|
So Linus Torvalds doesn't like the GNOME project because of their attitude toward user interface development. He also says that GNOME has lost some functionality for the sake of simplicity; I agree that this is unacceptable, but it doesn't ruin GNOME completely. Even if it did, GNOME still encourages productivity over KDE because it uses screen space more efficiently. So in light of Linus' recent rantings on the GNOME usability mailing list here are three good reasons why you should stick with GNOME.
1. You're already using GTK applications
Evolution, Firefox, Thunderbird, Rhythmbox, The GIMP, Abiword, GFTP, Grip, Gnucash, Inkscape, Bluefish, Audacity. Any of these familiar to you? They all use the GNOME-based GTK graphics toolkit. That means that they all share the same GNOME-controlled theme engine. By default they look kind of bland, but if themed properly, they're much more attractive. If you find that you are primarily using GTK-based applications, you'll have a more pleasant user experience in GNOME, assuming you spend a little time customizing it for your needs.
2. You do a lot of work in the GUI
I work on my computer practically all day, every day. I have a high-end computer that can handle everything I need to do. As far as work is concerned, that means having a lot of programs open and ready to be switched to immediately. I don't want to break my concentration when I need to open another program because once I've stopped to think about something else, I can never hop back on that train of thought again. There will be others, but that one is gone.
After a few hours or days of using your computer, you should have it customized for maximum efficiency. KDE does not have the same amount of usable, customizable menu bar space that GNOME has. The icons are too big and take up far too much real estate, leaving half of the bar for the window list and the rest for applets. And heaven forbid you should put in more applets -- you'd have virtually no space left for the window list!
If you're not running a lot of programs and don't mind navigating the menu, KDE is fine. You could also use multiple desktops to keep track of many open programs, but personally I would forget what desktop I put which programs on. I'd rather have them all in one single bar, like GNOME has at the bottom of the screen. The top is dedicated to applets and program quicklaunch buttons. Rarely do I need to go to the menu to start a program -- I just click an icon.
3. It's becoming the standard
GNOME is not going away just because Linus recommends KDE. It is the standard UI for Sun's Java Desktop System Solaris and Linux interfaces; Red Hat Enterprise Linux; and Novell has recently announced that it will be standardizing its future SUSE Linux editions on GNOME as well. That pretty much covers the majority of the GNU/Linux business desktop market.
KDE is still out there, and it always will be. I'm not suggesting that anyone ignore KDE or switch away from it. Certainly if that's the environment you prefer, go ahead and stick with it. But don't bash GNOME because it's not your cup of tea.
User interfaces have to make sense, and to accomplish that, they must also be simple. Not stupid, but simple. Maybe there are things that could be done smarter in GNOME, like making a separate interface mode for people like Linus who want to customize everything with options that practically no one else would want.
As a concerned, frequent GNOME user, I want the user interface nazis to make my desktop environment because they know what they are doing. The worst thing for GNOME would be for the user interface team to take interface standardization tips from some hotshot code monkey. So Linus, please stop bothering the GNOME people -- GNOME users and stakeholders should be the judges of interface successes and failures, not a kernel maintainer. You don't see user interface designers bitching about how the open source Atheros wireless drivers are not yet in the vanilla kernel, and how this means that we should recommend FreeBSD, do you?
Sources
Copyright 2005 Jem Matzan.
|
Editorial commentary 
