>
> What is slab menu .Are you saying it looks like windows? Windows has a the
> taskbar ,Start button and menu and the Windows Explorer ( file manager )
>
> It has Plug and Play and device manager .
>
A slab menu has one cascading menu that has slabs that slide out from it.
When you click on what a Windows user would call the start button, you get a
menu. Then you see groups in a traditional or classical menu. In slab menu
you get tabs that say things like favourites, applications, computer,
recently used, leave and when you click on a tab you get another menu that
replaces the old one which you can no longer see.You can still see the tabs
and arrows with the various sub menus. Some people find slab menus faster
once you get used to them. I like the Search box which allows you to launch
any application just by typing part of the name. Just start typing open and
before you get to the p open office appears in the menu. With KDE you can
switch to slab or classic menu with one mouse click.
>
> It is highly configurable and not
> > locked down like Windows. KDE has a Control Panel like Windows but it
> allows
> > you to change just about everything, unlike Windows. KDE has its own
> window
> > manager, Kwin, and it has built in compositing.
> >
>
> What do you mean by it has its own window.
>
>
Own window manager.
The GUI is in parts and most are interchangeable and have different effects
on the user interface. The desktop environment is what the user uses, but
how things are displayed depends on the window manager. It controls the
windows and what they look like. Each window has a border around it with a
bar at the top with various controls on them to minimize maximize etc. They
can all be changed in both KDE and GNOME. You can even make it look like
Windows XP, or Mac OS/X by changing the decorations and theme. You can
change a lower powered window manager for a more powerful one, such as
Compiz which gives 3D effects (if your graphics card supports it). This
allows the virtual desktops (which are unique to Linux that give you more
than one desktop that you can switch between) to rotate in acube or other
fancy effects like wobbly windows. Some people like lots of eye candy and
others think that it is unnecessary and over the top.
> You mean the taskbar and Start button is at the top.
>
>
>
Taskbar and start button are Windows-speak. They are called panels in Linux
and you can have more than one. GNOME comes with two one at the top and one
at the bottom with the main one being at the top. What you call the start
button is the menu button or application launcher (KDE). The system tray in
Windows is called the notification area, but sometimes is still the system
tray. Generally things in Linux do not run from the notification area or
system tray unless you ask them to. Usually when you close something it does
just that whereas in Windows it often is still running in the system tray.
> GNOME has its own
> > window manager, Metacity, and it does not have compositing. Like Windows
> you
> > have to add applications to add features.
> >
>
> You mean by window manager Windows Explorer ( file manager )
>
> We don't use words like window manager in windows.
>
You don't use window manager in Windows, but you have one. The reason you
don't know about it is that in Windows is locked down. You do not have any
choice but to get what Microsoft wants you to have. This makes Windows GUI
harder to modify than Linux which is why Microsoft does it this way. They
want all Windows machines to look the same.
Windows Explorer is both a file manager and window manager. The GNOME file
manager, Nautilus, is a bit like this. It controls the desktop as well as
managing files. However it needs more to be a desktop environment, such as
panels and controls. So GNOME has a window manager that does this. KDE has
its own window manager and its file manager does not do any double duty
which is different from GNOME giving it a different look and feel. KDE has a
different file manager and different applications for most things.
>
> People say I should get some thing that is windows like in feel and look.
>
>
>
I disagree. The way all desktop environments work is basically the same
whether it is in Linux, Windows or Mac OS. You have icons, windows, menus
and controls. Sometimes you single click and sometimes you double click and
sometimes the controls are on the left or the "taskbar" is in a different
place, but essentially they work the same way. By making it look like
Windows you are deceiving yourself and it can come back to bite you. You
need to remember that you are in a different environment or you can get lost
more quickly.
There have been several attempts to make Linux look and work like Windows
and all have failed because it is all just smoke and mirrors. Linux and
Windows are fundamentally different, from the ground up. They have a
different history and different philosophy and you cannot disguise that.
Linux is modular. The file system is different. It is meant to work on
multiple levels from either the GUI or the commandline. It is meant to be
flexible and it has built in security that you had best not try to
circumvent.
At first you are a stranger in a strange land. You cannot try to change the
land. It just is what it is. You learn to adapt and it is easier if you
embrace the differences rather than pretend they do not exist. You can put a
McDonald's in Paris, but that does not mean that you are in America. Once
you step outside you are apt to get lost unless you learn how to get around
Paris and speak some rudimentary French. If you go to France and expect it
to be like America then you are likely to be disappointed, but if you go
there expecting it to be different then you are more likely to have an
enjoyable trip.
>
> You mean taskbar at the bottom?
>
>
Yes. Mint has one panel or "taskbar" and it is at the bottom. However, it
uses the aforementioned slab menu.
>
> >
>
> To start with it should look like windows.I'm used to windows.
>
>
> This makes a false assumption. Just because it looks like Windows it will
not behave like Windows. It is Linux. It also assumes that the Windows way
is better just because you are familiar with it. Let's look at passwords and
file permissions as an example. The Windows way is to almost do away with
passwords or at least to minimise their use in the name of convenience. This
has meant that users must spend more time managing their computers than
Linux users. We do not need to run anti-virus software or anti-malware or
update AV signatures or re-boot our computer or defragment our hard drives.
Linux security is built in. In this respect Windows is becoming more like
Linux. W7 has more security than XP built in. It encourages the use of
passwords. However, it still does not have the security of even the most
basic Linux machine. Linux has separate user space and separate OS space.
There are different user levels and files that belong to one person cannot
be modified by another. Each file knows the user and the permissions
attached to it. Files that are executable cannot be executed unless you make
it permissible to do that by changing the permissions.
This sounds complicated, but it really isn't. The bottom line is that by
making Linux like Windows you would be weakening it and by pretending
otherwise you are asking for trouble. Millions of former Windows users
successfully migrate to Linux. It is not that hard. The best thing to do is
to think of it as an adventure and learn to laugh at your mistakes. We all
make them, but learning is easier if we make light of it and face things
head on.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No comments:
Post a Comment