OSNews

Interface inconsistency is another accusation frequently leveled at the Linux community. After all, the argument goes, how can one be productive with all those different toolkits on the desktop.

I contend that Windows is no better. In fact, it's significantly worse. There is almost no consistency *at all* on a fully loaded Windows desktop. Case in point: fire up your favorite Windows burning app, word processor, pdf viewer, video app, audio app, chat client and web browser. Now, unless you're using Media Player for both the video and audio functions, you should see 7 (count 'em) different toolkits staring you in the face. Heck, even if you limited yourself to strictly Microsoft offerings, you would still have to reconcile a different toolkit for each release of Office and other products. And don't forget that your administrative panel still looks like it did almost 10 years ago.

With Linux, though, you can achieve consistency through the miracle of choice. Want a GTK-free desktop? Chat with Kopete, PIM with Kmail, be productive with Koffice... it's all there. Your Qt hating friends can IM you via Gaim or email you with Evolution or Balsa. Browse the web with Konqueror. They'll use Galeon or Epiphany. There are too many more for me to continue, but if you want to get a real grasp on just how vast and varied the offerings are, check out KDE-Apps.org and Gnomefiles.org. And of course, the beauty of open source is such that, if you like the guts of a program, but hate the interface, you're allowed (even encouraged) to port it. And it's so much easier than starting afresh!

Ease of Use

The last resort of the exasperated critic and the first card played by the computer newbie is this: Linux is just plain hard to use. It's a tricky argument, because it's too powerful and inflammatory to leave alone, but too vague and subjective to pinpoint. But what it typically boils down to is not that Linux desktops are hard to use, but that they are merely different. Change is hard on people, and it colors their opinions. Much of computing, especially desktop computing, is about expectations. And if things aren't where users expect them to be, many people aren't willing to expend the extra effort. Various usability studies (ref: Don't Make Me Think by Steve Krug) have confirmed that most people don't perform computing tasks in the most logical way, but simply in the way that first worked for them. If, for example, a Windows user had first gotten a program to run by opening My Computer and hunting around the filesystem for the program, the whole concept of the Start menu is completely lost on them. And getting them to change their habit, despite the clear advantage to the transition, will typically be met with considerable resistence. Now, if they're going to be that entrenched about firing up a simple program, imagine how offputting a whole new desktop layout can be. For newbies and experts alike relearning can be too daunting.

That said, the Windows desktop is a mangled trainwreck where usability is concerned. Simple settings are often duplicated in different configuration windows. Many specific settings are just plain hard to find, as the design team wisely "dumbed down" the control panel into a handful of generic categories, each capable of housing a number of disparate settings. Internationalization is mediocre at best and downright nonexistent in many cases. The newest versions of Office, as has been mentioned before, assault the user with so many menus, toolbars and options there's hardly enough space to work. Open up Outlook 2003 and see what I mean. It hurts the eyes. Buttons and prompts are placed and worded with no particular order or logic throughout the operating system, as if calculated to confuse the average user. And when a user finally breaks down and asks for help, the help files are useless, offering one or two vague options before referring the user to another help category or even more cryptic web support.

Many in the Linux community, on the other hand, have adopted a page from Apple's book and are making usability a top priority. Both the KDE and Gnome projects have standardized much about the way their desktop environments operate, providing a consistent look and feel across the board. Gnome has gone a step further, however, and has pioneered the adoption of a common interface. The rules governing this advance, dubbed the HIG (Human Interface Guidelines), specify everything from icon themes and keyboard shortcuts to button placement and menu layout. All of these improvements have contributed to Gnome's rising appeal to the corporate IT world as a replacement for corporate desktops. It's rapidly becoming an out-of-the-box solution for ease of use and productivity.

The Verdict

As has become increasingly clear over the course of the past two years, Linux is not only ready for the desktop, it's a better contender than Windows ever was. It's sleeker and faster, often easier to install and setup, and it's simple to operate. But perhaps the most impressive bit in all of this is the price tag: free. The TCO of Linux is a big smile. I know, that's not what some consulting firms say. They claim Linux will eat up corporate budgets with user training, but I'm not impressed. Training is a one time deal, a single expenditure that proves its worth over time. How can that cost even compare to exorbitant licensing fees levied twice yearly to the major corporations or the pocketbook hit for every upgrade a user commits to?

There's something romantic to the idea of an underdog. But when that underdog is clearly better fit for competition and *free*... well, I would have to say the race has already been won. Look out desktops everywhere, here comes Linux!

About the Author:
Brian Davis is been using Linux for five years now, and he still prefers the GUI. He doesn't particularly dislike Microsoft's products, but he does heavily prefer Linux's features, stability and price tag. This is his first article.