Download Available

Something most new Linux users often struggle to understand when first using Linux is the concept of desktop environments. What a desktop environment actually is I feel gets further clouded when users start exploring different "spins" of a distro. For example it is very common for a new user to think Kubuntu or Xubuntu is something entirely different from the well known Ubuntu. Many do not know that they can easily install any *buntu on any other *buntu with a single command!

Just as choosing the distro can be difficult so can choosing the right desktop environment. The following is an overview of some of the best known desktop environments so you can be more informed in your decision.

Gnome:
The most popular desktop environment currently in use is Gnome, it is the desktop environment that powers the three most popular desktop Linux distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, and Linux Mint). Gnome is a fully developed desktop environment that provides a fully integrated application set. It is easy to use and provides GUI tools for making edits to all the different features that are available within it. It is a very "user friendly" desktop environment that is fantastic for new users.

Gnomes memory foot print is modest for all the features it provides. A default Gnome install uses around 180megs of RAM. If you like eye candy on your computer odds are you will want to be running compiz (desktop effects) on your Gnome desktop. A default Gnome install with compiz running uses slightly more memory, right about 205megs.

KDE:
In terms of popularity KDE is the second most popular desktop environment. Like Gnome it is fully matured and provides its own full application set as well as GUI tools for configuration. KDE also has a wide selection of "plasma widgets", which are handy applets you can place all around your desktop for all sorts of tasks. They range from something as practical as a calculator to as useless as a display from "The Matrix".

Over all KDE is much more customizable than Gnome, but this comes at a cost. A default KDE install uses around 510megs of RAM, if you are looking for eye candy it does not cost as much to run kwin (KDEs built in desktop effects) as it does to run compiz. With kwin enabled a default KDE install uses around 520megs of RAM.

XFCE:
XFCE is designed to be simplistic and quick. It does not provide much in the way of eye candy (although you can run compiz on it) but, it is a decently fast/responsive desktop environment. While XFCE does have some of its own applications, such as its file manager Thunar and the XFCE system monitor, it does still borrow some applications from the Gnome environment (such as nm-applet network manager). Dont think XFCE is an immature project though, what it borrows from Gnome is more to save itself from reinventing the wheel than from lack of ability. XFCE does not have quite as many tools for making GUI edits as Gnome or KDE, but it does have a fairly good configuration panel.

Designed to be quick and lightweight XFCE leaves a low memory footprint on the system you have it running on. At defaults XFCE uses around 140megs of RAM.

LXDE:
LXDE is a newer project in the world of Linux desktop environments. Similar to XFCE, LXDEs goal is to provide a fast, lightweight desktop environment with little resource usage. LXDE has a few of its own applications, but those applications it still lacks it borrows from Gnome and XFCE. The age of the LXDE project really shows when you start to look into making customizations to things. Many adjusts have to still be made by manually editing configuration files, not a bad thing if you know your system well (or are willing to learn it), but this can be a giant set back for a beginner who wants things to "just work".

LXDE may be a much younger project than XFCE, but it does a fantastic job of resource conservation. A fresh install of LXDE uses 100megs of RAM, the lowest of all the desktop environments I am reviewing today.

E17:
I cannot do an overview of Linux desktop environments without mentioning E17. E17 is designed to be a lightweight, but elegant desktop environment. It is very successful at both of these tasks. E17 uses all of its own libraries, that have been built from the ground up for speed and flexibility. E17 is a tinkerers delight, you can customize and change anything and everything.

A base install of E17 leaves a memory footprint of around 110megs of RAM. Now, while a base install is functional, half the fun of E17 is playing with widgets, changing transitions, and generally toggling everything you can just to see how shiny you can make your desktop. After I had my E17 fully configured its memory footprint was increased to a whopping 120megs of RAM.

A few of you may be wondering if E17 is so lightweight, flexible, and flashy why dont more distros opt to use it for their desktop environment? There are two reasons for this. First and foremost is the fact that E17 is very much "beta" software. Compiling the latest version from source at any given point can have piles of crashes/segfaults that can make using it a giant headache. Second, if you do take the time to piece together a stable E17 build (check out Elive or Bodhi for two good examples of what E17 can do) the desktop environment takes some getting used to. For many it will feel foreign regardless if they are used to using another Linux desktop environment or a Windows machine.

Final Thoughts:
All of the various desktop environments have their advantages and their disadvantages. Which one is right for you largely depends on your task at hand. Personally I run LXDE on my netbook, KDE on my gaming laptop, and Gnome on my home media center. If you are not sure which is best for you, try them out! It is all free software after all, get a feel for which desktop environment you
are most comfortable on and use that one.

Is there another desktop environment that you enjoy using that I failed to mention here? If so let me know, I am always looking to tinker with new things.

I mentioned earlier this month that I was enjoying the Starcraft 2 beta on Ubuntu 10.04 thanks to Wine software. In my previous posting I had simply stated that SC2 was "playable" under Wine. I have a fairly powerful gaming laptop that sports an nVidia 260m GTX and a 1680x1050 resolution panel. SC2 defaulted itself under Wine to "ultra" settings on my system - after playing one game at these settings (well it was really more like playing a slide-show). I promptly lowered the details and textures to low (while leaving the resolution the same).

With these settings I average around 40 FPS at the main menu and in game. At the high end I see just over 50 FPS while playing and at the low end it bottoms out around 20 FPS in combat. (For those wondering how I obtained these numbers press control+alt+f to put an FPS counter in the upper left hand corner of the screen while in SC2). These numbers come from the latest SC2 patch as of today (05/25/10).

Now for a bit of an ironic story regarding SC2. Late last night I dual booted my system with Windows 7 Ultimate again due to the need for an embedded youtube video to work in an Office 2007 power point presentation (it failed to work under Crossover and youtube plays poorly in VMs, thus native install was my only option left). Back on topic - since I had Windows installed anyways I figured I would copy over my SC2 files (god bless Blizzard and their portable installs) and see how comparable the performance was on the native operating system.

Needless to say it performs better, in fact the FPS I see under low settings on Wine is about equal to the same FPS I was seeing under high settings on Windows. That is about where the things that worked better under Windows ended for SC2 on my computer.

I would like to prefix my following statement with the fact that my network drivers are installed, working, and I had used several other applications online just fine.

When I joined my first SC2 game on Windows I had just selected my workers to start mining when the lag started, around two minutes later I was dropped from the game and it counted as a loss in my ladder league. I figured it was just something funky with my internet line, even though I had not had any issues in SC2 under Wine in the last three weeks, as such I promptly selected "find match" to start another game. Two minutes later I had "lost" another ladder game due to "connection" issues.

Fan-flipping-tastic.

Just out of curiosity I decided to boot in Linux to see if the issue existed there as well (Im hoping the irony of rebooting into Linux to play a game isnt lost on anyone). Needless to say the problem was not present there, after sweeping two ladder games without any connection issues on Ubuntu I can indeed confirm that it was a "connection" issue with the SC2 was only happening under Windows.

Yes: I know this game is still in beta.
Yes: I know odds are this issue is limited to my system.

Is it still annoying? Yep. It is ridiculously ironic? You bet.

Anyone else have fun story they would like to share about an application working better under Wine than it does on Windows itself?

In the three years I have been using Linux as my primary operating system Ive taken note that in general there are four different types of Linux users. Each one fits a distinct niche and it is possible to change from one type into another over time.

The Computer User:
This is a person that feels no emotional ties to FOSS/Linux. The computer is a tool to get the job done and they use Linux because it is the best tool for the job they are trying to accomplish. If Windows or OSX was better suited for the task, then they would be using that instead. They may have no idea of what FOSS or Linux is, they just know their computer works when they need it to. Odds are Linux was installed on their system by friend or relative who is a Linux Advocate or FOSS Extremist who was tried of fixing issues that kept popping up on Windows.

The Dual Booter:
Typically someone who has some computer savvy about them. Odds are they decided to give Linux a try because they just caught an interesting article about a shiny new distro release on Digg or because they know a Linux Advocate who recommended it. They might make a forum post or two to try and solve an issue they are having, but odds are if the distro doesnt "just work" they will start going on about how Linux "isnt ready for the average user" or "will never make it as a desktop operating system". If their Linux install does work, they still keep Windows around because they are a "gamer" or because they need to use a piece of Windows software that does not have a decent FOSS/Linux alternative as of yet.

Linux Advocate:
Someone who uses Linux because they feel it is a superior or more stable operating environment. Typically this is someone who knows their way around the computer a bit and isnt afraid to post on a forum asking a question or get their hands dirty with a bit of terminal code to get their system up and running. While they love the power of FOSS they realize at the same time that the entire world does not work in this manner (although it would be great if it did). They are typically willing to use restricted codecs and closed source video drivers to get the performance and functionality they need out of their system. While it is not uncommon for them to recommend Linux to their family and friends, most times they will even help them get it setup, they realize that some people are happy with Windows and they acknowledge this.

FOSS Extremist:
They use Linux not only because it is fast and stable, but because it is FOSS. They view software that is closed source as something evil that must be conquered or changed for the good of man kind. The know the ins and outs of their system - most times for an FOSS Extremist the GUI is optional. If their hardware does not work right "out of the box" on their favorite distro they are willing to spend hours pouring over manuals and help pages to get it working. They almost constantly preach about the evils of Windows and Apple and take every chance they get to convert those they know to Linux or and FOSS operating system.

Do you think I covered most Linux users here? If not let me know other "types" of Linux users you think there are in the world. If I did cover them all where do you fit into my four different categories? Perhaps you are even a mix of two, personally I find myself somewhere inbetween FOSS Extremist and Linux Advocate depending on my mood.