[tomdkat]

This isn't about "eye candy" but about usability. Of course, the environment one is most familiar with will be the "easiest" for them to use but I'm looking for practical, real-world characteristics that you feel make one environment easier to use than the other.

Which features and functions make the GNOME desktop easier to use than Windows Vista?

Which features and functions make Windows Vista easier to use than the GNOME desktop?

Peace...

[RootbeaR]

I don't use either.

KDE, it is for me.

I like its r-click access and set-up of menus.

[lotuseclat79]

Hi tomdkat and RootbeaR,

I don't think I will ever use Vista, but have to say that usability, as in ease of use, is number one for me. Since I regard KDE as mentioned by RootbeaR, the following is somewhat about using the KDE vs Gnome environments in terms of ease of use, and you might be able to project the argument to a Gnome vs. Vista experience (or not?).

I have a challenge for RootbeaR in using KDE (e.g. Kubuntu). See if you can compile the source code for Tork in Kubuntu. If you are successful, please send me (PM is fine) the list of packages you have installed to do it (in /var/lib/dpkg/info, do the command, ls -1t, and cut off the end at casper.list to the end). Tork, an anonymity controller for Tor, is a KDE only application as far as I can tell, and has not been ported to Gnome - which would be a lengthy and probably difficult project for anyone but the most knowledgeable Gui programmers. Privoxy is not a part of it, and needs to also be installed for more privacy, as well as: netstat (net-tools package, GeoIP, and Torbutton add-on for Firefox). Oh, and if you undertake this challenge and are successful at using Tork for anonymous browsing, that would be nice to know (from a KDE Kubuntu environment) for a lot of people as to how you did it - which is basically what I am asking about - so, you might be able then to write a Tutorial on it and post it on the Kubuntu Forum.

I absolutely hate the Adept Package Manager in KDE (Kubuntu), but noticed that the Synaptic Package Manager is available in KDE (Kubuntu) - whew!!! Adept is not a very intuitive interface, while Synaptic Package Manager is easy to use from that point of view - i.e. I can figure it out and it is straightforward in what it does and the information it is telling me from which I can figure out what's going on. Adept just does its own thing and it is not obvious about what to do from what it tells you.

Having the right tools and apps available with an easy to use package manager and repositories with a rich set of apps is essential. Ubuntu shines in this regard with the Gnome environment (I might add that Linus Torvalds has recently moved over to Gnome for this apparent reason - i.e. that he was annoyed with KDE), while Kubuntu's shine is less.

Apologies to tomdkat on my rant about KDE and my lack of knowledge about using the Vista environment.

-- Tom

[RootbeaR]

Hi lotuseclat79.

I can't take that challenge at this time as I don't have a partition available for Kubuntu.

Last one was just put into use for Virtual Box and 7.

Nor can I do it on PCLOS as I then would have to change my forum for support (provided only for mainstream install with additions strictly from synaptic package manager. Have to go to advanced forum, hackmypclinuxos, for additional help when installing from elsewhere and I am not advanced).

If I get a chance in the future, keep in mind it will be my first time compiling a package.

Unless downloading Google earth from internet and installing it counts (did this with my first install, all by r-clicking, didn't even know how to open shell/konsole at the time).


Something both of you may find interesting and it affects both gnome and kde, among other window managers, big time:
"How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps"
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229

Xfce anyone?

[060456F]

I have been using all these OS's; Vista, Ubuntu and Kubuntu. I just love all these because all of these have different capabilities and characteristics. Linux is a very robust and stable OS which is reliable to be not to fail. I give Fedora the first place in this regard for linux distros. Ubuntu has been very user friendly and targets the very essentials.
Coming in to the question of Tomdcat. I would give marks out of 100 as below.

Vista - 90
Ubuntu - 85
Kubuntu - 70

This is because Vista has always been cool and user friendly and allow any user to customize there desktop and all other windows as to there wish by giving lots of options from resolution, font, icon size, icon space etc etc. All the icons from Computer, Documents, Games to Folders are pretty logical and beautiful.
Ubuntu's Gnome desktop is not much less than that. But it's still bit behind the windows new aero style.Ubuntu too is cool and not cluttered with unnecessary stuff. Ubuntu's icons are also not bad and looks cool.
Kubuntu's KDE on the other hand tries to look like windows style, but it looks cluttered. And the icons look little hot than the Vista and Ubuntu's.

Note : Anyway these are what my thoughts and the marks I have given is for the Desktop environment, not for the OS's. Marks that you would give may differ from your view and taste.
I apologise if I hurt anybodies taste and mind.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

Something both of you may find interesting and it affects both gnome and kde, among other window managers, big time:
"How to write a Linux virus in 5 easy steps"
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229

Thanks for the link. This quote makes me wonder why the author hasn't corrected the title or focus of the article:

I should point out: The vulnerabilities we will be taking advantage of are 'features' of the most popular modern Linux desktop environments, Gnome and KDE. The actual core of Linux itself does not have any of these vulnerabilities. A Linux (or any other *nix) system without running Gnome or KDE will not exhibit any of these problems, which is one of the huge advantages of properly separating the core OS from other applications such as the desktop environment.

I think the "launcher" issues identified with GNOME and KDE are a direct result of trying to make a Linux desktop more "friendly" to a Windows user.

In any event, thanks for the feedback.

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by 060456F

This is because Vista has always been cool and user friendly and allow any user to customize there desktop and all other windows as to there wish by giving lots of options from resolution, font, icon size, icon space etc etc.

Thanks for the comments! I've got no problem with your prefering Vista's interface to either GNOME or KDE since it's your preference.

Anywho, what kinds of desktop and window elements have you been able to configure in Vista that you have not been able to configure in GNOME or KDE? I think to get the "Aero" kind of eye candy, you'll need to run the Compiz window manager, which I believe integrates with GNOME and KDE (not 100% sure).

Other than familiarity, how does Vista's method of customization of desktop and window elements differ from GNOME or KDE, making Vista's method easier for the end user? For example, how many steps are required to change the monitor resolution in Vista vs GNOME or KDE? That kind of thing.

Peace...

[RootbeaR]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Thanks for the link. This quote makes me wonder why the author hasn't corrected the title or focus of the article:
I think the "launcher" issues identified with GNOME and KDE are a direct result of trying to make a Linux desktop more "friendly" to a Windows user.

In any event, thanks for the feedback.

Peace...

The title is a little misleading as it is not a true virus.

But it could be malicious.

[060456F]

Nice to have a little conversation as it is interesting like two friends arguing about which team in a particular sport is the best.
Tom, I too love the Gnome and KDE. But this all about a persons taste.
It may be easier to set the resolution of Gnome or KDE than the Vista's, but another setting might fit easy in Vista. Again I say that the marks I have given is relative to me and it only measures the desktop environment, not the OS's. Vista for is very cool as Gnome with little less. Further Gnome and KDE might even have more options to configure in the desktop than the Vista's. But why I like vista is that it provides the options what exactly a particular user tries to find out (such as icon size). Gnome and KDE's some options are not clear for a first user. A user may not be experimental to test what an option might result. Vista's most options are clear and a user would not bother to experiment since there may be a button saying "Set to default" which brings back what you had after a clean install.
Gnome and KDE are not difficult to play with. But it takes time. In Windows I have seen even a small 5/6 year old boy explaining stuff for his father, who is not experienced in the computing world. But this kind of
Another cool feature I like in Windows environment is that you can customize a folder to look like a specific icon.
Tom don't scold me. This is what my taste is. I don't say that your views are wrong. Your ideas are completely correct for you and for the people having your taste. My ideas are true for me and for guy having my taste.

Cool

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

The title is a little misleading as it is not a true virus.

But it could be malicious.

Yeah, this was mentioned in the article as well.

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by 060456F

Tom don't scold me. This is what my taste is. I don't say that your views are wrong. Your ideas are completely correct for you and for the people having your taste. My ideas are true for me and for guy having my taste.

Cool

What are you talking about? I'm not going to "scold" you. I might chew your head off, but that's different... LOL Just kidding...

Again, I've got nothing against you having your personal preferences and I don't question the scores you gave to each above. The thing is, we have all read various threads on many forums comparing which is "better" or "easier" and in the end it basically comes down to the environment any given user is mostly familiar with. That's why I asked for specifics in this thread. Someone might saw, "GNOME is easier to use than Windows Vista because it's more intuitive," yet they won't give specifics in what makes GNOME more intuitive.

Let's take the Windows "Start" menu as an example. In XP-land and in Vista-land, the "Start" menu (which is no longer named "Start" in Vista) is where you access applications, settings, and where you can restart Windows, shut it down, or just log off. To many, clicking "Start", then "Shut down" doesn't make much sense but it's something Windows users are used to doing. In GNOME, Applications are accessible directly through the "Applications" menu. There is a power button icon that is used to restart, shutdown, or simply log off. The "System" menu is used to access system preferences or administration functions. To some, this makes more sense than having everything in the "Start" menu. To others, this won't be a big deal at all and to yet others, they will think having everything "split up" means more "clicks" or whatever. Whether or not GNOME's difference from Windows Vista in this example makes GNOME more "intuitive" or not might be debatable but at least we've got something tangible to talk about.

You mention Vista's ability to allow the user to control the size of icons. I couldn't find such a setting in the System Preferences in GNOME at all. Does that mean Vista is easier to use because it's more configurable? I don't know but at least we've got some tangibles to discuss.

The more we can look at actual capabilities and functionality, the better we can ascertain what the actual strengths and weaknesses of these UIs are instead of comparing personal preferences, as we usually tend to do.

You mentioned Vista's ability to change an icon for a folder. I found out this morning GNOME has the same ability but I had to read the help to find out how to do it. I have never tried to change a folder's icon in Vista but if I could figure out how to do it without reading the help, that would be a plus for Vista's ease of use.

I'm not looking to change or challenge your personal preferences at all, I'm just looking for specifics.

Peace...

[RootbeaR]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Let's take the Windows "Start" menu as an example. In XP-land and in Vista-land, the "Start" menu (which is no longer named "Start" in Vista) is where you access applications, settings, and where you can restart Windows, shut it down, or just log off. To many, clicking "Start", then "Shut down" doesn't make much sense but it's something Windows users are used to doing. In GNOME, Applications are accessible directly through the "Applications" menu. There is a power button icon that is used to restart, shutdown, or simply log off. The "System" menu is used to access system preferences or administration functions. To some, this makes more sense than having everything in the "Start" menu. To others, this won't be a big deal at all and to yet others, they will think having everything "split up" means more "clicks" or whatever. Whether or not GNOME's difference from Windows Vista in this example makes GNOME more "intuitive" or not might be debatable but at least we've got something tangible to talk about.

KDE, you r-click anywhere on the desktop. Log out.

Is this why you didn't include it? Too clear of a winner?

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

KDE, you r-click anywhere on the desktop. Log out.

Is this why you didn't include it? Too clear of a winner?

Yeah, that's it. LOL

Peace...

[RootbeaR]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Yeah, that's it. LOL

Peace...

Thanks tomdkat.

I needed that after these last few days.

Edit:
My own little chuckle that is.

[atkail]

KDE all the way, better all around placement.