A few people have been directed here via the LXDE website, so I'm returning the favour. If you have an interest in free software, and especially if you have an older or lower performance computer, visit them at http://lxde.org/
LXDE is rapidly becoming my favourite way to use a computer. I mentioned in my last post about LXDE that Lubuntu was the only mainstream distribution that uses LXDE by default, because the LXDE version of Linux Mint had not been updated for a while. I now see that there is a newly released version at http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1930
Okay, it's a release candidate, but it shows that work is progressing towards a release. It is also probably more stable than the version of Lubuntu I tried, though I can't substantiate that. I will give it a try and let you know.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Linux vs OS-X
I hear people raving about the iPad and the iPhone on a daily basis. A lot of my friends, including my fiancée, actually own iPhones. An old friend of mine liked to tell me how great everything Apple was, like owning an Apple product was some kind of religious experience. To be honest, I can see how using a Mac could be likened to an epiphany, certainly if Windows is the only alternative you know.
In fairness, the last time I used a Mac was under System 7, and it was a Macintosh LC. It was a different operating system and a different architecture to modern Macs - Apple have changed the processor architecture twice since the days of the LC. In those days, my own computer was a Commodore Amiga 1200, which I still remember fondly.
I did like the LC, though. To my mind, a computer is a tool you use to get a job done, nothing more. It felt like System 7 had been designed with that idea firmly in mind. I knew nothing of free and open source software at the time, and I looked seriously at the possibility of owning a Mac. When I discovered the financial implications of Mac ownership, however, I quickly changed my mind.
I am not totally against OS-X, or modern Macs. I think that Apple's decision to borrow so much BSD code showed great intelligence on their part. I'm not going to get into the whole Linux vs BSD argument, because they are both extremely robust and each have their merits. What I will tell you, however, is that I intend to never own an Apple product.
I respect that some people love Macs, and I fully support your choice. That is the whole point, though - choice. Using a Mac pretty much limits you to the Mac interface, unless you get a Mac version of Linux and dual-boot (which, I believe, Apple have made increasingly difficult to achieve). I heard recently that the next version of OS-X will not run on Macs sold before 2009, only three years ago. The iPod encourages you to buy music from iTunes. I heard someone say that Apple locks people into Apple products in a way that Microsoft could only dream of getting away with. It's hard to argue with that one.
The reason I instantly fell in love with Linux is that it positively encourages choices. The focus is very much on freedom of distribution and the other freedoms enshrined in the GNU manifesto, but freedom of choice is one of the most positive aspects of free software. If I wanted to, I could make my Linux system look and behave like OS-X, but I choose not to. For me, a minimal desktop environment, very much in the mould of System 7 or the Amiga Workbench, suits the way I work much better. Linux gives me the freedom to make that choice (as would BSD, I'm sure).
Maybe free and open source software has instilled certain values in me. When my Apple-loving friend demonstrated his MacBook running OS-X, he clearly expected me to be impressed. All I could see was a manifestation of Apple's attitude towards its users, which I consider to be roughly the same as my impression of Microsoft - this is our vision of what a computer should be, and how it should be used, and you just have to accept it. Actually, I don't.
Any lawyers reading this should note that it is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact. If you want to sue me, the onus is on you to prove that the opinions I have expressed are untrue. Good luck with that.
In fairness, the last time I used a Mac was under System 7, and it was a Macintosh LC. It was a different operating system and a different architecture to modern Macs - Apple have changed the processor architecture twice since the days of the LC. In those days, my own computer was a Commodore Amiga 1200, which I still remember fondly.
I did like the LC, though. To my mind, a computer is a tool you use to get a job done, nothing more. It felt like System 7 had been designed with that idea firmly in mind. I knew nothing of free and open source software at the time, and I looked seriously at the possibility of owning a Mac. When I discovered the financial implications of Mac ownership, however, I quickly changed my mind.
I am not totally against OS-X, or modern Macs. I think that Apple's decision to borrow so much BSD code showed great intelligence on their part. I'm not going to get into the whole Linux vs BSD argument, because they are both extremely robust and each have their merits. What I will tell you, however, is that I intend to never own an Apple product.
I respect that some people love Macs, and I fully support your choice. That is the whole point, though - choice. Using a Mac pretty much limits you to the Mac interface, unless you get a Mac version of Linux and dual-boot (which, I believe, Apple have made increasingly difficult to achieve). I heard recently that the next version of OS-X will not run on Macs sold before 2009, only three years ago. The iPod encourages you to buy music from iTunes. I heard someone say that Apple locks people into Apple products in a way that Microsoft could only dream of getting away with. It's hard to argue with that one.
The reason I instantly fell in love with Linux is that it positively encourages choices. The focus is very much on freedom of distribution and the other freedoms enshrined in the GNU manifesto, but freedom of choice is one of the most positive aspects of free software. If I wanted to, I could make my Linux system look and behave like OS-X, but I choose not to. For me, a minimal desktop environment, very much in the mould of System 7 or the Amiga Workbench, suits the way I work much better. Linux gives me the freedom to make that choice (as would BSD, I'm sure).
Maybe free and open source software has instilled certain values in me. When my Apple-loving friend demonstrated his MacBook running OS-X, he clearly expected me to be impressed. All I could see was a manifestation of Apple's attitude towards its users, which I consider to be roughly the same as my impression of Microsoft - this is our vision of what a computer should be, and how it should be used, and you just have to accept it. Actually, I don't.
Any lawyers reading this should note that it is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact. If you want to sue me, the onus is on you to prove that the opinions I have expressed are untrue. Good luck with that.
Sunday, 26 February 2012
LXDE
One of the things I love about Linux, and the reason I spend more time using Linux than Windows, is that it just allows me to get the job done. There are times when I actually need to boot into Windows, and I find it infuriating. First of all, it takes an age to start, and then all the applications and things I want to do take place at a glacial speed. Much to my horror, I saw Linux going the same way.
For as long as I can remember, there have been people who love GNOME and people who love KDE. I have no problem with this, because Linux is all about choice. Personally, when Ubuntu switched their main desktop environment to Unity, it was just a step too far for me - it clearly wasn't ready, and the interface actually got in the way of me getting things done. Maybe that's personal preference, but I see no reason to fix something that isn't broken, and Unity was more like a smartphone interface than the traditional WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointer) environment of GNOME. I had easily made the switch to Ubuntu-based GNOME from KDE-based SuSE and Mandriva systems I used earlier. Yes, there were differences, but it was still a traditional WIMP environment. We should start using that acronym again - I prefer it to it's modern equivalent, GUI.
I switched to the Debian edition of Linux Mint, which had kept with the GNOME environment. Once again, I was happy with the interface between myself and the things I wanted to get done. However, a stream of updates to the system conspired to slow things down; not to the snail's pace of Windows, but certainly to an extent where I noticed. GNOME was becoming bloated. I wondered if switching back to KDE would make a difference but, looking at reports on the internet, and trying it out for myself, I came to the conclusion that it would not.
I have used XFCE in the past, and I'm a big fan of that desktop environment. It is a traditional desktop environment. I have some brief experience of GNOME 3 and, until Windows 8 comes along, I find it even more infuriating than Windows. XFCE was originally modelled on a standard UNIX desktop called CDE, and it is all the better for that. It is not difficult to use, it works in the manner I expect, and it simply gets out of the way and allows me to get things done. For now, this is the interface I have with my computer in Linux.
I'm becoming increasingly interested in LXDE, though. Compared to GNOME, KDE and XFCE, this desktop gets little attention from the big Linux distributors. Lubuntu - a LXDE version of the insanely popular Ubuntu - is an exception, and bundles LXDE as the desktop environment, but I found it to be incredibly unstable. It is, after all, based on the unstable branch of Debian, I guess.
My interest in this comes from a desire to run Linux on older computers. Imagine how many perfectly usable computers go to landfill each year, just because they can't run the latest version of Windows. Think also of poorer countries, where they would be happy to have ANY computer, as long as it is functioning. I ran some tests, on various distributions, and found that LXDE uses an average of 40MB less memory than XFCE. It also quickly became apparent that everything in LXDE happens at lightning speed. Yes, I could use even less resources by opting for a straight window manager, but I prefer the comfort of a desktop environment. I want the operating system to get out of the way and allow me to get things done, remember? A desktop environment is just more friendly than a simple window manager.
I'm seriously considering switching to LXDE as my main desktop. For me, it does not lack anything and it is simply a joy to see how responsive my computer is under that desktop. It just allows me to get things done quickly, without getting in the way. I'm currently running it on Debian Wheezy, though my default desktop is still set to XFCE. If there is a downside, it's that Windows feels even more lethargic by comparison now.
I hope they iron out the bugs in Lubuntu. In the meantime, I would like to see more Linux distributors get behind this UI. My fear is that Unity and GNOME, much like the upcoming Windows 8, are aimed at touchscreen computing. I suspect that touchscreens cost more to produce, so we are heading down a road which makes computers more expensive, thereby excluding those lower down the social order and reinforcing disadvantage. In the developing world, the majority of people can not afford a computer as things are, and that is a serious hindrance in these times. My interest in desktop environments that use few resources comes from a desire to get things done, without the interface getting in the way. However, if it also allows older computers to become usable again, that has environmental benefits (less waste) and may, for a few people who are less well off than the rest of us, serve as something of an equaliser.
For as long as I can remember, there have been people who love GNOME and people who love KDE. I have no problem with this, because Linux is all about choice. Personally, when Ubuntu switched their main desktop environment to Unity, it was just a step too far for me - it clearly wasn't ready, and the interface actually got in the way of me getting things done. Maybe that's personal preference, but I see no reason to fix something that isn't broken, and Unity was more like a smartphone interface than the traditional WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointer) environment of GNOME. I had easily made the switch to Ubuntu-based GNOME from KDE-based SuSE and Mandriva systems I used earlier. Yes, there were differences, but it was still a traditional WIMP environment. We should start using that acronym again - I prefer it to it's modern equivalent, GUI.
I switched to the Debian edition of Linux Mint, which had kept with the GNOME environment. Once again, I was happy with the interface between myself and the things I wanted to get done. However, a stream of updates to the system conspired to slow things down; not to the snail's pace of Windows, but certainly to an extent where I noticed. GNOME was becoming bloated. I wondered if switching back to KDE would make a difference but, looking at reports on the internet, and trying it out for myself, I came to the conclusion that it would not.
I have used XFCE in the past, and I'm a big fan of that desktop environment. It is a traditional desktop environment. I have some brief experience of GNOME 3 and, until Windows 8 comes along, I find it even more infuriating than Windows. XFCE was originally modelled on a standard UNIX desktop called CDE, and it is all the better for that. It is not difficult to use, it works in the manner I expect, and it simply gets out of the way and allows me to get things done. For now, this is the interface I have with my computer in Linux.
I'm becoming increasingly interested in LXDE, though. Compared to GNOME, KDE and XFCE, this desktop gets little attention from the big Linux distributors. Lubuntu - a LXDE version of the insanely popular Ubuntu - is an exception, and bundles LXDE as the desktop environment, but I found it to be incredibly unstable. It is, after all, based on the unstable branch of Debian, I guess.
My interest in this comes from a desire to run Linux on older computers. Imagine how many perfectly usable computers go to landfill each year, just because they can't run the latest version of Windows. Think also of poorer countries, where they would be happy to have ANY computer, as long as it is functioning. I ran some tests, on various distributions, and found that LXDE uses an average of 40MB less memory than XFCE. It also quickly became apparent that everything in LXDE happens at lightning speed. Yes, I could use even less resources by opting for a straight window manager, but I prefer the comfort of a desktop environment. I want the operating system to get out of the way and allow me to get things done, remember? A desktop environment is just more friendly than a simple window manager.
I'm seriously considering switching to LXDE as my main desktop. For me, it does not lack anything and it is simply a joy to see how responsive my computer is under that desktop. It just allows me to get things done quickly, without getting in the way. I'm currently running it on Debian Wheezy, though my default desktop is still set to XFCE. If there is a downside, it's that Windows feels even more lethargic by comparison now.
I hope they iron out the bugs in Lubuntu. In the meantime, I would like to see more Linux distributors get behind this UI. My fear is that Unity and GNOME, much like the upcoming Windows 8, are aimed at touchscreen computing. I suspect that touchscreens cost more to produce, so we are heading down a road which makes computers more expensive, thereby excluding those lower down the social order and reinforcing disadvantage. In the developing world, the majority of people can not afford a computer as things are, and that is a serious hindrance in these times. My interest in desktop environments that use few resources comes from a desire to get things done, without the interface getting in the way. However, if it also allows older computers to become usable again, that has environmental benefits (less waste) and may, for a few people who are less well off than the rest of us, serve as something of an equaliser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)