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.

The trailing edge

I'm proud to be on the trailing edge of technology.  No, you didn't read that wrong.  I have no interest in owning the latest and greatest electronic gadgets.

Friends point out that my mobile phone is behind the times, because it is just a phone.  Practically speaking, it allows me to call people and send text messages.  They try to convice me that I need their chosen smart phone, be it a Blackberry, iPhone or an Android device.  Actually, no, I don't need it.  They point out that I could access my Facebook account from anywhere.  Why?  How much is it going to cost me?

There's the whole point.  Cost.  Yes, they can access various online services from anywhere, but they pay heavily for the privilege.  I ask them if they have a computer at home.  If so, why are they paying for mobile data access every month, when they have a broadband connection at home lying idle?  It makes no sense to me.  If my car breaks down, I am glad to be able to make phone calls from anywhere.  I can't imagine needing to urgently update my Facebook status, from wherever I am.  The upside of a mobile phone is that I can contact people from wherever I am.  The downside is that THEY can contact ME.  Do I want to be bothered by emails and friend requests as well?  No, no, no.

How much did the device cost in the first place?  Nothing?  Think again about that.  Yes, you got it free with your phone contract, but this means you are paying monthly for your phone.  Don't believe me?  Check out your provider's SIM-only deals.

Here in the UK, the TV companies are in the process of switching off the old analogue TV signal.  For the most part, we have gone digital.  As if that were not enough, we are now also in the process of turning to high definition TV.  Again, why?  HDTV is meant to give a sharper picture, right?  I accept that, because it is undeniably true.  However, if I notice that my HDTV allows me to see every strand of someone's hair blowing in the breeze (as an example), doesn't that mean I have lost interest in the story of what I am watching?

HDTV is higher resolution than standard digital TV, and uses a much more sophisticated compression method.  This means higher power consumption, at a time when we are supposedly worried about energy efficiency.  For what purpose?  To get a sharper picture, that I may notice if I am bored with what I am watching or sat too close to the TV.  So, my energy consumption has risen and the new technology has made the TV more expensive because, let's face it, the electronics companies and broadcasting unions must recoup their research and development costs.  They are really trying to push HD now, so all new TVs are "HD Ready".  Right now, I still have the choice over whether I watch HD content or not.  I choose not to.

Needless to say, the same criticisms I apply to HDTV also apply to Blu-ray.  Given the choice of buying a movie on DVD or Blu-ray, I will go for the DVD, saving myself money in the process.

A victory for my point of view is the state of digital radio in the UK.  The BBC poured a huge amount of money into DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting) radio, and it has failed to meet expectations on a massive scale.  In theory, DAB allows more radio stations within the same frequency spectrum.  In practice, the broadcasting license for DAB is so expensive that few have applied.  The BBC dominates the DAB airways.  Most people report sound quality that falls short of their old FM radio, and an odd "bubbling" effect when the reception is poor.  Again, in terms of energy efficiency, early DAB radios used about twenty times the energy of an equivalent FM radio.

A "feature" of DAB is the display of the name of the station you are currently listening to, along with other text information.  It also automatically sets the time on the integrated clock, if your radio has that feature.  If you spend somewhat less money on an FM radio with a feature called RDS (Radio Data System), it also has those features.  To make matters worse, the next version of DAB, which is called DAB+, has better sound quality and extra features.  It is also incompatible with the current version of DAB.  Unless the manual for your radio specifically states that it can be upgraded to DAB+, you will at some point be the owner of a very expensive lump of metal and plastic.

Uptake of DAB was encouraging at first, but has since failed to meet the BBC's expectations.  It's future, even in DAB+ form, is questionable.  The government, recognising the prohibitive costs of digital broadcasting, recently announced that FM radio transmitters will no longer be switched off, but will be kept for the broadcast of local radio stations.  With internet radio now gaining market share, and even the BBC jumping onto the internet radio bandwagon, DAB is being squeezed from all sides.  Also, another digital radio technology - DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) - has emerged.  DRM was originally envisaged as a replacement for AM radio, but an extension of the standard - DRM+ - is increasingly being seen as a replacement for FM radio, and therefore a direct competitor to DAB.

New technologies are expensive.  Often, the standards surrounding them are yet to be finalised.  Sometimes, they give maximum benefit to content providers and little to consumers (the digital copy protection on most HD content is a case in point).  Without fail, today's cutting edge technology will be commonplace six months down the line, and much less expensive.  As time goes by, hopefully they will overcome the issues that inevitably plague new technology.

Like I said, I'm proud to be on the trailing edge of technology.  My gadgets contain technology that has been tried and tested, so they do all that I ask of them.  If they no longer work, either through wear or their respective technologies becoming obsolete, my initial financial outlay has been minimal.  I will replace my gadgets with corresponding trailing edge items, which will contain more modern technologies than my old gadgets at a lower price than was paid by the early adopters of those technologies.  To those of you who must always have the latest and greatest, and mock my old technology, I say check your bank balance.