All that matters to a user is the GUI

The trouble with computers is the same as a bunch of blind men describing an elephant. Who is touching what and who is expressing their opinion. The topic of choice is the human-computer interface. What do you, the common computer user today use to access, control, manipulate and view data? Besides the various input and output devices there is a common element that co-ordinates the whole arrangement. It's what you see on your computer screen, the desktop GUI (graphical user interface). The GUI is a bone of contention among system designers. Some are old enough to remember the all text days. I my self was around when pen and ink drafting gave way to computer aided drafting, so I know the pangs of progress. The fact that the GUI responsible for the popular use of computers, is often lost on some programmers and developers has not hampered its use in the least. So, even if the operating system is perfection itself, the GUI is the thing the user handles. If the GUI is sloppy, sluggish, ugly or any other faulty adjective, the user thus judges the whole system as lame. And you know how picky some users are. The GUI has progressed since the early days in Xerox labs and I don't think we've seen the end of it. Many are trying to extend the devices we use to manipulate the GUI beyond the keyboard and mouse. But for you and I right now we have the keyboard/mouse/screen combo with the on screen GUI. It is almost safe to say that certain elements of the GUI are standard, that is what a user expects to see on the desktop after boot up. You expect to see a status bar, menus, and of course icons and windows. Who doesn't know how to point and click, drag and drop, and cut and paste? If you can work the GUI, you can work the computer. It always cracks me up to hear users say the GUI and OS they are using is the best. They often get quite heated over criticisms to the contrary. In truth, you'd have to admit that the quality of workmanship of the operating system underneath the GUI does show through. Stability and response are very apparent to users when trying to get work done. My point is not to promote who has the best elephant(GUI), but that GUI's are the common access method for users of computers today. If you can grasp the GUI concept, it probably wouldn't matter the brand name of the operating system behind it. Of course and having said that, I am implying that many are duped to believe that Microsoft and Apple software are all there is and that they alone have the polish and glitz to own the desktop. This is not the whole truth and in fact Linux is not the only other operating system with a GUI that is available for public use today. Again, my point is that if you can work the GUI (point, click, drag, drop, cut and paste), you can operate virtually any desktop computer today. Talking cars, does your drivers training make you a Ford, Chevy or Toyota person, or give you the ability to drive any car, truck or van? I know, a computer system is so much more than just a GUI, but the GUI is the means to access any system today. Many operating system camps use the scenario of how easy is it for grandparents to use a computer. It is the GUI they are talking about. Will they understand how to point and click, drag and drop or cut and paste? It is about the precise location of screen elements (habit optimised) vs user adjusting and tweaking. It is about knowing what to expect when you click. A GUI can add a level of reassurance to a person poking the keyboard and clicking the mouse. The GUI is a comfortable face on a screen of numbers. The GUI is the thing!

Desktop revenge of the nerds

Well, as of now all is well on my Linux desktop. Previously I got a little greedy for desktop video playing in the background of my near perfect setup. I changed the video drivers to accommodate the fancy graphics and boom! my Linux wouldn't boot at all. I tried all kinds of rescue boot disks to no avail, the system was hosed. There is something to be said of non-programmers waiting for stuff to reach the mainstream. I heard that both Mac and even MS Windows could do background video, I thought surely Linux could do it too. I am not alone in my quest. Others are seeking this in Linux also. It is possible but, I want to see it without adding both extreme hardware and software. After all, I am a man of modest means.

Hosing your system brings on a whole slew of lessons to be learned. The biggest one is to backup both personal data and settings. It also gave me a chance to practice things only a Linux user can appreciate. I am talking about using the dreaded command line. It does come in handy when a Gui just can't be summoned. I can not understand the gasp! at the thought of using a command line. A little knowledge goes a long way in Linux and there is very little to figure out if some helpful person gives you the script to type in and shows you what to expect on a web page. I think command line fear is over rated. I also use the command line in MS Windows because some things you just don't have access to in the Gui.

I figured a few hours of downloading and tweaking and playing around and all is restored on my Linux desktop. I even found a program to dress up the boot loader with color. My Linux desktop now plays the Airwolf theme song on startup and the Knightrider theme on shutdown. Dumb but cute. There is quite a list of software packages to explore in Linux, all for free. Finding the ones to do what I want to do is a job in itself but, part of the fun of computing. Do I have a wish list of things I'd like to see in Linux? Well, the desktop background video for one, but also I would like to see something like Incredimail, a Window's program that has full color email, for Linux. Gee, I'll have to give some time to XP one of these days just to visit the few programs I miss.

Taste and Choice on the desktop

With all the kinds of people out there it is very, very hard to satisfy all the different taste people have. We users are very choosy when it comes to the look and feel of our desktop or not. Some are just comfortable with what is offered and others must tweak and adjust until out desktop is just right. The problem has always been for software writers, just how much tweaking can you allow users to do before it becomes a headache to manage? You know, you don't want your upgrade package to wipe out the after market add-ons if you can help it. This I experienced when I tried to install the FlyakiteOSX desktop in MS Windows XP. The program produced a DLL relocation error because it was incompatible with some security patches. So in the quest to tweak the look and feel there are some pot holes to navigate around.

Well, what is hot and what is not? These days it seems that the Mac desktop is the one to emulate. The Mac desktop in my humble opinion is simply the most functional thing I've seen so far. The Mac desktop is clean and not littered with shortcut icons and desktop folders. Of course the clutter option is always present, but I myself like the clean look. Here are some screen shots of my desktops.
This shot is my Kubuntu Linux Desktop. I made the row of icons on the bottom smaller than the ones on the Mac screen so they don't get in the way. The icon dock program is called KoolDock and it works in the KDE desktop environment, nicely.
Now, this is a shot of my MS Windows XP desktop. It has a skin applied that has a decided Mac look. The icon dock on the bottom is called RKLauncher. Again I put all those many desktop shortcuts into a desktop folder so I can get at them when I need them. The launcher cleans up the desktop rather nice. The icons on the side still are double-click to use but the ones on the bottom are single click. MS should give you a choice to single click, my fingers don't always get double-click on the first try.

So, is Mac emulation flattery or envy? You have to decide for your self. Desktop arrangements are just tools to get at the files and programs on your machine. Look and feel is a very personal thing if you discover you can do something about it. The question you are all dying to ask is, what do I think of the new MS Vista look and feel? I think it is more of the same Microsoft you know and love. But fear not, there are already tweakers at work extending the look and feel of Vista into personal statements of otherworldliness. Why? Because they can. Do I have a favorite desktop? At this point, I still favor the Kubuntu Linux desktop mainly because of the crisp response to my mouse clicks. I like the way windows pop in and out, not fading in and out of existence in slow motion but, crisp and snappy. I like another feature Kubuntu has, the desktop background can be set to change every so often, your choice, so that you don't see the same constant view. Now if some enterprising tweaker can get movies to run as the background image, full screen, that would be interesting.

Are there more desktop ideas to be exploited in the future? Why yes. I have seen on the web several desktop arrangements in the works. Apple is improving on the icon docking system for sure making it even more functional. Linux has had desktop docking applications for a long time now in different window managers but a serious overhauling would be needed if that idea would be explored again and integrated into the popular Gnome and KDE desktops. It is all very much like cars, same function, different look and feel (and price).

Some Vista concerns

It occurred to me that I didn't really give Vista a fair shot, after all it wasn't on my computer and I didn't spend time alone with it. So, my judgment is probably not to be entirely trusted. Still, first impressions do say a lot. I was struck by the fact that Vista is a different animal than XP. They have done things differently in Vista to where us XP users will have to "learn" MS Windows all over again.

How does Vista with Aero stack up against the latest Linux offerings?
I saw in one comparison between Vista and Linux with Beryl a complaint that Beryl was an add-on software and not built into the Linux desktop. Beryl is a very flashy, 3d, animated, desktop interface for Linux. This is really funny because in Linux "everything" is an add-on. But I must say that most people will buy a computer with Vista Home Premium installed, which has the Aero desktop, rather than the Vista Home Basic which does not. I wonder why Microsoft even bothered with Home Basic. Well its all a money thing. Anyway, some versions of Linux do include Beryl as an optional desktop and yes, I have the option to use it(but don't). OK, so there is NOT a comparison between Vista Home Basic and Linux minus the graphic enhancements. That perhaps would show what the real worth the basic operating systems have. Microsoft doesn't show off Vista without the "Wow" factor. That is its' biggest selling point. My point is that Vista can be had without Aero and Linux can be had without Beryl. Is Vista Home Basic really an improvement over XP is what we all want to know? Is "Wow" what we really want? Are you a secret geek at heart? These questions I will have to dig into in the future.

Now, what does all this desktop fuss do to the question, "can my grandma use my computer?" Sorry, grandma will have to "learn" to use it. Computers just are not simple intuitive devices. If and when computers can provide a speech driven interface, then we can perhaps approach that kind of interaction. Still, there are so many problems with speech input and we will have to "learn" that also. I think it is funny that the goal of the intuitive desktop interface equals "does not have to learn". There is no real intuitive interface between man and machines. I don't think we want to have millions of people with Borg like integration with computers. But we will keep trying to find the holy grail of interfaces until one day we are assimilated.

Some additions, it turns out that Vista Home Basic is a slight improvement over XP. Microsoft has done somethings better. What will happen is a cost comparison between Vista Home Premium (with Aero) and Vista Home Basic & pimping it out yourself. There are already a number of free and non-free software packages to pimp out Vista. This simply shows that lots of Microsoft users are already working past what Microsoft offers. But all said and done this compares to what you can get in Linux, probably for free.

On the Desktop Again!!

As I wrote in my last blog, I pimped my XP desktop. It looks and acts pretty sweet compared to the stock xp desktop. The green and blue start bar is no more and the skin has an Apple flavor. And with RKLauncher, it is a efficient looking, yet very sporty desktop. My Ubuntu Linux desktop looks almost the same but is a little more polished. Microsoft doesn't like you messing with their software. So, without 3rd party add-on software you can't change it very much. Then there is the problem of 3rd party software not being compatible with the security updates, which is why I can't use FlyakiteOSX.

Got a chance to fuss with a laptop with Vista on it. I had to go hunting for all the functions that were up front in XP. I wasn't very comfortable using Vista. People will be glad when there is an arm load of programs to load on it to do regular stuff. My friend who had the laptop was saddled with MS Works for free. This is not even an Office compatible suite. You can change some files to Office file format but it can screw you up. But it beats the trial version of Office I got with my desktop. So I loaded Open Office 2 on the laptop until they could obtain a copy of MS Office. I myself will not buy MS Office for myself. I am very happy with Open Office. So my immediate advice to anyone getting Vista is to go to the library, get the books. Vista is different than XP by a long shot. It looks and feels different and things are in different places. I have witnessed the new boy gleam of a couple of new Vista users. I don't plan to be around them when the wants and needs kick in. The pre-installed OS always gives you a "I don't want anything else" sleep. It will be a while before there is a boatload of hardware drivers and utilities that are Vista compatible. And don't have a 64-bit processor, you will be waiting a long time for support.

Well, that was my small Vista adventure. Did discover Oxygen Office Premium. It is a version of Open Office that has extensions, clip-art, extras and I think Visual Basic programming. I got the MS Windows version running in XP and Vista, but I could not get the Linux version to run because it is 32-bit and I have a 64-bit processor. But I still have Open Office in 64-bit. Yes, there are 64-bit problems in Linux too. Also I discovered the famous Linux program Evolution, which is a email/calender/PIM program, has been ported over to MS Windows. The package installer works in XP and eariler only. So Vista users will have to deal with Outlook and security holes, I mean patches.

So, is there any big differences between MS XP/Vista and Linux that stick out? I know you can add a very slick, graphic intensive, 3d, moving display in Linux but Linux has always had a little program called a pager. It can be assigned any number of desktop spaces. You could open programs in one space, switch to another while the original program is still running. Plus you get a tiny graphic of each desktop in the task bar. It is very handy and practical. XP doesn't have this and Vista, if you get the higher priced fancier versions, has the 3d rotating stack of windows. Sorry, but it is not very much advanced over a non-rotating stack of over laying windows. In Linux you can move open windows between desktops. I just don't think MS has created something cool enough to warrant a new operating system. It may take a while for the tweak geeks to take Vista off-road. So, again, if you buy a new computer you most likely are saddled with Vista, good luck and have fun. I am still dual-booting XP and Ubuntu Linux. They are neck and neck in many aspects but I like and prefer the look and feel of Ubuntu Linux with the latest KDE desktop. MS XP is very workable in its older state, except for the security patches. Vista is too new to be practical yet.

MS vs Linux steps up a notch

Well, I got tired of bitching about how my Windows XP desktop was cluttered and unresponsive. So I put most of the desktop shortcut icons in a desktop folder, that way I could get at them when I needed them. They weren't being used regularly anyway. Then I installed something called RKLauncher (RKDock). This handy item places a few most accessed icons on the desktop for fast easy access. It looks just like the icon tool bar on the Mac. When you hover over the icon with your mouse, the icon magnifies.
I tried out a few other freebies but they were buggy because of all the security fixes to XP. The best one was called FlyakiteOSX. It looked very, very nice compared to what I could do to the standard XP desktop. It had a DLL relocation problem that I couldn't fix. I really liked the Mac look but would have settled just for the better functionality. All in all I like my XP desktop again. I think it is amazing that some inventive programmers have figured out how to change the look and feel of MS Windows by adding on some software.

My next major shakeup was what to do with the Linux desktop. I have been a Gnome desktop fan since I first installed Red Hat years ago. I didn't like KDE because it was complicated in its look and feel. The little dragon symbol I also thought was hoke. KDE users bragged about the ability to reconfigure the look and feel of the desktop. All I saw was menu after nested menu, especially in the control panel. Gnome was simple to set up, my grandmother could use it. I guess even Linus T. himself had something to say about the simplicity of Gnome. But he was questioning the attitude of its programmers. They were, according to him, underestimating the mental capacity of the users of their desktop. I thought simple was nice so I didn't have a problem. A funny thing happened to KDE, it was improved for the better. So I backed up my personal files and bookmarks, my address book. I installed Kubuntu (with KDE) over Ubuntu (with Gnome). I like what I see of KDE, the convoluted double nested menus are gone. It has a nicer look and feel. It is still tweakable. I am not head over heels satisfied yet, there are some differences to get used to. I want to say out loud that KDE is not like MS Windows and people who say that are smoking something. I thought Gnome was more like MS Windows but thats my opinion. So, I am tweaking my KDE desktop to get the best out of it. I miss the Synaptic Application Manager that was in Gnome, but the Apt-get interface works quite well. KDE seem to have a better variety of programs written for it that integrate well into it. I installed a little program called KoolDock. It again is like the Mac icon toolbar that sits at the bottom of the screen. It is very handy and works with KDE. Change is good and it all seems to get better.