Flash Advertise
| What Kind of Person Uses Linux, And Should You Be One Of Them? |
| 摘自: www.tomshardware.co.uk 被阅读次数: 782 |
由 yangyi 于 2007-10-25 18:50:53 提供 |
Why Linux might feel at home on your desktop Linux is one of the great mysteries of the computing world. It’s an operating system that looks like a clear winner by most standards, from technical to functional. Linux supports more hardware than any other operating system and is virtually virus free. It offers many distributions which include many easy-to-install programs with complete application sets. It also comes to you at the very tantalizing price of completely free and its source code is open to examination and improvement. So why is Linux losing out to the likes of Windows, which not only incurs charges for the operating system but also for most common applications? The usability and design interface of any system can make or break it in the marketplace. We’re going to examine the exact reasons why Linux has never garnered more than 1% of the desktop computing market. The reasons for a lack of interest in Linux are varied, ranging from the technical to a simple lack of interest. In the realm of operating systems discussion many opinions surface as to which operating system is the best or the forerunner. This of course is a vast and nebulous argument that divides groups into their respective camps and doesn’t really benefit anyone. For the people on the ground the first hindrance to using Linux is simply acquiring it. Linux is the name of the kernel of many different distributions, each with its own name and purpose. This creates a barrier that need not necessarily be there, making things harder for new users to find and get accustomed to it. Where should people look to download or order one of the many versions of Linux? Distributors are forced to advertise their unique advantages over those of others rather than the benefits of using Linux. This kind of unintentional in-fighting between distributors makes it hard for desktop users to objectively understand their unique needs in the face of pressure from competition. Installation is also an issue, with Windows or OS X users comparing the pre-installed ‘Enter your details here’ installation of their systems with the fresh installs Linux performs, which require more detail. In reality a brand new installation of each operating system shows Linux to be on a level playing field, and even significantly easier at times (depending on the distribution used). Of course what matters is that a user has to brave the idea that the new operating system could do damage to their system if improperly handled. Afterward, although Linux supports more hardware than any other operating system, compatibility issues can occur. Since Linux isn’t designed specifically for desktop systems more specialized hardware, like 20 button mice or even some graphics cards, may not be fully functional, preventing users from accessing their desktop. The programs that function as what users know to be the Linux desktop are called window managers, and Linux has dozens of them. The Linux tendency towards individually catered choices shine through here too. But is this choice of radically different usage style the edge Linux needs to exploit in order to gain valuable market share? The desktop metaphor Practicality is the key issue facing most users, as they will only use what works. So how do we define what works? Understanding the design concepts behind many of the current systems will help define exactly what makes them usable, or unusable. There are many metaphors used in representing the complex inner workings of a computer to its user and the usability of a system may be down to how well it implements their chosen metaphors. Around the topic of usability a lot of buzz-words exist, and even more opinions exist on what makes an interface work. I think software Joel Spolsky put it most concisely; “A user interface is well-designed when the program behaves exactly how the user thought it would.” Most modern systems conform to the desktop metaphor of usability, which is mimicking an office desktop. Back in ancient times, before a PC and a place to set it on were all an office needed, files were stored in folders in cabinets. Of course in computing files are stored in folders on drives, but the comparisons run deeper. The screen is handled like a desktop, with in-use files open and placed upon it. Desktop accessories like calculators or sound recorders also have their place in the desktop view of things. Treating programs as virtual pages (or aspects) of your desktop is not a new idea. The ‘Page paradigm’ as it’s known dates back to the sixties. Many of the concepts we still use to understand personal computers were made public in what’s known as ‘The Mother of All Demos’. In 1968 Douglas Engelbart rose to the stage and changed the way people thought about computers. Prior to this everything was done on the command line, and was strictly text only. Engelbart’s achievements aren’t merely conceptual; his demonstration introduced the mouse as an input device. As computers have become more advanced, and gained functions that don’t fit in with the metaphor, different window managers have emerged that have their own spin on things. Douglas Engelbart linuxDouglas Engelbart Windows adheres to the desktop metaphor pretty strictly, with only the familiar taskbar breaking the illusion, all in the name of organization. Using alt and tab to switch between windows conforms to the paper paradigm, shuffling the open files like paper. Unfortunately Windows hasn’t advanced the metaphor much and hasn’t evolved much over the years. Consistency is damaged by the fact that applications are designed with no clear standard. OS X on the other hand has gone through major revisions over the years, at heavy financial cost to the user. While constancy is taken care of with solid libraries the desktop metaphor is muddled by an interface that involves users in technical information. The system handles open files and programs like paper only in their respective windows, on the dock and elsewhere they are grouped by process. This can feel awkward to users who would like to have more control. tiger exposeIntroduced in Tiger Exposé is an essential tool, providing an alternative to the awkward keyboard window switching So how does all this fit into the Linux way of doing things? The range of window managers available for Linux ensures that users have control of how windows are handled, from appearance to position on screen. It also means that some of the advanced features used to extend the desktop metaphor have appeared very early on in Linux. For example the concept of virtual desktops (multiple desktops users can switch between) has existed natively in Linux for years. The feature has been implemented by third-party developers on both Windows and Mac, with Mac to see a native implementation in Leopard, but integration with the window manager has been less than perfect. Such features can hog memory if their methods don’t fit in well with what the window manager is doing. Memory usage and resource management in general can be a big motivator in choosing a window manager, as many options exist for both low spec machines and high end beasts. Linux window managers Fluxbox is an incredibly lightweight window manager, with a minimal interface and an interesting twist on the desktop metaphor. In Fluxbox a blank screen is not treated as a desktop, exposed desktop areas are simply areas to access the ‘Start Menu’ of sorts. Right-clicking on an exposed desktop element shows this menu which allows access to all programs and can be easily customized. By default Fluxbox does not use desktop items, although there are programs to allow desktop items. Fluxbox includes four virtual desktops by default and also has the interesting feature of tabbing programs. By middle-clicking and dragging a program’s titlebar over another titlebar the two are joined, and become tabs, the active tab displaying that program in the window. This sort of highly configurable system is perfect for low memory systems, but users with a little more machine muscle might want to flex theirs. linux fluxboxFluxbox, here running with a plugin for music and one to display system stats Probably the biggest three window managers for Linux are Xfwm, KWin and Metacity. These are usually not referred to explicitly, because they come packaged in Xfce, KDE and Gnome respectively. These are complete desktop environments, designed to provide a working set of common applications for users and common libraries for programmers. This is perhaps the greatest asset that Linux possesses in terms of usability, as most of its programs are free it makes a huge number of full versions of software freely available on first boot. Many distributions also maintain a repository of all the applications available, which can be automatically downloaded and installed. Software management is incredibly user friendly on Linux, with applications such as Synaptic making finding software easy and fast. KDE applications are programmed around the Qt library, so they all have a reasonably uniform look, and Gnome and Xfce programs work with GTK libraries. KDE is generally considered to be based on a Windows style, while Gnome and Xfce have a more unique feel to them. Consistency can be a real issue here, as both KDE and Gnome have excellent sets of applications, and though these can run on either desktop environment they frequently don’t sit right with everything else. KDE linuxKDE is designed to be familiar, so it has a lot in common with Windows linux transparencyLinux supports transparency even with lightweight window managers like XFCE Gnome Linux widgetsAddition Gnome programs let you run various desktop widgets Compiz Fusion sits at the highest end of the scale in terms of fanciness and having the most impressive eye-candy generally. It shakes up the desktop metaphor by placing all desktops, and there can be up to 32, side by side on a 3D object that starts out as a cube with 4 desktops and gets progressively more cylindrical. These desktops can help organize a cluttered system, keeping one for writing, one for the media player and one for web browsing for example makes it easy to switch between all tasks. For general window management Compiz Fusion has a wealth of options. Some reflect the advances of other operating systems, like the OS X Exposé feature or themes similar to Windows Vista. The rest are unique to Compiz Fusion and highly animated, for example windows can be configured to burn away when closed, or even be stretched and wobble when moved. All of these effects don’t even require that much in the way of advanced hardware; it is possible to get Compiz Fusion running perfectly on an Nvidia Geforce 4400MX. compiz fusion linux Compiz Fusion has arguably the most impressive eye candy available Solving the problems Being as it’s developed originally by software developers for software developers Linux is only now placing importance on winning the average user over. Usability for the masses has never been a huge concern, and things were optimized for the professional before everybody else. A good example of this can be found in the open-source 3D application Blender, which was originally developed alongside 3D artists, in order to make things they did quite often easier. A good idea it would seem, but now that it’s free for everyone a lot of work has had to go into it to make it friendlier to more casual users. The same can be said of Linux in general. While developers and even the most average users don’t care if a KDE application doesn’t look at home in Gnome, it might prove a turn off to more fussy users. Of course this is assuming nothing has gone wrong on their installation path and everything works as it should. Ubuntu’s recent deal to accompany Dell PCs provides the solution to these possible installation and compatibility woes. Users will receive the same experience as Windows or OS X users upon starting their machine for the first time. Even without this Ubuntu provides a Live-CD that boots into a Gnome desktop. Installation is merely a matter of clicking an ‘Install Ubuntu’ desktop icon. This control takes first time problems completely out of the equation. It is interesting to note that Linux’s open-source ethic, which allows anyone to browse the inner workings of their system, actually benefits everything from usability to personal security. Since everyone can potentially offer improvements it isn’t only hackers, looking for a way in, that are examining the operating system closely. As a result Linux quickly changes, and the technology behind a usable system is constantly being improved upon. At the end of the day Linux is all about choice. For developers and power users this is a good thing, as it lets them set up things exactly as they want to have them. Unfortunately average users have to take a back seat because the practicality of the interface doesn’t take a high enough priority. In this way the lowest common denominator isn’t appealed to, users either have to learn to use or completely avoid Linux. This is in contrast to Windows, where things are designed with the average user very much in mind. OS X attempts to make the best of both worlds, making accessing programs easy but providing a bit more under the hood, without the flexibility of choice. By virtue of choice alone Linux may be the best option if neither Windows nor OS X sit right, and as it gets easier and easier to install it should become a more and more viable option. 原文链接: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Linux-Guide-Desktop,review-29702.html |
