get going on.

Why listen to me though? Just keep investing your time learning other OS's and then point out over and over how Linux isn't exactly the same as what you've spent years using. That's what everyone else does.

Sincerely,

A "normal desktop user"

Posted by: Does is Matter at November 16, 2003 7:24 PM

What do you mean I don't know what I'm talking about? I've set up Linux on several machines over the past few years including my most recent machine, and everything I write is a reflection of personal experience. Before I switch to anything I have to be convinced that it will actually help me be more productive, not less, and I just don't see how that can possibly be the case with Linux. Writing good software UI is about catering to users' needs, not telling them they need to "invest time learning". Who has time to invest time learning how to accomplish the same task in 4x as many steps when the status quo is easier and well, already installed? Users (including myself) are not interested in wasting any time learning a new system that /wastes/ our time. We simply have better things to spend our time on. MacOS X isn't perfect, but it's the best of what's out there I think. I use it for a few tasks (including media management, video editing, web browsing and drawing) - which it does in a simply exemplary fashion, and Windows for a few other things (debugging, IRC) - which it does in a similarly exemplary fashion. I've yet to find a use for Redhat's Linux distributions, and as I've described the desktop environment has nothing really to entice me away from what I have.

Posted by: Ben at November 16, 2003 11:12 PM

Seriously, though, we all know nothing will ever beat NextStep.

Posted by: dean at November 21, 2003 2:53 AM

How does one install Firefox on a Linux system?
I have downloaded it, but cannot find any info on how to install it.

Posted by: joe at April 29, 2004 5:45 PM

©1997-2006 Ben Goodger. All Rights Reserved.
Opinions expressed here are my own, and not those of any organization that I may be affiliated with.
Reload icon is © Stephen Horlander;
Firefox logo is by Jon Hicks, and is a trademark of The Mozilla Foundation.
GetFirefox buttons are from rakaz