by
Abhijeet Chavan
March 22, 2000 - Linuxpower
The next debate
These are exciting times for Linux. Linux has gained major supporters in recent months with many of the giants in the computing industry making announcements involving the once-rebel operating system (OS). Linux has its critics but has proven itself to be a robust server OS and is being compared with more expensive proprietary OSes. The next debate now is whether or not Linux is ready for the "desktop".
It is being argued in the media that Linux may be a viable server OS but for it to be usable by people other than the "techies", Linux has to have a user-friendly Graphical User Interface (GUI). Unlike Microsoft Windows, several GUI alternatives are already available for Linux, each catering to a different taste or need. The two that seem to have received more attention are the K Desktop Environment (KDE) and the GNU Network Object Model Environment (GNOME). Both these initiatives already provide some of the functionality that is expected of a GUI desktop environment. However, as Linux enters the desktop arena, it is inevitable that Linux GUI alternatives will be compared to Microsoft's Windows GUI environment.
The world's largest billboard
Most computer users feel strongly about their GUI desktop environment and given the flexibility, they will modify it to suit their personal taste, needs, and work habits. Some prefer applications and documents accessible via icons strewn on the desktop. Others like an uncluttered desktop with everything arranged in neat folders. Some prefer a dark, unobtrusive background color. Others love psychedelic swirling patterns.
The computer desktop is as personal as a real desk.
However, it is not only the OS's GUI that determines the user's desktop experience; the manner in which other applications running on that desktop behave can significantly change the overall desktop experience.
Consider the Windows GUI desktop environment - this is the interface that a majority of the world's computer users use to interact with their computers. For me, the Windows desktop experience, while providing useful desktop functionality and customization is also a source of constant irritation. It is not Windows the OS which is at fault - it is the applications that run on it. Lately, I feel it has reached a stage where these irritations are not minor; misbehaving applications on the Windows desktop reduce my efficiency and weaken my control over my desktop environment.
When I install applications on a computer running Windows (95/98/NT), the installation programs usually add items to the "Start Menu" and dump icons on the desktop. Some are polite and ask for my permission before doing so. Most don't. I would be more understanding if these icons were deposited to make it convenient to start up the newly installed application, but the icons I see are often to get me to install another product or to sign up for a service offered by the software developer.
Some applications install tiny icons into the Windows "System Tray". System Tray applications are usually launched upon boot up. What if I don't want them to be up and running each time I boot up? I have encountered a particularly obstinate "System Tray" entry that required messing around with the Windows Registry to get rid of it!
How can I ignore the "splash screen" that is thrust in my face each time I launch an application? It pops up right in the middle of my screen preventing me from doing something else while the application is loading up. It is particularly annoying when several splash screens from different applications pop up each time I boot up or log in, fighting with each other to get my attention. I know I am using that product. Do I have to be reminded each time I boot up?
My Windows desktop is the unfortunate battlefield for the much-publicized "browser wars" between leading Web browsers. Netscape's Communicator and Microsoft's Internet Explorer (MSIE) are fighting over who gets to be the default browser - forcing me to choose one or the other. MSIE also insists on setting up "channels" for me. Maybe channels make it easier for the home user to access content on the Internet. What I cannot understand is how businesses put up with this. Aren't these channels a potential distraction for their employees?
Software developers have abused the Windows desktop environment. Install an application and you make your desktop vulnerable to invading icons, menu items, splash screens and other annoyances that have little do with being user-friendly and more to do with marketing. And this is not something that happens only with freeware or shareware products that have no other way of marketing. Commercial applications are as guilty, if not more so. The fact that I have purchased and installed a commercial software product on my computer does not give the commercial software developer or vendor the right to use my computer for their marketing purposes.
The Windows desktop environment, installed on the majority of the planet's computers, has turned into the world's largest billboard.
Some of these annoyances are easy to fix. Others are impossible to eliminate with reasonable effort. Each of them require the user to make an extra effort to get rid of the advertising. Users often submit to this intrusion just because it is too much work or they don't know what to do. I have given up too. I make token effort to clean up desktop icons but don't bother with the rest. It is too much trouble.
"The Apps are coming!"
What struck me most when I booted into the graphical environment of my first installation of Linux - it was RedHat 4.2 running the FVWM95 window manager - was not how that old box suddenly seemed new again. It was the calm of the graphical desktop environment. It did not matter how many applications I installed, nothing appeared on my desktop or menus unless I added it. I had control over my desktop.
Since then I have tried KDE which I found easier to customize. But the desktop is still in my control. No system tray lint. No icons gathering like dust bunnies in the corners of my desktop. No splash screen either - most free Linux applications load silently and only present themselves to me when they are ready. This is software that doesn't need splash screens to announce its existence. These applications rely on their usefulness and excellence to get noticed.
Can Linux make it as a desktop OS? In my opinion, it is just a question of time. Development in the Linux world is driven by need and interest. If there is continued interest and need there will be a Linux GUI environment that satisfies the needs of Linux desktop users. Both GNOME and KDE already offer a lot. I have used KDE and it provides most of the functionality I need. I haven't used GNOME but judging from the screen-shots it appears to be equally appealing. Other GUI alternatives like Window Maker satisfy other tastes and needs - there is something for everyone.
But the desktop experience is not just the GUI. It is also determined by how the other applications behave on that desktop. Open Source software and Linux are suddenly very interesting to companies that make proprietary non-free software. Big players in the computer industry are announcing Linux versions of their products. Several products are already available. These products are welcome additions to the Linux world. They address the needs and concerns of desktop users and will most likely attract new users to Linux. Many of these products, while not being Open Source, are available at no-cost for personal use making it even more attractive for desktop users.
The need for vigilance
Netscape Communicator 4.0x on Linux does not have a splash screen while the Windows version does. However, StarOffice (Star Division, GmbH) a feature-rich office productivity suite that is available for free, shows a splash screen when it starts up. The Linux version of WordPerfect8 (Corel Corp.) does the same. I find both these applications very useful but it makes me wonder if those splash screens are a sign of what is in store for the Linux desktop. What about all those new commercial Linux products that have been announced or are expected to be released in the near future? Will they install icons and add startup scripts of their own?
Excellent open source applications for Linux already exist or are in development. As free alternatives are already available, commercial software will have to work harder to survive in the Linux world. Will this mean higher quality commercial products? Or just more aggressive marketing?
Commercial software needs to be visible to be successful. As Linux GUI desktop environments like GNOME and KDE add more functionality and attract more desktop users, they may become easy targets for the marketing designs of software companies that will develop commercial products for Linux. Is there a possibility that Linux desktop environments may be abused as more commercial applications for Linux become available?
I certainly hope not. I would like to see developers of commercial software respect the Linux community and develop commercial software that adds to the usefulness of the Linux OS without turning it into a billboard. I would also like to see work on open source alternatives for commercial products continue even if commercial products for Linux are made available at little or no cost. This is the only way to ensure that commercial products play fair.
To protect what we have today the Linux community needs to remain vigilant.
Abhijeet Chavan is a Research Programmer at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA.