As I mentioned in my previous post, one of the reasons that has been discussed for Linux Mint overtaking (and maintaining its lead over) Ubuntu as the most popular Linux distribution was Canonical's choice to switch from the Gnome shell to Unity for the default desktop environment. I'd like to take this opportunity to describe some of the differences between the two desktop environments.
First and foremost is the “dock”, which is similar to the dock in Mac's OS/X. Some Windows computers, especially Dells, have a similar feature. It is a permanent taskbar on the left of the desktop that features icons for commonly used programs. It's rather simple to add programs to the dock, as it just takes a right-click. On the other hand, it's impossible to get rid of the dock as long as Unity is the default GUI desktop.
Gnome, on the other hand, is what older versions of Ubuntu featured. It's still available in Ubuntu, and it features an exceptionally minimalist approach. Menus are hidden by default, and it's impossible to save files to the desktop. For people who like a “clean” desktop environment, Gnome is an ideal choice.
The Unity/ Gnome debate, though, brings up a more interesting issue, and that's the maturity of Linux as a desktop operating system, and the expectations of Linux users in 2012. There are some distributions of Linux, such as Gentoo, which are infinitely customizable. The end user picks and chooses the desired features, and actually modifies the kernel accordingly. Other distros have slightly different ideas about the proper balance between customization and usability, but the end user's ability to choose their own experience has always been at the core of the Linux philosophy.
This is where the Mint and Ubuntu split has become fascinating. The single biggest reason given for end users choosing one distribution over the other is the desktop environment, something that can be changed with a simple search of the repositories. Linux has made great strides towards attracting a different sort of end user- the type of individual who would normally use a Windows system out of familiarity. Because of this change in focus, I think we may start to see a change in philosophy from Linux developers. The “winner” might not be the distribution that has the most cutting-edge features, or the most unique presentation. Rather, it could possibly be the one that can most closely replicate a desktop experience that users are comfortable with. If a particular distro resembles Windows XP, or Mac OS/X, or Windows 7, it will be easier to convince users to switch to Linux. This is the definition of a double-edged sword.
On one hand, a larger user base will make it more common for companies to produce software that is compatible with Linux, which will then make it less cumbersome for users to switch, and the effects will build upon each other. On the other hand, a great majority of end users simply do not care about whether or not their software is innovative. Instead, they are concerned with simply having a consistent desktop experience, where they can use their computer in a familiar manner. While the plural of anecdote is not data, I would like to share one particular example of this phenomenon. A little over a year ago, my father brought me his laptop, complaining that it was running slowly. I'm not certain exactly how much malware he had managed to accumulate on his Windows Vista machine, but it was so much that it took over 30 minutes for the computer to fully start up. When I forced his machine to update, it would no longer start up at all. My father is not a power user- he wanted to have something that would allow him to surf the internet, check his email, and write the occasional document. While he is not a traditional Linux user, I realized that installing Linux on his laptop was the ideal solution- he would have an operating system that wasn't susceptible to malware, and I would be able to handle any minor issues he may encounter by telling him a few simple BASH shell commands. It's been over a year, and we have had zero problems with his computer. Perhaps this is the future of Linux.
In other alternate OS news, Haiku has an updated peer-to-peer client, BeShare. It is similar to Napster or Limewire, designed for the BeOS based operating system. The biggest change this version of BeShare delivers is compatibility with the MUSCLE 3.20 framework. In other words, it will support multiple programming languages.
On the BSD side of things, it seems that DuckDuckGo is becoming more popular as the default search engine for its distributions. This is not necessarily surprising, as DuckDuckGo is much more focused on privacy and user anonymity than other major search engines. This is somewhat ironic, considering how much Google is pushing free and open source software into the market.
