Advanced

Windows: Choice But No Choice

Posted by Scott_Ruecker on · 41 comments
LXer Linux News; By Scott Ruecker (Phoenix, U.S.)
Mail this story
Print this story


LXer Feature: 08-Mar-2010

In the area of window managers Linux users are completely and totally spoiled rotten. We constantly debate the merits of one desktop environment/window manager over another. We argue over what programs are better than others, what versions of those programs we like over another and getting in world class pissing contests all the while crying about what we wish they would do better or differently. I wish Windows users had this problem, but they don't. Why? Because they have no choice.

I know that there are other window managers for Windows but they are little more than themes compared to what we have. We Linux users have thousands of versions of Linux that you can run on multiple types of hardware with dozens of different desktop environments on top of them, or none at all if your really cool. All of them customizable to the hilt and we're still not happy. It seems like we are the spoiled child in the 31 Flavors who can't find anything they like while poor Windows users have no idea that 'ice cream' comes in anything other than vanilla, and a sad vanilla at that.

We have gotten fat on the bounty of choices and drunk with the power of functionality they provide us. Go use a generic NT, 2000 or XP setup for a week and then try and tell me that KDE, GNOME, Xfce, Enlightenment etc. are really that much better or worse than each other. Because compared to the Microsoft window manager in any version of Windows, any Linux window manager blows it away. Many authors, Bruce Byfield stands out in my mind, have told and re-told their issues with, loves and hates of competing desktop environments to the point of ad nauseam.

Give me a desktop environment I do not like on top of a Linux version I cannot stand and it will still be a thousand times better than any Windows machine you could put in front of me. And I will make a bet that even if forced to use the desktop environment and distro I do not like I would still be able to change enough of the settings and download whatever programs I couldn't live without and make it enough to my liking that I could live with it, happily. I could not do that with Windows even if I wanted too.

I am just trying to give some perspective to this issue, not pick any fights. I used to prefer KDE over GNOME until KDE 4.0 came out and I have always liked Enlightenment and Xfce but I have never really used them extensively. As a Linux user I have the luxury of choice in being able to have that opinion. It is those choices that almost all Windows users have no clue they are even missing out on.

When I show people some of the cool desktop effects I have enabled, which are completely useless for getting any work done but good for some shock value attention getting. I show them all the cool ways I can make the desktop look and feel the way I want it too and to a person they get a touch jealous and want to know how they can get that cool stuff on their Windows machine. That is when I start in on what Linux is and such.

I know that may not be the best way to expose someone to Linux but hey if it works right? It is all about the comfort level of the individual user and that varies from person to person. I can hear many of you saying "Duh Scott, like we didn't know that already?" But we need to keep finding ways to make checking out and/or switching to Linux more comfortable. How? With the advent of the 'Live CD' it has gotten much less painful or downright painless if you ask me, for the uninitiated and fearful. I was one of them, I remember being afraid of what this "Linux thing" would do to my computer if it messed it up and asking myself what I would do with my computer if it happened to turn it into an expensive paperweight.

Firefox has done a great service to Linux and FOSS in general in that regard because just getting people to switch the browser they use was, and still is a big big deal to most. That one choice alone has changed how millions of people view their interaction with the Internet and as Google has shown with their release of Chrome, their perception of what a operating system is as well. I have a recent visit to a friends as an example..

So just a few days ago I was over at a friends and was asked if I could take a look at their XP computer to see what I could do to make it run better. It was running very slow overall and it would take IE several minutes just to open and/or close. The obvious answer from most of us would be simple, just install some Linux on it and Bang! problems all go bye bye right? But its not that simple in practice as Carla Schroder recently pointed out, it can be a real pain to just try and tidy up the cupboards on a Windows system let alone "make it run better".

In my attempt to make their XP machine run better I introduced them to the idea, that's right, the idea of running a different browser than IE. I literally had to start at the very beginning and tell the history of Netscape (which they remembered hearing about) and how Firefox/Mozilla came from it and told them that there are several other browsers besides IE that you can surf the Internet with. After all this time knowing me, my friend had only the vaguest idea what Firefox was, I kid you not.

It took me almost an hour of explaining and answering questions before they were comfortable enough to allow me to install Firefox on their machine. I showed them around the settings, got all their bookmarks imported, made a few little changes I knew would help and made it their default browser. It reminded me of myself years ago when I finally got brave enough to install some program called 'Mozilla' on my computer, now look at me.

Until my friend gets the hang of Firefox I have no plans to introduce Linux into their life. They know that it is a operating system not exactly like Windows but that is all. I have learned that to force a change on someone is a recipe for failure. Not only for me in trying to show them the joys of using FOSS, but for them in the frustration of using something they don't think they need or even want to use because of their lack of familiarity with it.

I know I am most likely going to start another lengthy desktop environment debate by posting this but it is my hope that a few Windows users come across this article and ask themselves, "You mean I have a choice?". Because they do, they just don't know it yet.

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: Editorial, LXer Features; Groups: Community, Enlightenment, GNOME, GNU, KDE, Linux, Microsoft, Mozilla, Xfce

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (41)

Couldn't agree more

Quoting:I have learned that to force a change on someone is a recipe for failure


Indeed, "Closed -> open migration" is a lengthy process that starts with talking to users, and small steps. For my sister, just refusing to install 'cracked' MS Office, showing all the IE-cruft it left behind even after 'clearing privacy settings' and telling about alternatives was enough to make her switch to Firefox and OpenOffice herself, without me doing anything! I offered her to install Linux, and she said "No, thanks, it's going to take too much of my time to learn it again". That's OK, she considered it and decided not to do so, but now she has chosen for Windows while knowing there's an alternative and that's still some points scored in my opinion.
You just made the point there. It is better to first introduce the user to open source softwares. Then if they enjoy them, they will eventually find out about linux for themselves, ...or not.
Its not 100% accurate. I think there is a KDE for Windows, and there have been a few others floating around too, but since using MS' window manager doesn't make an obvious connection for people with things like getting viruses (never mind its core is IE), and most of the others take up more resources and/or don't integrate as many features, no one uses them. Its like expecting them to dump Outlook and IE, if that is what they have already, and they never **heard** of Firefox, Thunderbird, Opera, or anything else. But, alternatives have been around for *years*. They just don't do enough to make them worth changing. I have no idea myself, assuming a KDE4WIn exists, if its any better at that. However, given the level of "non-integration" with some basic things Windows manager does more or less well, never mind most of those problems being system level, not in the manager (like automounting things there are no existing automount settings for), odds are Windows users will find something it won't do, which they use all the time, and grumble about that.
Tried KDE3.5 for Windows (K3B), but it didn't work for some reason. It was quite some hassle. KDE4 is developed with Windows in mind too, and not as an afterthought only. Basically because Trolltech tried to make QT4 multi-platform, I believe Trolltech did most of the hard work.
Very nice, Scott, well said. Yes, we are spoiled. Yes, people hate change and it requires wiles and patience. +1 to everything.
>Trolltech tried to make QT4 multi-platform

Hold on, here ---

QT has always been multi-platform. That is a major part of its reason to exist.
QT was, but not freely. Qt Win32 and OSX wasn't available under an open source license.
Another thing to note is that, to the best of my knowledge, KDE for Windows does not include a window manager. In other words, KDE for Windows is the collection of KDE apps for Windows rather than the whole desktop environment. You still end up using Windows Explorer. Correct me if I'm wrong, because if I could use the KDE window manager on my Windows machine at work, I almost certainly would. I have tried a few different window managers in Windows, and none of them properly handle multiple workspaces. (None of them properly handle focus either. Apparently Windows Explorer developers think, 'Scroll a window without changing focus to it? Why would you want to do that?')
[serious] CWhitman,

Try this. I have a browser [Firefox] and my email client [Thunderbird] running in Linux, but your description of what you thought should happen seemed counter to my memory [not arguing logic]. So I went from the browser and moved the scroll bar slightly and as you said the focus changed to the email client. However, I knew I saw different behaviour recently. Now that the email client is the focus I returned to the browser and this time scrolled the comments on LXer using the wheel on the mouse. This time the focus remained on the email. I happen to like this, but I wonder if you might be disturbed.

[/serious]

Your Buddy Txt. [aka YBT, shill & astroturfer extraordinaire. Will work to confuse all for a modicum of cash reimbursements.]
A pedant writes:

It's Qt, not QT. This is something pointed out on the Qt interest mailing list every now and again. From what I can gather, this insistence is partly to do with it being its trademark and partly to differentiate between Qt and QT which (I believe) is what Apple call QuickTime.

Dino is quite right, Qt has always been multi platform and the Qt interest mailing list shows healthy interest from users of many different platforms (not just PCs in fact but things like embedded ARM developers). KDE just happens to be built up on Qt. My favourite IDE for embedded software is written by a British company using Qt and they release versions for Linux, OSX and Windows at the same time on each new release.

Quoting:It's Qt, not QT


It's an easy mistake for people who don't know how to pronounce Qt. It's a word, not an abbreviation. That is, pronounce it as "cute", not "queue-tee".
Sander -

It used to be cute. Not so sure since KDE4.
Quoting:It's an easy mistake for people who don't know how to pronounce Qt. It's a word, not an abbreviation. That is, pronounce it as "cute", not "queue-tee".


Agreed. I still find it hard to remember to say cute rather than queue-tee.

Oh. Not kwut.

Kool.
After the KDE kerfuffle, it might be better pronounced "quit".
Darn trolls, equaling Qt to KDE4.

Qt is so much more than just KDE4, for example it will be what powers MeeGo.
Oh Hans!!

Come on -- Let's see some of that famous Dutch Humor.

Oh, wait...

Window Manager

I couldn't agree with you more. I hate the window manager in MS OS products.

I like to overlap my windows. In particular when web programming, I'll plop an xterm with emacs running on the server in it, right in the middle of my browser. When I'm just getting the php application going I don't need to see the whole browser window. I want to be able to click on the browser's refresh page button without the browser raising and obscuring my xterm. This is impossible to do with an MS OS product.

I don't ever move windows again. I'm using AwesomeWM and I have tweaked the h*ll out of it. Everything now goes where it should go automagically. I love programmable WMs :-)
The lack of a window manager is only a small part of the "Choice but no choice" koan that is Microsoft Windows, no?

Suppose you wanted to use a word processor. Oh, there's marvelous selection (probably, must say, I haven't really looked, but people assure me that Windows has everything) but 90% or more of the population use "Word", don't even recognize that it has problems, and won't even consider anything else. Same situation with "Outlook", "IE", "Excel", "PowerPoint", etc etc etc.

There is lots of choice, but effectively, there's no choice. A weird situation to find oneself in.
At least in the office suite department there is coice available. There are a ton of closed and open source office suites available for Windows. Eventually it will take off, just like Firefox did.

But in window managers there is simply no choice on Windows.
> But in window managers there is simply no choice on Windows.

I believe (but may be confused) that part of the Microsoft agreement with DOJ allows them to force everybody to use the same window manager.
Quoting:I love programmable WMs :-)
Sawfish FTW!

Sawfish is written in a custom LISP dialect. If you want to edit your .sawfishrc, be prepared to wade through the parens.
Most of the Window managers for Linux have the pager concept. I've been stuck using Cygwin in the past 5 years or so due to the corporate nature of my work (Cygwin, for those not in the know, is a useful operating system which has a very fat, buggy device-driver layer, provided by the device manufacturer and sanctioned by the corporate desktop support teams that have provided my hardware). All window managers are the same to me mostly -- they exist to allow me to open dozens (sometimes hundreds) of terminal windows.

And no, this isn't due to anything "arcane" -- it is due to the nature of my work. As an infrastructure development kind of guy, I need command-line access because to click on several hundred dialog boxes to get my job done is not only impossible -- it's pretty much unthinkable. Find me a dialog box that can anticpate my thoughts when it comes to managing enterprise operating systems -- I dare you. My needs involve hundreds of dimensions and no 2D interface can suffice.

God bless you if you need to simply browse somewhere to open a file -- I need far more depth of dimension, thought and creativity than anything pre-compiled can provide.

This, among other many FOSS facets is why Linux is and will be for the foreseeable future embedded as a choice for the enterprise.

Proprietary operating systems for the masses will be around for a long time as well. They obviously provide some semblance of value for some people and I understand the choices that lead some people to use them. But never let these same people tell you that their reality is superior because of the lack of choice Scott has highlighted here. They speak out of ignorance -- ignorance for the joy of choice, ignorance of the kind of work you're doing and finally just plain ignorance of the efficiency gained by using something so simple and secure as GNU/Linux.

Linux for the Masses? My mom and dad run Ubuntu and consider it far superior to their Windows computers. They have a choice -- they can boot into Windows anytime -- and they are not computer whizzes at all. I suspect if more people had this same choice they would make similar decisions.
What I always wonder, why does it cost so many billions to develop the various Windowses, when all they do is get fatter but not more functional? Do they heat the Redmond campus by burning paper money?
The newer bloat is for compatibility with the older bloat.
TC, Microsoft has to build everything. Kernel, UI, application support.

The Linux environment of distributed development means that some money is spent on the kernel, some on X, some on GNU, etc etc.

It would be interesting to see, if developer time could be somehow "monetized", what a Linux system costs compared to Windows.

I don't mean the silly "how much would it take to recreate Linux", that's just wishful thinking. Each release of a Linux distribution doesn't use all code written from scratch, neither does a new release of Windows.

So let's see. The 2.6.34 release used, what did I read today, 836 developers and 4,000 lines added? How does that compare to core Windows developers at Microsoft?
Bob, I think that sort of measurement would have to count middle managers, program managers, marketing managers, and various other meddlers and parasites to come up with a realistic headcount for Windows development. Even with all that, I doubt that any single commercial, proprietary company can compete with the sheer numbers of contributors that the FOSS development model brings together.

Even when you take UI, applications, and everything else into account Linux is still the runaway bang for buck winner. I like to trot out the example of my most fattest Linux installation, Ubuntu Studio with gillions of apps of all kinds, several different desktop environments and window managers, a complete build environment, couple of kernel source trees, all kinds of networking and troubleshooting utilities, etc etc and it adds up to about 6.5 GB. Windows 7 is around 13GB, depending which "version" you install, version in Windowsland meaning 'which version of crippled Windows did you pay too much for'. And that is with no apps. OK, you still get Minesweeper, Notepad, and Solitaire. And a nice screenshot app. And a built-in "firewall", which I am sure it is "trustworthy".

@TC, I've managed to get my Ubuntu (with the Ubuntu Studio packages added later, both Sound and Graphics dev packages) plus a bunch of Games, to 10.5 Gig, it's still smaller than a standard Windows 7 install, though.
Tuxxy,

I think the issue is a complicated mix of span of control, code scale and misguided resource management. I don't have a window into Microsoft but as it has been around for a few decades now I'm certain that there is a ton of political interference internally as to who owns what. This (I'm guessing, but likely right) hampers any kind of playful development that might go on with the codebase that exists in various forms as XP, Vista or 7. On top of this dimension is the problem of scale -- the code base is bloated, massive and wildly intertwined. Recent improvements in Windows have gone toward decoupling the GUI from the underpinnings of the OS (hard to imagine for those of us that are Linux/Unix heads). Basically, they made a strategic blunder a long time ago assuming that someone would be there to click on things -- this is part of the 2 dimensional desktop paradigm that continues to not just limit their technology, but the overall vision that the company continues to execute upon as a basic paradigm. Micro Soft says a lot -- it says "I'm a company that makes software for PCs" -- with the underlying assumptions (For one user, on a hard drive, not dependent upon networking, and so on). Yeah, I know those are generalizations, but the fact remains that when you compare their efforts and developments they're still things that only look rosy in desktop-colored-glasses. Finally, the fact is that as a monetary entity, someone has to "manage" the "resources" at Microsoft and make the developers accountable to tasks that ultimately go toward someone making cash due to the effort.

These are all serious limitations.

In comparison, the Linux code base (there isn't really such a thing -- the collection of GNU and various other licensed packages that make up, say, Ubuntu I will refer to here as "the Linux code base") is made up of comparatively tiny projects that can be independently toyed with, improved, bug-fixed and so on without seriously hampering the functionality of the overall "solution". This means that Linus can hack out some kernel changes in a night and be reasonably certain that the overall impact isn't going to be severe. It would be unthinkable for him to change say, an ethernet driver module and find that the GIMP was suddenly broken -- yet we see this kind of intertwined nonsense all the time in Windows land. The code base has reasonable lines of control (via the various distribution managers). The long-term effects are now noticeable. The various GNU/Linux distributions have continued to evolve, are reasonably secure, and (in my very humble opinion) comparatively higher quality in the features that they provide. That's today. Who knows what kind of gap will exist on these fronts tomorrow.

There's really no going back for Microsoft -- there's only starting over and attempting to do something similar on the development front. I wouldn't hold your breath -- I don't think they could stomach the transparency of development in public, for one, and for another, their PR people have so deeply provided inane and insipid anti-open-source sound bytes in such amazing quantity that the public lambasting would be hard to imagine. The game is over anyway.

Will Microsoft still be around in 20 years? -- I'd bet serious money that they will be. You can still buy a fax machine today, for the same reasons I'm certain you'll be able to buy Windows-equipped PCs tomorrow. But the real excitement will be things like the extensions of the Internet -- google applications, for example, and the integration of nanotechnology or biotech. I'm saying I don't see them ever getting past the desktop and all of the lame limitations that their constrained world-view (like a mental prison) has built for them. Oh, and I'll bet the X-box will still be viable too. Probably just as profitable as today -- nothing earth-shattering, in other words.

Someone want to speculate on Zune? :)

I digress.

At the end of the day they're still a company that makes boxes of software for PCs. Getting them to think outside of these boxes is probably going to take another company (with a completely different name). Google (there's a name that doesn't mean "software in a box for PCs) is a nice example there of what Microsoft could have been if it had truly embraced the Internet, but it didn't.

It's amazing to me to be still talking about these same limitations fully a decade on into the game. I don't think it's a stretch, in other words, to say we'll be saying very similar things in 2020.

-=FeriCyde=-





TC, I couldn't agree more that by any rational measure of bang for the buck F/OSS is going to come out way, way ahead.

Just trying to compare apples to apples, as it were. Usually, the comparison is more like comparing apples to iconic pillars.

Like comparing the "cost" of unpaid developers to paid "software professionals". So I want to give some kind of monetary representation of the code submitted, even if it does end up being extraordinarily higher results for the cost due to the reduced bureaucracy in OpenSource development compared to what Joel on Software says about the nearly impossible levels of bureaucratic and management overhead put on Microsoft developers themselves.
TC and Paulie --

If you haven't seen this yet, you should:

http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-c...

A gift from your fellow Microsoft-tsk-tsker in arms.
Too bad they turned off anonymous comments.
dino, that's a classic. Imagine, changing a simple menu cascades all the way back to the kernel. Is that genius in action or what.

Paulie, there is a reason that kernel changes do not break applications, or at least are not supposed to-- Linus has a firm rule against kernel changes breaking userspace:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/4/327 "If you need to break something, you create a new interface, and try to translate between the two, and maybe you deprecate the old one so that it can be removed once it's not in use any more. If you can't see that this is how a kernel should work, you're missing the point of having a kernel in the first place."

Quoting: the code base is bloated, massive and wildly intertwined.


Totally, like Bamixed spaghetti. And their Prime Directive is lock-in, their Secondary Directive is inertia, and their Tertiary Directive is HAHAHAA The Fools Are Still Buying It!!!

Google is just a newer robber baron with better tools for privacy invasion and abuse.
I predict that Microsoft will start over with a totally new OS at some point in the next 10 years, with all the legacy Windows bits running in a VM.
Quoting:dino, that's a classic. Imagine, changing a simple menu cascades all the way back to the kernel. Is that genius in action or what.


While the article highlights some bad things, it's not quite so bad as you put it TC. The kernel is definitely involved, just as it is in the Linux world. For example, the team may have suggested to merge Suspend and Hibernate into one (where you suspend first, then hibernate after a certain amount of time). But if the kernel doesn't support it (or they tried to make it work but failed) then the menu needs to be redesigned.

Last time I checked my Linux box also had seven entries in the shutdown menu (lock screen, log out, switch user, suspend, hibernate, restart, shut down).
Gee guys --

Interesting comments, but they betray the entrenched geekiness of a site like LXer.

The big Kawow!!! is that 43 people had a say in the development of a simple freakin' menu. No wonder Vista ended up a bloated mass of pig droppings.

I remember!

Awesome article, Scott. I remember when I found a "Linux for Dummies" book that had a Fedora Core 1 cd in it (publisher's version) and couldn't wait to get home and try it. I've been using one distro or another ever since and have found no use for Windows at all. Since then I've helped over 200 people switch to a Linux distribution and only one person has gone back to Windows. That speaks volumes!
Indeed it does, Ard. I'm thrilled by your success.

More! More!
The book+CD/DVD bundle is still a powerful thing, even in the 2010s ...

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post