Open Ballot: Has desktop fragmentation gone too far?

Posted at 2:47pm on Monday April 18th 2011

First there was TWM. Then we had multiple window managers. Then KDE came along, and Gnome started as a result of licensing issues. Xfce grew up. And now, after a decade of the three big desktops slugging it out, it's about to get a whole lot more complicated with the addition of Unity and Gnome (3) Shell. Some distros are talking of forking Gnome 2.x to keep the older desktop alive.

We're going to record our next podcast soon, so we want your opinion: has desktop fragmentation gone too far? Is there strength in diversity, and are all these desktops good for the free software ecosystem? Or is it just duplication of effort, a nightmare for Linux documentation writers, and preventing Linux from building a unified front against Windows and OS X?

Tap your musings into the box below, and we'll read out the best in our podcast. Live a little, though, and come up with a better name than Anonymous Penguin. Cheers.

You should follow us on Identi.ca or Twitter

Your comments

NES (No-Yes)

Holzster (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 2:54pm

If Linux wanted to be the most popular desktop then yes - but as the old saying goes variety is what makes Linux GREAT.

No

Happy Penguin (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 2:56pm

I believe the problem is not the amount of different desktop environments out there but the fact that they don't share key technology and thus thwart the natural advantage that FLOSS apps hold.

Withholding Judgement for Now

Eric Mesa (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 3:00pm

On the one hand you're right when it comes to documentation. But, on the other hand, I find the diversity awesome. For example, a lot of people are getting annoyed at the non-configurability of Gnome Shell. Guess what's configurable? KDE! Xfce! And in the case of Xfce it's GTK so it's almost the same as Gnome 2.x. As someone who has had periods of loving each of the major DEs and some of the more esoteric WMs, I think it's great to have them. Right now I'm loving KDE's activities, their notification system, and the neat stuff they're doing with Akonadi, Nekpomuk and Strigi. Sure, it sucks to have a gtk and QT version of all the major programs, but that's the best way to tie into the DE's special features. Just happened to use Unity for the first time on my netbook over the weekend and I found it to run a lot faster than KDE on the same netbook. And, it wasn't all that bad at all.

In the end - what I believe is bad for FLOSS desktops is not fragmentation, but turf wars. If people treat KDE vs Gnome (or any other pairing) as Manchester United vs Liverpool, then we lose. If they just use whichever one works best for them, then we win. Everyone is happy because they use the one that works best for them!

Main area of strength and weakness in the Linux desktop

Kevie (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 3:01pm

This may sound like an odd statement but I fully believe that the desktop defragmentation is one of the key strengths to Linux. It provides the users, possibly for the first time if they are coming from a certain m$ distro, with total freedom and the ability to personalise their coputers to their own pleasure. The scenario is a dream for the experienced user as they can choose their own environment to suit their needs (eg pointless running Gnome/KDE if all you want is a backend for your XBMC media centre).

However for the newbie entering into Linux for the first time, it may be very confusing. To be honest most don't even know what distro they want to choose, far less the perfect desktop environment for them. This may be one of the key features to turn off potential new users. However at the same time it is also what can keep a lot of current users with Linux.

Is all the desktop defragmentation good or bad? For the experienced user it is a major advantage. However for the newbie trying Linux for the first time it is a daunting prospect as it is without adding unecessary further confusion.

diversity!

Pantless Penguin (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 3:03pm

If the goal is to cater to Aunt Tillie, then it's useful to cull options in favor of a unified desktop. Indeed, it's easy enough to do that today- hand her an Ubuntu CD and be done.

If the goal is to have a vibrant open-source community, where ideas can flourish, people can experiment, and, in general, the stuff that's kept Linux so brazenly awesome can continue, then it's always worth having multiple desktops, just as it's useful to have multiple distros, multiple text editors, multiple browsers, etc.

There needs to be space in Linux for the newbie, who just wants to get to GMail and for the power users with strong preferences, and those who want to try everything under the sun.

I currently have five web browsers installed on my laptop - Firefox 4.0, Chromium, Epiphany, lynx and elinks, and I use them all for different things. If some of those projects were terminated in the name of reducing "fragmentation," I'd be less happy and less productive, not more.

For Commercial Success, Yes; For Freedom, No

Mick Reid (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 3:06pm

If the goal of "Linux" is a marketable product, then the fragmentation has long since gone too far, for the same reason that distro proliferation has gone too far: it creates too many "products." A consumer knows what Windows and OS X look like, but what does Linux look like? Well, that depends... An unrecognizable product is difficult to market.

However, I never understood Linux as being a marketable product. This isn't to say that companies such as Red Hat and Canonical haven't successfully made it a marketable product, because clearly, they have. But Linux is, primarily, an idea, maybe even an ideal, and that ideal is freedom. As such, any desktop or distro that anyone wants to introduce is just part of the wild, wonderful, anarchic ride that is freedom. If someone doesn't like a given desktop (cough, Unity, cough), then don't use it. Unlike Windows and OS X, Linux users are not locked into... anything. Freedom. It's kind of a beautiful thing.

Stupidity increasing

BobTheLinuxHacker (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 3:10pm

At the moment we're in a good position - sure there's a good few WM's, but they're easy to put into niche's. E.g. Xfce for low powered kit, Gnome (2?) for lightly integrated, KDE for more hardcore integration folks.

Gnome3 - afaik - is an attempt to "modernise", so probably will replace the older one. I just can't see the arguments for holding onto Gnome2, certainly once folks have got used to any new ways that Gnome3 introduces.

Unity, on the other hand, just seems like Canonical being different ... because ... they ... can. I've used netbook Unity and it's just a poor interface (for me). So I hope it doesn't take off and hence dies a quick and clean death. Certainly my future Ubuntu installs will be running Gnome2/3 (or KDE if that's not possible).

Is it just me, or is there something ironic that a _divisive_ interface is called "Unity"?

Nope, if someone out there wants to help the desktop, then some common libraries between these WM's would be a damned fine idea.

Yes

Mohan (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 3:10pm

Yes, desktop fragmentation has gone too far. There are more choices now as to what you want running on your desktop (which I like as I can choose what to run), but that isn't a good thing for new users who will feel lost and overwhelmed.

No

Toddy (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 3:12pm

As time goes on it seems increasingly clear that linux is never going to truly compete with Windows and Mac on the 'standard' desktop. The established brands are too entrenched. Linux's success with the general public comes on devices where there is no single accepted interface and therefore people are more accepting of unfamiliarity.

E.g. Android, TomTom...

Likely that is why Canonical and Gnome have both optomised their interfaces for Tablets. That is where their software has the best chance of making progress, the pc desktop is a battle long lost.

Yes

Penguin with a name (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 3:29pm

Definately, maybe, but definately not no. My idea is that everyone should take the best parts of each and work them together in a seamless fashion for a better overall UI, though obviously that's not how software goes, and some parts would cause others to fail miserably, but it would be nice to see each one learning rorm the others (and their own) mistakes

probably

Anonymous Penguin - April 18, 2011 @ 3:38pm

But is there enuf market share between any desktop for the question to be relevant in the first place?

Android Et al and the UI's that sit on top of mobile devices are making Linux; maybe even the Linux Desktop irrelevant.

Some pencil pushing bean counter somewhere has decided that the future is in the mobile device.

Get used to Mobile looking UI's from now on and quit your bitchin.. Bloody nerd's

maybe the future has the answer

Ganesh (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 3:58pm

the focus is slowly shifting towards the browser - maybe in the future the desktop will disappear and the browser is king and the fight will be between the likes of chrome / firefox / opera et al and this argument will go away (and the browser wars will take over) Atleast the browsers seem to have more brand recognition!

Au contraire

Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 4:20pm

Look at how few DEs we have. Desktop fragmentation - or the other more positive side: Diversity - has not even remotely come far enough.

Oh, Toddy

Peter Quint (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 4:32pm

"Likely that is why Canonical and Gnome have both optomised their interfaces for Tablets. That is where their software has the best chance of making progress, the pc desktop is a battle long lost."

Millions upon millions of us use GNOME on our desktop and like it the way it is. GNOME shoudn't abandon us -- and I don't think it has. Heck, with better support for using just the keyboard as a navigation device, I wonder if GNOME 3 isn't more of hardcore, old school desktop interface than its predecessors in the 2.x line.

Regarding the open ballot and your question about documentation writers, all I can say is thank your lucky stars for the command line. Why bother explaining how to do something in KDE, GNOME, XFCE, etc., when you can just tell somebody one simple command that accomplishes the same thing?

Moreover, I was very disappointed when Dru Lavigne's book on PC-BSD spent hundreds of pages on the KDE desktop. Both KDE and GNOME are intuitive -- users can figure them out on their own. Therefore, I don't think fragmentation is too much of an issue.

No

Vadim P. (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 5:40pm

KDE, Gnome Shell and Unity are all fine and fair competition. It's too early to say whenever it is good or bad, and with Gnome Shell and Unity trading ideas, it's still hazy to see which is best.

No

Josh (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 6:00pm

I think the diversity that Linux Desktops offer is one of strong points ony Linux Distro. They are not that diffucult to install and all of them are far more flexible/'themeable' then the windows Desktop is.

My opinion on the matter...
Imagine if all the Gnome,openbox,XFCE,KDE,ect... Desktops suppenly disapeared and all we had was Unity? Would every one be happy? Of course not it would be a disaster!

I think that some of the DE are to simular to be seperate projects and some DE should retire and join foreced with another DE.

We also need to remember that we are never going to get anywhere if we are just going to argue with each other.

Linux is not loosing to Windows becuase Windows is better its loosing becuase the user can be a complete idiot and still 'use' the OS just fine. Put the game dvd in and the autorun/wizard will take care of the rest. Just click the start button and there is all your stuff. Just click the magic e and you 'got internet'.</rant>

So my conclusion. Its good to have diversity a good Linux user should be able to understand this WE CHOSE LINUX BECUASE EVERY ONES COMPUTER CAN BE DIFfERENT... well and its increadible security, stability, diversity...

Good overall

The Mighty Flea (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 6:41pm

I think it's great.

It allows a level of flexibility and customisation that is simply not possible on closed platforms.

When KDE 4 had it's notorious teething problems in the KDE 4.1/4.2 era I was able to rely upon good old dependable Gnome. Now that KDE 4 is mature I am loving it however.

Now that Gnome 3 is out, undoubtedly some Gnome 2 fans will switch either because the don't like the direction Gnome is going or because Gnome 3 is currently not mature enough for their taste and so can switch to another DE.

For those who like the 'Classic' Desktop or have older hardware or prefer something more light and minimalistic, there is xfce or lxde.

There is something for everyone and the opportunity to switch is fantastic when your previously favourite DE is going through a transitional period or you just fancy a change.

The main disadvantage for me is that, in spite of efforts at better integration, KDE apps feel out of place in Gnome and vice versa because of the use of different toolkits, although overall I believe the diversity of DE's is a good thing.

There is a good desktop for everyone

Stunonymous (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 7:20pm

No, the fragmentation is just a lot of colourful weeds that will die off soon enough.

There is a choice of good, solid desktop for everyone who needs it. The portable device display is still very fluid, but will settle into shape. I guess that the portable device "desktop" will fork off into its own little universe and leave the desktop "desktop" to return to more traditional lines, as in Gnome 3 in fallback mode.

There are a few nice usability features popping out of mobile device interface design, but a lot of the current hype is a hindrance to sitting at a larger screen with a functional keyboard in front of it, where most working people work, as opposed to browse and play.

Survival Of The Fittest

Anonymous Penguin1 (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 7:52pm

Let all the DES flourish.The more there are the more innovation.Let the end users be the deciders as to who stays and who is a flop

No

Tobi - April 18, 2011 @ 7:55pm

It's always the same old argument, but choice is good. Sometimes it's a shame that so much effort is duplicated, but I just love to pick whatever desktop(s) I like best.

For our fathers (see how I'm not stereotyping against mothers) it doesn't matter, as they will start with a fully customised system like Android, Linux Mint or the new Ubuntu (once it becomes usable) anyway. If they become curious l they can switch to KDE, AwesomeWM or Fluxbox later, if not, the standard choice will be fine.

Yes

N0Sheds (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 7:59pm

Haven't used KDE since last version. I'm not interested in the new graphical bells and whistles. Similarly Unity and Gnome 3 offer me nothing that I need or want. What I want is Gnome 2. I expect if forced to use the newer UIs, all of kit will struggle as it's old and cheap. I don't want desktop bling, I want reliable quick simple stuff.

Also, I don't like the direction that Gnome 3 or unity have taken. What's wrong with the Gnome 2 way of doing things? And if I wanted a Apple style top menu, I'd buy an Apple.

no, never. and never will.

crunchy - April 18, 2011 @ 8:00pm

the fragmentation of desktops will never go to far until there are more desktop environments then there are packages in the debian repositories!

Duplication of effort?

Petux - April 18, 2011 @ 11:23pm

I tend to think that the "duplication of effort" argument rather short sighted. Yes, it is true that there is a danger of lots of people re-inventing the wheel, which can bring too much diversity as in the Audio problems that Linux has. But if there was just one distro with just one way of doing things, then there would be an awful lot of other developers who wouldn't have the opportunity to get involved and bring their ideas to the table.

Whilst it may seem there is too much choice and confusion reigns, there is always the added possibility that someone else will come along and pick up the best bits to make there distro that bit better. Duplication of effort - humbug - I see a world of opportunity! Bring on the fresh ideas!!

no

Le Dunc (not verified) - April 18, 2011 @ 11:31pm

Fragmentation is linux's strengh - that's why we see it from embedded devices to supercomputers. I'm not worried about the *addition* of desktops to linux, but the *loss* of Gnome 2. Institutions currently on the 'classic' XP desktop, possibly considering linux, are going to balk Gnome 3 - whether it's good or not.

No

Lashram (not verified) - April 19, 2011 @ 12:03am

While I will agree that there are a lot of different desktop choices I don't think that it is too much. I personally am glad to have a wide variety of desktops to choose from. I have actually used the new unity desktop and the gnome 3 as well. I will note that the unity desktop is kind of similar to the new OS X Lion with the launchpad and app store. I am actually a fan of both desktops. I recently setup my MacBook Pro to quad boot OS X,UBUNTU,OPENSUSE and Windows.

Yes

Scott (not verified) - April 19, 2011 @ 12:33am

Too much library fragmentation limits portability of applications. Enough of the Windows v. Mac type foolishness. A common library system, maintained and kept up to date with current technology, is needed before the "year of the linux desktop" can ever be realized.

I'll surprise myself and say "Yes!"

uomosenzanome - April 19, 2011 @ 12:59am

I think this is the first time I've ever said "Yes" to whether something has gone too far with more choice, but somehow I think desktop fragmentation has pushed the limit. Let's be realistic: even the huge project Debian can keep the choices down to "unstable", "testing", and "stable" why can't we keep the desktop choices down to something like "lightweight", "glitzy" (for those wanting all that compiz bling), and "ultra-customizable" (for netbook/tablets/all other devices)? I'll probably get burned for saying this, but maybe we could just freeze things for a bit, decide on a single set of libraries like either qt or gtk libraries, and come up with one desktop with a lightweight, glitzy, or ultra-customizable option? I realize this could be a big headache, but so are the needless, overwhelming options. How many ways do we really need to open and read a window? I think we can keep it to three "quickly and memory efficient" (lightweight), "in a manner that fits the device" (ultra-customizable), and "in a blaze fire or ice etc compiz effect" (glitzy). I feel like we've come to a point in linux history similar the decision to keep developing kernel 2.4 and 2.6 simultaneously, or go with a branch and dump the rest. I don't think it would hurt to consolidate the choices.

Howdy, 'fragmentation' A

jjmac - April 19, 2011 @ 2:34am

Howdy,

'fragmentation' A term that does fit well, i suppose. But not for the reason(s) generally assumed. It suggests that, for the most part, the de's exist as sets of incomplete elements that are difficult to combine. And i guess they are really. When it comes to problems with running different applications on different managers. (There are more than 3 environments btw).

As i see it, the main problem is the type that happens when the mind space of the developer(s) has been trained into a MS way of looking at development.

If the environment is designed with a Unix paradigm in place, using generic constructs, then there should never be any problems with intractability.

Whether it's a gtk or qt widget set is not an issue. But when an environment chooses to impose the extensive use of their own libraries for everything else --- the motive becomes obviously one of attempting to 'tie-in' a person to that particular system.

Eric Mesa wrote:
>>
For example, a lot of people are getting annoyed at the non-configurability of Gnome Shell.
>>

(grin), gnome is a bit different. Invented by a MS person for MS people, who should probably have stuck with MS.

Mohan wrote:
>>
but that isn't a good thing for new users who will feel lost and overwhelmed.
>>

The poor things :cry:, hopefully the diversity will help them learn to start thinking a bit. This thing about things having to be dumbed down so that the main herd wont be getting all nervous/upset is a real suck imo.

generics -> no problemo's -> lots of interoperable diversity.

Beats being a rotational fashion victim any day, i reckon.

Somebody stole my air guitar,
but that's ok, 'caurse i've got a spare.

Yes.

Half Wit. (not verified) - April 19, 2011 @ 7:51am

I`m with N0Sheds with this reply, and add, with so much diversity in WMs/UIs gives rise to more esoteric help questions on the Help forum(s) that only the users of that particular flavour under their particular OS can answer.

Also Scott about library fragmentation has a good point; I'm surprised that there isn't a(n) ?.so<.some.version.number_sometimes> library for the correct modelling of washing your socks and ironing your pants, but no doubt that will come... ;oD

Maybe this is where GPL fails?

Bazza.

No such thing as duplication of effort

Stephen Ward (not verified) - April 19, 2011 @ 8:45am

I believe that so-called "duplication of effort" is not a bad thing. Open source allows true evolution of software through cross-pollination of code. When a project tries something new and radical, like a random mutation in a gene it will either catch on or die off.
There aren't too many Desktop Environments, there's gnome shell, KDE and unity. XFCE and LXDE have their fans and the old style gnome will probably drop off in popularity as g3 gets better (as old KDE did)

Bring it on!

Padfoot (not verified) - April 19, 2011 @ 9:13am

I don't think DE fragmentation is a problem, it's the interoperability between them (through common libraries), and standardisation of distros that's the problem.

It doesn't matter how many distros or DEs there are, as long as they are interoperable/standardised, we can use any piece of software on any distro/DE.

Just look at what we have in the DE environment:

Alot of people are not happy with the Gnome 3 changes. Configurability, well it has been released for 2 weeks, give the devs a chance, anyway, you can customise a lot of Gnome 3, it's just there isn't a shiny new GUI for it yet. Time to get that console dirty!

But that's beside the point. A look at the big 3 (KDE, Gnome and Xfce) now gives us 3 completely different ways of working (there were only 2 before Gnome 3 as Xfce and Gnome 2 work in very similar ways), the glitz and glamour of Plasma, Gnome Shell for that minimalist look and Xfce for a more traditional desktop (of course, that can be glitzed up with Compiz, so fans of the compositing master, all is not lost, a look at Xfce will more than likely satisfy your cravings). Throw into the mix the many other WMs and DEs and you can satisfy almost any preferred way of working.

So there you have it, it looks as if the duplicated effort argument for DEs is no longer valid (at least amongst the big 3 - GTK and QT you say, slap a compatibility layer over the top - argh, not another Pulse Audio!!! - and app dev is greatly simplified), as they all look and function in very different ways.

Just get that interoperability/standardisation going, package and market one "generic" (horrible word) distro to the masses, and once they are converted, the world is their oyster!

Cheers!

It doesn't matter - but probably no.

Doctor W (not verified) - April 19, 2011 @ 9:39am

Fragmentation occurs when someone is not satisfied with current offerings. They produce an alternative; either a variant of something that already exists, or else something completely new.
That alternative will either fail and disappear, or it will succeed but in a specialist niche arena, or it will be wonderful for everyone and take over the world.
Whatever the outcome, it's Linux that wins overall, because it provides the scope for better and fitter alternatives to be tried and tested.
I would probably worry if there was no fragmentation - that would suggest that people didn't care any more.

Starting out should be easy

DaveS (not verified) - April 19, 2011 @ 12:34pm

As long as a new user can find their way around whatever desktop their distro comes with, all is well. And that is a software design issue. As they become more adept, the choice will be seen as a plus.

personally, I think they are

Anonymous Penguin Bird (not verified) - April 19, 2011 @ 1:59pm

personally, I think they are going too fast, and this new desktop is proving it. Its so unstable, many computers cant even install it, never mind use it. It goes live in a week or so it will put people off. Who wants an unstable OS, and little help in getting working.

Linux desktops

Just a reader (not verified) - April 19, 2011 @ 11:12pm

As many as the human mind can conceive

Too many desktops

Justa Person (not verified) - April 19, 2011 @ 11:13pm

Let there be as many as the human mind can conceive!

A fragmented "Linux" desktop need not prevent FOSS success

CallsYourFavoriteProjectIrrelevantMan (not verified) - April 20, 2011 @ 6:44am

Linux will forever be fragmented; that's fine. Specific Linux platforms like Android and Ubuntu will thrive and become the de facto baseline for computing, while "Linux" will remain an experimental, creative, and highly volatile playground for nerds.

"Linux" in the general sense never had a chance. You can't herd ca... well, let's be friendly. You wouldn't want to cage songbirds, or paint them with one color.

The presence of hundreds of tiny, fractious projects need not detract from the success of one. That one is probably Unity. So long as Ubuntu has its growing market share, GNOME, GNOME 2, KDE, Xfce, LDE, E17, Fluxbox, Awesome, Xmonad, forty odd tiling window managers, and Elementary will all remain safely irrelevant.

I think...

nai - April 20, 2011 @ 12:44pm

that the answer is yes and no to this times open ballot as well.
Yes, it fragments people who really would gain more then they lose by working together and either attempt to ahead to some form of standard(or create one). E.g. I have always thought that installing packages should work/look the same no matter what you are using.
But I don't think its an all that bad idea to have multiple WM's, besides those things that should be the same across the board they really fill out the market well. You have something that can run on really really slow machines or something that request a bit more hardware but in turn looks better and runs a bit more advanced software.

yes

fraxinus (not verified) - April 20, 2011 @ 1:15pm

... or it has if it is important to keep attracting new users (home and business) to the Linux desktop.

But perhaps this is not actually that important, any more? I really don't know. I had always felt that it was - not only because new users would benefit from something that offers much more than W***, in a number of respects, but because it would help ensure that manufacturers supplied Linux drivers for printers and other devices.

For myself, I use a Linux desktop all day every day, but for work and not as a hobbyist. As such, I do not want to live especially close to the cutting edge of desktop innovation as my workflow is precious to me. I was dismayed at the speed with which the superbly functional KDE 3 was 'retired' and I am not keen, from what I have seen so far, on taking part in Gnome's current experiment.

I think it is great -- really I do! -- that developers continue to come up with innovative, mould-breaking desktop concepts. However, Linux should work much harder to differentiate experimental or unusual technologies and concepts from 'mainstream' tried and tested ones. Otherwise, I fear desktop Linux will retreat further into 'niche-dom'.

Yes!

Dylan C (not verified) - April 20, 2011 @ 3:21pm

There are already far too many desktops and its only going to get worse!

One of the reasons why people never give instructions in GUI form is because Linux has too many desktops. The only consistent thing across distros now is the CLI.

Now Gnome has essentially been split in 2 because Fedora is using Gnome Shell and Ubuntu is using Unity. Of course some distros are even sticking with Gnome 2.32.x, so Gnome has really been split into 3 pieces!

Its in our nature

Felix the Penguin (not verified) - April 20, 2011 @ 10:31pm

Linux is an evolution therefore "fragmentation" is natural as natural as natural selection. Survival of the fittest or as Mark put it 'one shell to run them all'. Competition within Linux is the best thing about Linux it fuels innovation and great software, even turf wars have their benefits in that they spur developers on to refine and improve their projects lest they lose. There's always a bright side.

What diversity?

LoL (not verified) - April 21, 2011 @ 1:31am

Apart from a couple of mentions of Unity ... and, let's face it, that only got a look in because it's new and people have got a bee in their bonnet about it ... the only DEs anyone mentioned were the same three in the title

Gnome = MacOS

KDE = Windows >= 95

Xfce = Windows >= 95 [1]

Hardly diverse, is it?

Yeah, yeah, there's also any number of CLI based options as well, but no-one mentioned them and they basically boil down to "DOS = Unix CLI"

And you could add Enlightenment, I suppose, but I'm probably the only person in the World who uses it - Or at least it often feels like it

There's hardly even any diversity between the distros themselves, most of them being a respin of one of the majors

Debian

Red Hat

Slackware

Suse

Okay, there are also Arch, Ark, Gentoo, and a few others, but, apart from Arch and Gentoo, they're hardly major players, are they?

And, anyway, the differences between even the majors is pretty minor ... about the only real difference being the package format (deb, rpm, tarball and whatever weirdness Arch uses) and the associated manager

The rest of it just boils down to what software is delivered along with the kernel and the package manager, a control panel or two and the desktop wallpaper / colour scheme

There's barely any more diversity than there is on the political spectrum

In short: No it hasn't gone far enough for my liking

I'd like to see an end to apps optimised for KDE, Gnome or whatever and the start of a generic app appearance that the DE can add its own spin to, if it must, or I can skin *my* way, irrespective of the DE

And I'd like to see something other than the WIMP GUI, for once ... something genuinely *different* - I don't know what, but, just as an example, an FPS environment that I walk around [2]

Until then, I'll stick with Enlightenment - Less desktop clutter, more speed

---

[1] Okay, I've seen Xfce tarted up to work like Enlightenment (e.g. Zenwalk), but it's not exactly a commonplace configuration

[2] Actually, that's *not* what I'd like to see, but you get the point - Something *different*

Haven't you heard? No one uses desktops anymore! That is so 2010

Inkayacu - April 21, 2011 @ 5:57am

LXDE and Xfce seem to fill the same niche, yet cannot work together. Never mind the more basic window managers.

The big boys cannot agree upon a notifications paradigm.

And now the big boys also wish to tell everybody "hey, you have to use your computer like a tablet now, the desktop is dead." Things smell very much like the emperor's new clothes right now. Some in the desktop space seem to lack the fortitude to leave solved problems solved. Reinventing the wheel is more amusing / cool I guess.

What's coming in the future? Wayland vs HTML5 on the desktop? What mainstream app developers what supposed to support all this diversity rather than be content supplying the larger Microsoft market?

Even in file managers, each seems to have a feature lacking in the others, yet no one thinks "hey, let's combine this all into one file manager." But then if all the projects are run by someone like Shuttleworth ("the trashcan HAS to stay in the bottom left, period"), it's not hard to see how fragmentation begins.

Gnome 2 panel was minimalist enough for me to stay out of my way, and not as ugly as KDE. I hope it gets the equivalent of a Trinity project.

Incidentally, what exactly is the current definition of "older hardware". In what year does "old hardware" become sufficient to run Gnome 2? Maybe at this point at least Xfce and any forthcoming Gnome 2.x fork could merge. I'd like the batch file renaming capability of Thunar in my Gnome 2.x continuation.

Fragmentation is in the DNA of GNU/Linux. It is hopeless.

Of course not.

The Enlightened Penguin (not verified) - April 21, 2011 @ 6:09am

Yes there are a lot of desktop choices, but everyne knows the only true choice is Enlightenment. So of course not.

Can I submit my own idea for a future open ballot?

Inkayacu - April 21, 2011 @ 6:15am

I've been wondering lately (maybe due to the Canterbury prank), what if there was one common repository, and an actual common set of libraries, and maybe even a custom build system at that shared repo so one could customize their own disc image before downloading it .... what then would be the role of a "distro" after that convergence? Would just fall back to picking a desktop environment, picking a wallpaper, and then voila, you have a separate distro?

What defines a distro now, and what would define the concept of a distro if some really basic things were shared, and even, dare I say, synced (everyone on version X of library A)?

No

A Teenager (not verified) - April 21, 2011 @ 1:27pm

If I don't like one setup I can choose another.

Anyway, who cares about gaining more market share and having a united front? So long as I can use a free operating system legally which doesn't require 10 billion virus checks a second and doesn't break down, I'm happy.

Basically, so long as they aren't riddled with bugs, take as long as Ooo to load or look worse than XP, why not have variety?

(I, for one, find gnome-shell a breath of fresh air, so long as you take the bugs out that is.)

Also the argument that if everybody worked on one desktop it would be better, is void. People only code because they're interested, not because they want to follow a set plan and design; they want to try out new things. If all the effort was somehow concentrated down though, Linux would be a lot more boring.

What fragmentation ?

ChrisW (not verified) - April 21, 2011 @ 3:26pm

My desktop isn't fragmented... If it were I think I would have noticed. :)

I've been using the same one now for years, it has improved over time but I have not experienced any fragmentation.

Maybe one day, possibly in the not too distant future, I will consider using something different, but at present why would I.

Kind of

DomJ (not verified) - April 21, 2011 @ 3:50pm

Fragmentation within linux is one of the things that ends up giving it less market share, and because it has less market share, software vendors are more reluctant to release software for the platform, and because software vendors are reluctant to release software for Linux, less people use it...and so the cycle continues.

NO

Anonymous Penguin - April 21, 2011 @ 10:16pm

"The medium is the message"

The more they cannot pin you down the more they have no idea how to embed there capitalist messages into the interface...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Well at one time there were

Tom Green (not verified) - April 22, 2011 @ 2:21am

Well at one time there were a number of desktops for the PC
GEM (Which was crippled by Apple lawsuits)
OS/2 by IBM
several desktops for DOS by HP and others
And don't ever forget Microsoft BOB!

Linux has desktops for everything for old PCs that need a lightweight desktop to all singing and dancing heavyweights for an up to date system - with Linux you do not have to junk your PC when a new version of the OS is issued!

Mindshare is finite

Nth GNU (not verified) - April 22, 2011 @ 2:26am

We have always been at war with eurasia.
I think there is and always has been to much fragmentation on the desktop. The great thing is people only pay attention to a limited number of projects. Users will be aware of three or four choices and the best will hopefully get the most mindshare. On the developer side hackers will be drawn by two fairly quanatitive factors platform potential and quality of development tools oh and maybe user popularity.

For all the options you have how meny do you actually consider.

Not really

Robert bobbinson (not verified) - April 22, 2011 @ 12:12pm

It depends which aspect of the desktop you're talking about. Most widely-used window managers (xfwm, kwin, metacity and whatever lxde uses) have the same basic features (panel, main menu, workspaces, etc), and since all of them (except kwin) use the same toolkit. Even then, if you use a theme like QTcurve or Oxygen-gtk then they look basically the same. It's more a matter of how willing you are to change settings.

Just to add

Le Dunc (not verified) - April 22, 2011 @ 10:19pm

that I've had a play with gnome 3 and watched a video of unity - I think it's a very exciting time for linux in general, and I'm glad that people are re-thinking the desktop paradigm (afterall windows 95 is pretty old!). I'm sure that rough edges in unity and gnome3 will be ironed out in due course.

However, I still stick by my earlier comment that business users just aren't going be impressed with gnome 3.

what

dickwad (not verified) - April 23, 2011 @ 1:24am

The only linux related OS having any chance of competing with Windows on the desktop right now is Ubuntu. And it isn't a Linux OS. It's Ubuntu OS, based on linux. It's also based on Unity which is based on GNOME. But it's Ubuntu OS. not unity, and not GNOME, and not linux.

When you ask about desktop fragmentation, that's really irrelevant, because the major competing desktop linux based OS is based on only one desktop. If the question is what can be done to have the best chance to feel good about ourselves as linux users and have some kind of successful linux based desktop OS, then we should all drop what we're doing and back Ubuntu OS.

Who here is going to do that? And will Canonical pay us all, or something? Otherwise, what's the point of striving for desktop consolidation? I don't get the point.

But if you do want to aim for that, don't talk about desktop fragmentation. That won't solve anything. Instead, talk about making a sacrifice by backing Ubuntu OS - full time, and unconditionally.

meh

Non-Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - April 23, 2011 @ 10:06pm

I'd say no, but honestly, after trying out both Gnome 3 AND Unity, I'd say that there's a little bit of fragmentation for fragmentation's sake now.

Gnome 3 and Unity share a lot of the same concepts, IMHO, but Unity fails at being simple and getting out of the way, especially on a smaller screen. Gnome 3 does it better. I just don't know why Canonical decided to go a different direction with it.

I thought I'd end up having to switch to KDE or XFCE (or switch from Ubuntu to another distro) when Gnome 3 and Unity came out. Now I think I'm just going with Gnome 3 and Fedora.

Time to focus on the customer

MikeC (not verified) - April 25, 2011 @ 10:21am

I got tired of this Gnome vs KDE saga a long, long time age.
If GNU/Linux is ever the cross the bridge to mainstream computer users and really take on Windows and Max OSX, we as GNU/Linux developers have to realize one very important thing:
The vast majority of computer users are not techies. They don't give a damm if it's KDE, Gnome, Windows or Aqua - and for that matter probably don't really care if it's Windows, Mac, or GNU/Linux. They just want it to work, work well, and for the most part they want the desktop to look really nice. This may irk the likes of you and me, who should and do care about these things, but we can't; and shouldn't; try to make the end users care.
In this respect, we have a lot to learn from Apple. They took a Unix machine, wrapped it in a beautiful GUI, and made a fortune. I doubt very much if most Mac users even know they're using a 100% compliant Posix operating system,
or they they have xterm command line available to them. I'll even bet that that's news to some of you reading this right now..
Android is leading the way IMO. While there is certainly an awareness that Android is not Apple, to the end users, they look the same, act the same, and do the things the want from a iPhone and more.

Too Many Desktops?

Brian36 (not verified) - April 25, 2011 @ 1:50pm

No - variety is the spice of life (well -maybe). But I accept that Windows users may find it confrontational coming from a 'no choice' background. I use Gnome2, XFCE and LXDE depending on capability of the machine. I prefer Gnome2. KDE is far too flamboyant!

no again

Happy Penguin (not verified) - April 26, 2011 @ 2:34am

After reading all post's (yes I did read my own post again) I get to the same point where key features have to be developed in partnership so that no mater what you choose, apps will just work and fit well on your desktop. Windows?! Mac?! are not a good example. I have the perfect DE in my mind. The problem(not a problem in the free open source world) is that some, or many, or most don't agree. Give me shattered glass any time, opposed to no glass at all.

alt tab

shelled penguin (not verified) - April 26, 2011 @ 11:14am

All of the desktops have applications. A terminal is all you realy need to survive. And when people want buttons that do this or that fine. I have been using Gnome shell and it works no problem in fedora 15. I use alt tab to do application switching and keep my apps at full screen. I have a dual display setup and keep my browser on one side and use the rest for everything else. Simple and easy nvidia hardware drivers work well. I think that ubuntu is wasting time with unity. Stick with the shell. Bring all the develpers to gether to customize the shell.

Would be perfect, but

TomMan - April 26, 2011 @ 8:39pm

As much as it would be perfect to have a desktop that was as simple as GNOME, as functional as KDE but have the same speed as Xfce and LXDE, I can't see it happening.

It's the "Linux-way", there will always be a group of people who wouldn't like it, or want something "better" which would cause another desktop to be created. Yes, this does cause a lot of duplicated effort, but I can't see this changing for the foreseeable future.

I'm not saying any particular desktop is bad, but I think that if there was one "super-desktop" it would certainly push Linux forward into the desktop market.

Libraries?

TomMan - April 26, 2011 @ 8:44pm

Maybe the community could compromise, lots of desktops but one set of libraries. This would save a lot issues.

I can give you an example, I was using GNOME and I wanted to install kcachegrind (excellent tool for analysing valgrind output), now I realise that there are GNOME alternatives, but I wanted kcachegrind because I'm used to it and I think it's the best. Now, when I came to installing this program I had to installed 100mb's worth of KDE-dependencies which is ridiculous! I shouldn't have to download over 100mb just to get this one program. If all desktops standardised on one library/toolkit, the different desktops would not be so much of an issue.

Again, I can't see this happening for the foreseeable future either. :(

Listen to yourselves

GMasterBoots (not verified) - April 27, 2011 @ 12:59pm

For all those that say fragmentation is a bad thing or is currently too much, I say bah. If you don't like what YOU use, change it to suit your preferences. There is a reason these many different fragments survive, especially desktop environments and window managers, namely that people actually use them. I use ratpoison on my seven year old laptop because even lxde was a bit slow, and now am used to configuring and resizing everything based on the keyboard, which suits me. On my desktop I use a full bling gnome2+compiz pinguy environment, because I've got the specs to support it, but I like to run openbox on it too, just to see things zoom along. I like having many options and exploring new distros, DE/WMs and setups is exciting and what drew me deeper into *Nix. Additionally, why do people whine about learning new package managers? You know there is a certain learning curve to each new distro, and it seems to me the best package managers have a lot of the same features (pacman, zypper, pisi etc.).

I do hope Gnome2 becomes a legitimate fork because I cannot run Gnome3 on my main computer (laptop) and I think Gnome2 is a natural choice for businesses looking to convert older computers from XP to GNU/Linux. I do like KDE, I just don't use it much (OpenSUSE on the desktop).

As I said above, fragmentation exists because people want different things and are willing to support them in their free time, especially for the smaller projects (do you think anyone at Red Hat works on code for suckless.org?)So before spouting senseless crap about consolidating distros or unifying DEs, think about other people who use and like software and configurations that are in contrast to your own tastes.

Fragmentation is the wrong word...and NOT the issue...

Prolific Puffin - April 27, 2011 @ 10:20pm

I would not call having multiple desktops and window managers fragmentation, I would call it having options or choices.

However, as we all know this thread is REALLY about Gnome 3 and Unity, how horrid and unusable they both are, and how they are being crammed down our throats as if we were Apple customers, I for one, refuse to swallow...

I am now up to 8 distros on my Grub bootloader (Grub LEGACY BTW, because while I love choice, I will not be forced to switch to something that does not work for me), because it is readily apparent that the entire Gnome team have broken into Mark Shuttleworth's medicine cabinet, and subsequently and collectively overdosed on the crazy pills that I am convinced he has been taking, as that is the only possible explanation for the existence of Unity.

That being the case, I am preparing for the day when I have to switch from my now perfect desktop to something else due to lack of updates. Certainly, the case could be made that if your desktop is so perfect, why switch at all, but I have my reasons, not the least of which is that I support others, and have to stay up to date.

So, I was assuming that Xubuntu would be my natural choice, as I am already familiar with it, and 4.8 looked very nice. As I have tried about 100 flavors of Linux over the past 4 years, I have realized that the reason I stay with Ubuntu as my main OS is for the overall ease of use and widespread compatibility across the board, so I wanted to stay in the Ubuntu ecosystem. After installing Lubuntu however, I may switch to it entirely, and at the very least, it does and will continue to have its own substantial partition and it is now a permanent part of my system. Another gem I have found is Liquid Lemur, which has some brilliant scripts to automate some otherwise mundane, and even painful tasks, and presents itself well, as a VERY attractive XFCE desktop with a Debian base. This may well wind up as my Laptop OS when it is released (it stands at Beta2 as of the moment).

I am an Ubuntu loyalist, even evangelist, and do what I can to support Ubuntu. I have a paid Ubuntu One account, buy things from the Canonical store (including discs of every release to hand out) and while it did not actually support Ubuntu, I recently spent about $80 USD on a new video card so it would be compatible with Unity, as I wanted to give it a fair trial.

Sadly, it is a complete mess, totally counter-intuitive, and a complete regression IMHO, as it takes entirely too
much digging and far too many clicks to get to the things I actually use. Gnome 3/ Shell is simply Unity's somewhat more attractive, yet slightly more insane cousin. Neither are usable.

And finally, to my point...

What the Gnome Team, and Canonical have completely failed to realize is that while it is totally obvious they are preparing desktops for the tablet market, they are not only in the wrong battle entirely, but by abandoning the desktop, they have already lost on both fronts.

Yes. I said they have ABANDONED the desktop.

Unity and G3 are OBVIOUSLY designed for tablets. The problem is that the market is already lost.

But the desktop market is still viable, and CAN be won.

I look at my Gnome 2/Ubuntu Desktop, and it is, as I mentioned, perfect. I have 10.10, the lovely silvery Ambiance theme running, Compiz just the way I like it, my new 1GB Nvidia card taking all the load off my completely stable and reliable AMD CPU, and it is a glorious, harmonious, fluid thing of beauty. I can switch to a subtle Orta theme (sans the STUPID Faenza icons) in a moment, or have a more rigid and business like look with Ambiance or even go with one of the fun Bisigi themes. I can do this all with a few clicks. Those same few clicks (plus a few dozen more) MAY (or may not) open a text editor in Gnome 3 or Unity. ;)

But I digress...what I am trying to get out here is that if we want Linux to succeed, we need to preserve the choices for advanced and adventurous users, but we also need to present some consistency and aesthetics to to potential users to pique their interest in the first place.

The single most popular OS in history was/is Windows XP. How did Microsoft achieve this? Was it through innovation? Rock-solid security? An eye-catching interface?

Yes.

OK, now that you have stopped laughing, the answer is obviously, no.

What they did was precisely...nothing. They patched and patched until it was somewhat stable (people forget that XP got an even more hostile welcome from the users than did Vista when XP was first released), and by keeping it around for so long, it simply became "the desktop". Vista gave it a MAJOR face lift (for all of its perceived ills, it was certainly much more attractive than XP), but the underpinnings remained unscathed.

The little minor tweaks to Windows from XP to 7 have engendered users as it is now very visually appealing, yet reasonably stable (for Windows), but the biggest hook is that is is simply familiar to its users.

Linux does not present that to the new user, and as many above have stated, we need to have a few common standards. Just like "default" programs, there should be a "default" desktop, and also like default programs, it should be easy to change to whatever you like.

The bottom line is that there HAS to be a balance, and there has to be some sort of MAJOR communal effort to get at least the back end (package management) unified if Linux is to ever be more than a hobbyist OS on the desktop.

As I heard on another podcast recently, albeit about a different issue, changes like Unity and Gnome 3 are simply solutions looking for a problem...

@bananaoomarang In fact, you

dickwad (not verified) - April 28, 2011 @ 12:38am

@bananaoomarang

In fact, you *are* voting.

Everyone is voting. Users vote by using the software they like and want then helping with bug reports and testing offering feedback and ideas. Providing documentation and support in forums for that software.

Developers are voting by choosing the libraries and creating the software.

Etc.

These things put together all help create the "best" (in theory) or at least "most popular" choices.

In addition, I don't know that it's a taboo to say this but I think it's quite obvious as well and true generally:

Sometimes in democracies the majority - even vast majority - are wrong.

I mean think of what you just wrote. The majority/plurality use Ubuntu. And now Ubuntu's making a decision that you don't like with Unity. What are you going to do? If it was a voting system - or quasi voting system like you proposed, and the same thing happened guess what? You'd be stuck with Unity whether you like it or not.

That's democracy. Whereas Linux, on the other hand, is freedom - true freedom - which democracies can never provide. (Linux, GNU/Linux, FLOSS licensing whatever you want to call it).

But I mean this comes to the heart of this question about 'fragmentation'. I'm glad some other commenters here Get It. Because it is a sort of baffling question unless you look at it from a certain perspective.

As I wrote earlier, if your primary goal is to gain substantial market share and/or compete with Microsoft, Apple, or whomever, then you want consolidation, you want focus, you want familiarity, and you want fewer choices. Because this is the best path to make this happen, as far as competing in the software desktop industry is concerned, most apparently agree.

Nevermind that the concept is essentially entirely antithetical to the fundamental idea behind free software in the first place; you can already help participate in the consolidation of the desktop experience and try to take on Microsoft et al already:

Use Ubuntu. Develop for Ubuntu. Support Ubuntu. I don't many disagree that today, this brand has the best chance (at the moment anyway) to actually make any kind of dent in the desktop market (whether vis a vis the mobile market, or diretly). Ubuntu has already conslidated the desktop experience for its brand OS, first with GNOME, and now with Unity/GNOME. You don't actually need to care what other desktops are doing because as I've said, if you want a conslidated desktop, and you want it to be Linux or free/open source, then take a collection of software that you consider the best, put it together and package it up into your own OS and make it popular.

And that's what Ubuntu has done (begun to make it relatively popular anyway). In other words, you don't need to wish away the competition; you don't need to hope for amorphous ideals of consolidation; you just need to make your own brand better.

That's why I say if all of this is your goal, then hop board the Ubuntu train and follow its roadmap full steam ahead (of course, don't forget that you'll have to make sacrifices when you eventually don't agree with its evolving branded consolidation processes). Because right now, this is your best shot. And you don't live forever.

Just remember: if someone call it Linux, correct them and say it's Ubuntu with Ubuntu's (consolidated) desktop experience. Not Linux. Because unlike Ubuntu - unless the GPL/etc magically retroactively changes its own terms - Linux will always look different, always behave different, always be libertarian - as opposed to democratic, always spawn derivatives, be fragmented, be dynamic, and be free.

There is no single answer

DJ Dual Core (not verified) - April 28, 2011 @ 1:46am

GNU/Linux isn't just one thing. It is a family of OSs that are used in myriad ways. The ability to choose EXACTLY the right window manager and desktop environment for a specialized system may be priceless to one person and useless to another.

djdualcore@gmail.com
oldmixtapes.blogspot.com

Missing the point...

Prolific Puffin - April 28, 2011 @ 5:01am

The unverified poster above, wwhile doing a fine job of articulating his or her ideas, and making valid points all, is missing the crux here.

The driving forces behind both Gnome 3 and Unity are WRONG. They have made bad decisions, screwed up the desktop, and if we do not, as a community scream it at them from the rafters, how are they going to be aware of our collective dissatisfaction?

I would be of the same mindset were it any product that I was using, free or commercial. I too, hope someone (who is NOT the Mint project, as that is simply not an option for me) keeps gnome 2x alive.

On the bright side, it will be a long time before it is an actual issue, and hopefully both projects will be dead or at least molded into something usable by then...

Focus on Office Suite NOT Desktop Management

Fat Arse Whale (not verified) - April 30, 2011 @ 3:02am

As a newbie, I appreciate a desktop that has basic, accessible menus and options to customize to my hearts content.

Unfortunately, unity and gnome 3 are actually a step backwards in both of these areas.

Linux Mint's enhancements to gnome 2.x should receive serious attention due to its similarity to Windows and Mac desktops. Newbies don't care that much about learning desktop interfaces, we want quick access to useful programs.

The Linux community should spend far more time on enhancing Libre office suite, so it can take on ms office. Once this gap is reduced, then and only then will Linux begin to gain users on the desktop and in the workplace.

downvote Fragmentation upvote Diversity

Penguin Anony-Mous (not verified) - May 3, 2011 @ 10:58am

Are there too many different kinds of plants and animals? I think most people appreciate diversity.

I suspect the fuss is really about Gnome becoming Gnome2, GNOME3 and Unity. A bit like the way some ancestral ape evolved into homo sapiens, and the chimp, and the gorilla, and the bonobo, etc. etc.

Give it some time. People will make their choices. Some desktop environments will dominate. Others will be forgotten.

It is the Way Of The Jungle. It is true that there may be a lot of duplication of effort. But this is a development methodology that has a proven track record that spans about 3 billion years. Maybe more.

Imagine if all animals had been Tyrannosaurus Rexes, because a billion years ago some CTO thought that it was the coolest animal. You'd never have been born.

(For a laugh, try this:
$ apt-cache search 'window manager' | egrep -v 'lib|\-dev|\-dbg|\-doc|\-common' | egrep 'window.*manager'
)

Yes, almost

Angry Penguin (not verified) - May 3, 2011 @ 6:40pm

For what sake was created unity? To throw copy gnome3? Well without nonsences like 1 button and oversized titlebar, but lacking in everything. Also Unity seems a little bit ugly (no gnome 3 tabs) etc... I think customized gnome-shell would have solved everything. And for gnome2: revival of old ugly (default configuration sucks) zombie, which should have died long time ago, reviving for old PC's is a waste of time. There is XFCE which in my opinion is really powerfull DE. It has composition etc. I think those people should migrate to it. For even more oldschool pc's LXDE is even one more option. So Unity and gnome 2 is pointless, only thing that could really throw in the mix I think is E17.

No

Anonymous Ubuntu User (not verified) - May 7, 2011 @ 4:17am

One of the things I truly enjoy about linux is the variety and choice it provides. I have tried KDE, XFCE, Gnome 2.x, E17 and Unity so far. Windows doesn't have this kind of freedom and openness. The only problem I have is with the current trend of the newer desktops limiting the users ability to customise the desktop to their own needs and design. When I first tried unity, the first thing I wanted to do is remove the panel and side bar and load up Avant_Window_Navigator but I couldn't figure out how to remove those elements. But thankfully, I have other options open to me. With linux there are so many people that contribute ideas and code that makes all aspects of linux grow and develop in ways Windows never will.

the problem is somewhere else

torwag (not verified) - May 7, 2011 @ 7:43pm

actually the problem is not fragmentation of the desktop due to windowmanagers, those are only user interfaces.... different style for different people.

The problem is the fact that different distros prefer a certain window manager and add all kind of scripts, helper tools and handmade stuff around it. Automount, wifi and network control, volume control, suspend, resume, screenshot, system hotkeys, etc.
Thus switching from one wm to another gives not just a different UI but suddenly many stuff stops working or works different.

This is what really creates fragmentation.

I like

Corn lover (not verified) - May 16, 2011 @ 4:34am

I like eating corn and shit mashed together in a paste. And wiping it on the gnome shell and kde desktop. mmmmmm.

No

Anonymous Pengun (not verified) - May 16, 2011 @ 6:10am

I've been using Gnome for years.

As a programmer, I have a fundamental objection to KDE. The QT framework acts as a preprocessor, meaning what you see (as a debugging programmer) is not what you wrote. I could say more, but suffice to say, KDE is a non-starter for me.

I've been using Ubuntu for the last few years, but no more. I have several Linux boxes. Some are relatively powerful and many are Atom mobos (who can argue when a full-blown mobo costs only a bit over $100 USD?)

But Ubuntu's latest bloatware won't run on an Atom (in all its bling). I want a consistant interface, so Ubuntu is out. Sure, I could opt for the crippled Ubuntu Gnome iface, but how much effort will they put into that?

And now Gnome is going bling. Again, will my Atoms handle it? I think not. And even if they did, why spend the CPU cycles on bling?

Mint has a distro called XFCE or some other non-memorable tla (fla?). I've been running it in a VM and it seems really usable. So I guess if I can every remember what its called, I'll be switching to it, until its developers get the bling bug.

Getting tired of it all.

Fred (not verified) - July 4, 2011 @ 8:12pm

I want something that is easy to use.
That allows for some customizations and runs widgets.
Allows me to run the programs I want to run.

Start with an uncluttered desktop. I will put the menubar on the bottom, hiding it most of the time, unledd I moss over it.

The Chrome OS might work, if it can run my favorite Gnome and KDE applications. I for sure need gnome-terminal and the ability to run ssh to administer my other boxes.

XFCE is buggy

Mayo (not verified) - October 16, 2011 @ 11:09pm

got tired of unity so i went with xfce (4.8) and boy is it buggy. autohide menu is temperamental, alt+f2 is temperamental, workspaces freezing randomly...

i'm tellin ya it's all just crazy and here i am back on unity givin it another shot. i told myself fk it what the hell

Yes！！！！！！！！！！！

linux lover (not verified) - February 9, 2012 @ 8:40am

Too many choices equal none choice！
All of the current desktop environments on linux are lacking of refinements and usability compared with windows and mac OSX. Whatever I choose ,it is far from my satisfactory.
For example, there are hundreds of art,design open source alternative softwares but none of them is handful and powerful as photoshop,autocad and visio etc. Why? Because consistency is important for both user habits and progressive evolution of DE. Reinvent a new desktop environment for some purpose is short-sighted. It meets parts of users' needs in the short time but is harmful in the long run. IMHO, Usability is not equal to fragmentation.One choice sometimes is the best choice.

Yes!

Charlotte (not verified) - January 10, 2013 @ 4:52pm

Well open source and free software is great. Surely though
Linux needs even more ubuntu-style easy and wide immediate hardware
support when you boot your pc without hacking, integration between distros,
general centralisation and ease of use! How else can it ever really compete
on the desktop?

detergent soap detergent manufacturing-12

Gaborwa (not verified) - April 11, 2013 @ 5:36pm