Introducing the Linux user interface

A few days ago, Walter Mossberg, writing in the Wall Street Journal, offered a verbal peek at the Mac user interface (see Some General Tips for Switch to Mac From Windows) intended as heads-up for Windows XP users thinking of switching.

I'm not a Mac user, but from reading the article, it seems that the initial learning curve for switching from Windows XP to Linux, is less than that for switching to Macs. Both Macs and Linux are immune to the vast majority of malicious software, so from a Defensive Computing standpoint, each is good choice.

One advantage Mac users have is that there is, at any given time, a single latest and greatest edition of OS X. Someone switching from Windows XP to Vista has about six editions of Vista to deal with, but on the Mac side it's Leopard, just Leopard; nothing but Leopard.

The choices available to someone interested in Linux can be mind boggling. Different editions are referred to as "distributions" or "distros" for short. There are dozens of popular Linux distributions to chose from and I can't even guess at the total available, hundreds for sure. For this article, I chose the desktop version of Ubuntu 8.04. Not the server edition or the MID edition. Not Kubuntu or Xubuntu or Edubuntu or Gobuntu. Just plain vanilla Ubuntu.

Below I offer the Linux side of the various user interface aspects that Mossberg raised and contrast it with Mac OS X Leopard.

Menu Bars

Macs are drastically different than XP on the fundamental issue of menu bars. In both Windows and Linux each running program/application has its own menu bar across the top of its window. Below is a screen shot of Klondike solitaire and the Calculator running in Ubuntu. Solitaire has the colored menu bar because it's the active application.

According to Mossberg, Macs have " ... a single menu bar at the top of the screen that changes, depending on which program you are actively using." That must take some getting used to.

Task Bar

Both Windows XP and Linux have a task bar along the bottom of the screen that provides an inventory of currently running applications. In the screen shot below you can see that Calculator and Klondike solitaire are both running, and that Klondike is minimized.

Just as with Windows, left clicking in Ubuntu on the task bar button for a minimized application makes it visible. Right clicking on items in the task bar brings up the same five options as in Windows (Minimize, Maximize, Close, Restore, Move and Size). In addition, Ubuntu offers an "Always On Top" option and a handful relating to workspaces, a concept you can grow into or easily ignore.

As Mossberg describes it, there is no Mac equivalent to the task bar. The Dock comes the closest but it sounds more like the Windows Quick Launch toolbar in that it holds icons for the programs you use most often, rather than those running now.

Start Menu

The Start button also doesn't have an exact equivalent in Leopard. Mossberg says "Its functions are divided between the Dock and the Apple menu at the upper left of the Mac screen."

Many Linux distributions have a Start menu/button exactly like Windows. For example, here's a a screen shot of Mandriva Linux. The yellow Mandriva button in the bottom left corner is exactly analogous to the XP Start button.

Rather than a single starting point, Ubuntu has three, and they're at the top of the screen instead of the bottom. This was visible in the top left corner of the prior screenshots. The starting points are: Applications, Places and System. The screen shot above shows an expansion of the Applications menu. Below you can see the expanded Places menu. The System menu is the next topic.

Control Panel

The area where all three operating systems seem the most similar is their self-configuration. Windows has a Control Panel, Macs have System Preferences and Ubuntu has the System menu, shown below. Apple offers a hidden path to System Preferences in the Apple menu and wastes real estate by including it in the Dock. Ubuntu makes system configuration always visible while using a minimum of screen real estate.

Keyboard Shortcuts

All three systems offer keyboard shortcuts for when you don't want to move your hands off the keyboard to the mouse. Windows and Linux use the Control key, typically abbreviated as "Ctrl". Macs use a Command key. According to Mossberg, the Command key isn't called that on the keyboard (that would be too easy), it either has "a cloverlike symbol or an Apple logo". He doesn't explain which Macs have which, let alone the inconsistency.

As you can see in the screen shot below of the Gedit text editor, Linux does many of the same keyboard shortcuts as Windows.

Quitting Programs

In both Windows and Ubuntu, when you're done with a program, just "X" out of it. That is, click the X in the top right corner of the application window. You can see in the Gedit screenshot above, that Ubuntu has the exact same three buttons in the top right corner as Windows. And, they do the same thing that they do in Windows.*

Macs will confuse Windows users. For one thing, the "X" is in a circle in the upper left corner. But most importantly, it doesn't shut down the program. In fact, as Mossberg described it, it's not clear to me just what it does. He says that it closes the window rather than quitting the program. Close the window? Could he mean that it minimizes the window? Maybe this is Mac terminology? When Windows and Linux users "close" a window, we're shutting down the program.

Maximizing Windows

Maximizing windows in Ubuntu works exactly the way it does in Windows, you click the middle box in the top right corner. Not so with Leopard, says Mossberg. Never mind that you start off with a green circle in the upper left corner, clicking it results in a window size "deemed optimal for its contents, which isn't always the whole screen." Apparently Apple knows best. Mossberg didn't explain how to force a window to occupy the entire screen.

Double-clicking on the title bar in Windows also maximizes a window. Same in Ubuntu (although you can configure this with a system preference). Other Linux distributions take a different approach. With Mandriva, for example, double-clicking on the title bar rolls up the window so that just the title bar is visible.

Switching Programs

Not much to say here. Both Windows XP and Ubuntu can use the Alt-Tab key combination to switch between running applications. On a Mac it's Command-Tab.

Right Clicking

The Mac legacy is a mouse with a single button. Apparently that's in the process of changing. According to Mossberg "Most desktop Macs now come with a mouse that allows right-clicking..." He didn't say which desktop models do and don't. And, I suspect he chose his words carefully. That is, "allowing" right clicking probably isn't the same as actually having two buttons on the mouse.

He goes on to note that "...you can use almost any two-button USB mouse with any modern Mac". But again, "modern Mac" is spelled out and he doesn't say why some two-button mice won't work. They all work in Windows. Then there a Mac laptops, which only have one button forcing users to fake things out to get right clicks.

Ubuntu, like all Linux distributions, fully supports two button mice and right clicking. Windows users will feel right at home.

Adjusting The Screen

Not a lot to say here. Macs configure the desktop background image, screen saver and screen resolution in System Preferences.

Ubuntu configures this in the System menu under Preferences. You can see this in the screenshot of the System menu above. The desktop background image is either configured using the "Appearance" System Preference or by right clicking on the desktop and opting to "Change Desktop Background".

Final Thoughts

Not to paint too rosy a picture, Linux has more than it's share of annoyances. Firefox running on Ubuntu, for example, wants to open audio .PLS files in the Movie Player program. And, to chose another program, you have to browse the file system rather than a list of installed applications. Even saving the PLS file locally and opening it with the Rhythmbox Music Player didn't produce any sound. Ubuntu knows that PLS files are "MP3 ShoutCast playlists" yet, it can't play them.

But, on the subjects that Mossberg chose to focus on, Ubuntu offers a more familiar environment for people switching from Windows. And, it's cheaper.

For more on Linux, see my previous posting Is Linux right for your mother?, a comparison of Linux vs. Windows at my personal website and Why you want a Linux Live CD.

Update July 9, 2008: As luck would have it, I spent some time with a Mac laptop today running OS X 10.4.11. As a Mac newbie, it gave me a chance to add something to Walter Mossberg's points. One of the first things I noticed was the lack of a backspace key. On Windows and Ubuntu, the delete key deletes whatever is to the right of the cursor. On this Mac at least, the Delete key deletes what is to the left of the cursor, thus, it's the backspace key, at least to me. I didn't bother experimenting to find the Mac way to delete stuff on the right.

The three circles in the top left corner all look the same, they're circles. Sure, they're color coded but I didn't get the memo on what the colors mean and I shouldn't need a memo. Windows and Ubuntu offer better visual clues for their window handling icons. Hovering the mouse over the circles does not produce a tooltip explaining what the circle does. It does produce a symbol in the circle, but it was too small for my aging eyes to decipher.

Finally, the lack of a task bar was a major annoyance. Other than Cmd-Tab is there is a visual way for Mac users to track the currently running applications?

* I have to vent. The gOS Linux distribution has three circles in the top right corner and they all look exactly the same. What were they thinking? If you hover the mouse over a circle a tooltip pops up that tells you what it does. But, the mouse pointer blocks almost the entire tooltip making it impossible to read.

See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.

[BAMAToNE]

I like it!

[t26l]

You were a little biased against Macs; you were slamming your own colleague over his choice of wording! Maybe consult him before you assume a Mac's feature deficiencies. Or even better - play around with a Mac first! You didn't mention the way to install things on Linux; something that's confused me utterly in openSUSE since I've never used 'Nux before.

[mhinnewyork]

I gave Apple credit for having a single current OS. That puts them way ahead of Windows and Linux in terms of simplicity for non-techies. As for the wording, I didn't understand it, what can I say. Mr. Mossberg is not a colleague - he works for Dow Jones, I don't. And he's a reporter, I'm a computer nerd. Still, I did send him the URL for this article. I would play around with a Mac but they're too expensive. I agree about installing software on Linux, there is room for improvement there, but that's a *whole* nother subject. Michael Horowitz

[MSSlayer]

Clicking a button or two is confusing?

[BAMAToNE]

I like it!

[MRMinSF]

I find it hard to find value in an article comparing two operating systems when the author admits he hasn't or doesn't use one of the operating systems.

[DrtyDogg]

That was the point of the article. A windows user's glimpse into other OSes.

[MriMac99]

Linux intentionally mimicked the Windows interface to make it easier for Windows users to use Linux. A smart move because there are a lot more people using windows than anything else.

I am a Mac user and found the article useful because I occasionally use XP and was looking for a few tips. I got them. I do not think it would be difficult to learn to use the interfaces for all 3 systems. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. One is not better than the others. In a way they are blending into one another. Office on a Mac. iTunes on Linux and Windows. FireFox on all. Thats how I look at it.

[adinsx]

iTunes is not available for Linux.

[MSSlayer]

There is a superior program for Linux that beats the stuffing out of iTunes: Amarok.

[BassaBabe]

Are Macs and Linux machines better secured or are they just not as widely used as windows pc?
Geeks keep telling me code is code and it can be broken and exploited no matter what (like DRM or an OS).

Great article again Michael, glad I subscribed to this rss, seems like most questions I am having you appear to cover, I hope that?s a good thing and a positive barometer for the net (hive?) mind, but that?s for the art bell show hehe.

I love Linux, it comes in so many flavors! The basics to OS operation are a bit like walking in heels for the first time!! Once you can do it though, at least enough to get what you need to get done in the day, you can wear any! :)

[mhinnewyork]

Certainly Macs and Linux are lesser targets and they benefit hugely from that. I suspect they are better secured, but that's a very big subject. Leopard, however introduced a HUGE hole, it ships with the firewall turned off. And, in the initial version of Leopard, the firewall was buggy and confusing. Very poor job by Apple. Michael Horowitz

[MSSlayer]

Code is code but the differences that OS's use to handle and control the code in memory is what makes the difference between solid Linux and swiss cheese Windows.

[jferrare]

I realize Ubuntu has the biggest mind share in Linux these days, but I don't think it's the best thing for a Windows-to-Linux conversion or an article about same. A distro that uses KDE would be the easier, and I have had good luck with XP users trying out either PCLinuxOS or Mepis. That single panel across the bottom with a big start-button stand-in makes them feel better.

As for MriMac99's contention that Linux intentionally copied Windows, well, some projects, I suppose, but not Gnome (which is what Ubuntu runs). I was a Mac guy for 15 years or so, and Gnome is definitely more OS 9. It's also more configurable. And if you look beyond the current example, you'll see there's a lot more creativity out there in the Open Source world. Pretty much any look you want, you can find. Or you can build your own using independently developed programs. Of course, that's for a while after you initially convert.

[mhinnewyork]

Mandriva, which I mentioned and offered a screen shot of, uses KDE. I was going to include Mandriva too, but it got to be too much. There are only so many huge pictures you can put on a web page and still be kind to those with slower net connections. But, I completely agree that some Linux distros require almost no training for a newbie coming from a Windows XP background. Michael Horowitz

[lefty.crupps]

"Introducing the Linux user interface" -- ***??

You've got to be kidding -- this is Gnome, not Linux. Unlike MacOSX and WinXP etc, there is no "single Linux interface". This is Gnome, *one* of the Graphical User Interfaces for a Linux desktop.

I'm going to do a similar article on KDE and call it "Introducing The Linux Desktop." Wouldn't be inaccurate apparently.

[mhinnewyork]

Fair point, perhaps I'll do a follow-up using KDE. Ubuntu seems to have "mind share" which is why I chose it. Michael Horowitz

[MSSlayer]

Actually Ubuntu has hype with little substance. You would have done better using a professionally managed distro like openSUSE. Not only is it better but offers gnome, KDE 3, 4 and XFCE on the same install. You can easily change desktops in that OS.

[Carlos_Hawes]

You forgot the most important part of the Linux user interface: the shell command line :)

[mhinnewyork]

A few years ago I took a Linux class where all the students logged on to a single Pentium 100MHz based server. The command line made this possible. Michael Horowitz

[MSSlayer]

I agree. With a GUI, the end user is constrained by the preset options. In a linux shell there are no such constraints.

[nonameer]

Mac laptops do have right click! Just put two fingers on the trackpad then click the button... enable this feature in System Prefs.

[mhinnewyork]

Mr. Mossberg points this out as well as another way to get right clicks. This strikes me as faking things out - that is, pretending there is a right button when there isn't. Michael Horowitz

[JeniEa]

What is that color? It's hurting my eyes.! I can't tell if its brown or red. And what Ubuntu? I search for it and came across The Truth about Linux. No way I'm going to replace Vista with that.

[chyjinx]

"As Mossberg describes it, there is no Mac equivalent to the task bar. The Dock comes the closest but it sounds more like the Windows Quick Launch toolbar in that it holds icons for the programs you use most often, rather than those running now."

*** is this Mossberg talking about? has he ever used OS X before?

[davidmcelroy_dotmac]

Michael Horowitz, since you clearly don't know a thing about using a Mac other than the limited information you picked up from Walt Mossberg's article, you really should refrain from talking about something that makes you look like a fool. You're clearly qualified to compare Windows with one particular Linux distro. (Although it's a side note to my main point, you look like an idiot writing an article which refers to "THE Linux user interface," as though there IS a standard Linux UI.) But you're not even vaguely qualified to compare Windows or Linux to the Mac UI. You get a lot wrong here -- and you're clearly confused about some things that you're sorta halfway right about.

If you knew anything about Macs, you'd be embarrassed at how ignorant this article makes you appear. Even on the ostensible subject of the article, it's easier to just admit that Linux UI developers tend to be cloning Windows conventions and leave it at that.

[brianmcfly]

I have used an owned a Mac. I found the learning curve steeper. I don't like the ugly looking menu bar on the top for the active app.

[brianmcfly]

I would agree with the author the learning curve is easier. I have used all of the OSes. I wish he would have talked about installing software and the software update system by far the easiest. Here is a link. http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/installingsoftware

[owfree]

As a Linux to Mac switcher, I must say that having the menu bar at the top of the screen is the best way to go. I used KDE set up that way for a long time before I ever used a Mac.

You can only use on application at a time anyway, so there's no need to waste all that screen space on menu bars that you can't use.

Furthermore, the location at the top of the screen is ideal because it's so easy to hit. Throw the mouse as hard as you like upwards, you're in the menu bar.

In terms of the fundamentals of human interface guidelines, it makes far more sense that way.

By no means does the Mac do everything right, but the menu bar is as a menu bar should be.

[druter]

LOL you think the menu bar on a mac is how it should be...riiight

[JInnyDoDrop]

Linux totally ROCKS so I dont see why this wouldnt just be a great thing!
www.FireMe.To/udi

[goobimama]

What a poorly written fanboyistic article. No knowledge of how the Mac works. Besides, if you are introducing the LInux desktop, what part does a Mac have to play in it?

[FellowConspirator]

Mossberg is inaccurate. The current desktop Macs all have 4-button mice with a mini-trackball on the top (used just like a scroll-wheel, except you can scroll in 2 dimensions). They do not "allow right-clicking". The default configuration is for button-1 to click, button-2 unassigned, button-3 to bring up the dashboard, and button-4 to activate expose. Going into the pointer preferences you can configure button-2 to be the context menu button (right click).

While this article is cute and all, it's a little naive. First, it presumes that the user is using the GNOME user-interface. Depending on the user, KDE might feel more natural. The positions of things like the taskbar and menus are user-configurable (so, you can't definitively say they'll be on top). And you left out very important things like switching workspaces, etc.

The article notes that Ubuntu "supports 2-button mice and right-clicking," ignoring the fact that it actually presumes youa re using a 3-button mouse and the UI is simply an application running on top of Ubuntu (the same interface is available not only on other Linux distributions, but also non-Linux operating systems).

Also, with reference to the window widgets... the article doesn't note that GNOME and KDE offer a widget that lets you anchor a window so that it appears in all workspaces (important). The Mac buttons have meaningful functions: close, shrink, grow. The closing button is the most confusing -- on the Mac, a program can run with no documents open (thus, no Windows), whereas on a PC, a program quits when the last document closes. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but the casual user is not likely to understand or care about either, and whichever is different that what the user is used to will be confusing. Linux applications sometimes offer a third state: the UI and the underlying application are separated so the UI can completely close and leave the application running.

There's also the crucial difference that, by default, Linux applications tend to preserve their state when you close the session. Logout or shutdown the machine, then log back in again, and whatever apps you had running when you left are back to where they were when you left them (open, with the same thing opened).

I think that the writer is perhaps not sufficiently familiar with Macs or Linux to understand the similarities, differences, strengths, or weaknesses of each of the interfaces.

[druter]

Or maybe he isnt a Mac fanboy

[mhinnewyork]

Mossberg's article was geared to someone new to Macs and I took the
same stance on the Linux side. Thus, I purposely ignored workspaces and
the issue of Gnome vs. KDE. However, it should have been clear from
a couple points I made that Linux distros vary in their user interface.
Perhaps I could have made that point more directly. On a PC, programs do
not always quit when the last "document" is closed. Michael Horowitz

[mgc6020]

"First, it presumes that the user is using the GNOME user-interface."

There is no presumption here! He installed Ubuntu...Gnome is the default user interface. He's not talking about KDE or any other Linux GUI.

[druter]

Good article, I like how you state and present your points. And for everyone who saw fit to criticize based on supposed lack of mac experience or the fact that he comments on Ubuntu as the Desktop, read the replies to comments he has owned and used a Mac and, he specificall states he's not commenting on KDE (kubuntu or edubuntu, or lime etc etc) due to the fact that Ubutntu is grabing the most publicity and is likely to be what most users will find whe doing a search for Linux. Having tried KDE (kubuntu first) I have to say I prefer ubuntu but thats my preference only. Mac supposedly does somethings better but having used it I have to say I dont agree that mac has better usability experience, after all why would you want to have a program "run with no documents open" taking up memory and processor power when not necessary, but hey thats just me. Mac is just different not better just different. Whn xp finally goes the way of the dinosaur (read more applications dont have xp versions than do have xp versions I am going Ubuntu not Mac.

[MSSlayer]

Ubuntu is not the desktop, gnome is.

[belovedmonster]

It never ceases to amaze me the number of journalists on big tech sites who pen articles based on things they dont know about and actively achknowlege they dont know anything about the subject at hand and then proceed to use phrases like "maybe I've got this wrong but as I understand it..." Why waste time writing an article based on hear say and stuff you know nothing about?