Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot (beta 2) Review

Well, it's been quite a while since Ubuntu Developers started to roll-out the upcoming Ubuntu 11.10 Oneric Orcelot and few days ago they released the beta 2 version. Now, I've never used the 11.10 because it was too new and wasn't that much production ready, so to speak.

But after hearing the Beta 2 is out now we have like few weeks left and another RC left before the official launch of 11.10, I thought the Beta version 2 should be much closer to the official release of the long awaited 11.10 thus it's about time that I'd try to come up with a review.

So remember, all the feature that I'm gonna talk about are the changes from the current 11.04 Natty release thus if you've used 11.10 since the beginning you may already experienced these features (so don't blame me dudes! :D).

The desktop is identically the same, except the "right-click" now is even simplified (the "Create new Launcher", which is useful as hell for some, is removed)...

Gnome 3 (also known as Shell) has a lot to do with Unity, still!

As most knows, Unity carries some fundamental difference the way desktop UI designs, etc. But it still uses a lot of Gnome's applications thus most of the differences that we see in individual applications such as in "System Settings", user management, etc are due to the changes in the Unity's implementation of the Gnome 3 applications.

Let's begin with some of the changes in the Unity interface changes...

*. "Dash" icon: Except for a single major change, the application launcher is almost the same as in 11.04 version and still it lacks some serious customization abilities.

Anyhow, the most noticeable change is the "Dash" icon, which is now sits on top of the launcher which used to be on the left edge of the screen.

As many others, I also think this is a good move since it helps to make the most out of the screen since if you use something like a small screen device, say a netbook, then every pixel counts!.

And when you click on the "Dash" icon then on the left-edge we're greeted with a a "close/maximize" buttons (the minimize is disable which makes sense). So now you can easily close the window by using your mouse thanks to this without the need of the "Esc" button. 

*. Buttons on the "exact left-edge": Thanks to the little movement of the "Dash" icon, now buttons are arranged on the very left-edge on the screen previously they used to just after the "Dash" icon. This helps to give a more sensible location + until you maximize a window you'll see a the name of the app/window (or whatever that you're using) on the left-edge (as with below screnshot).

Note the "Text Edi" to the left where the "Dash" icon used to be...

Also when you use an application in full screen mode the buttons are hidden by default a and are only visible when you move the mouse pointer over to the top panel. This helps to give a much more cleaner and uncluttered look. So in general, I personally like what's gone with the "Dash" and the "Buttons".

*. The new "Alt-tab" UI: This is another beautiful looking "window switching" utility which was implemented sometime ago. But for some reason, while I was using it, if I had already an un-minimized window on my desktop screen then the "Alt-tab" display behind it which is not helpful at all since to serve its purpose it should always be on top of everything.

Other than that it looks beautiful and worked nicely.

*. New appearance Window: The appearance window section has also gone through some major changes and I gotta say it looks more polished and professional.

Arranging or adding images is really easy too but the themes have been reduced to four. The standard Ambiance theme + the Radiance version is there as the default ones and two version of the "High contrast" themes ... that's about it for themes.

This makes sense in a way and I guess having one or two themes by default helps the "branding" of Ubuntu but as long as you have a working internet connection around you... installing a new one is pretty darn easy nonetheless.

The Ambiance theme also has gone through few changes it seems. The tittle bar has lost somewhat its "3d-ness" as you can see with the below screenshot when comparing with the 11.04 version.

Perhaps the middle strip is a bit too "thick/sharp"...

*. Nautilus: The default file manager is Nautilus 3.1 that's also shared between Gnome Shell and Unity and the "Path-bar" is now black and looks ugly (at least for my taste). I don't know whether its the "arrow" or the squared version of the selected path on the "path-bar" or the new look-n-feel in the sidebar, but Nautilus looked really weird :D.

"Something is wrong with me... help!" :P...

I think that it's the side-bar color that jeopardize things here since it doesn't go well withe the Black title and Pathbar ... so if they can do something about that + add a bit of a 3D separator to the side-bar... well I think it could solve some of the issues (any ideas??). 

*. All new Ubuntu Software Center: This is another major decision by Canonical to drop the Synaptic graphical package manager and replace it with the Ubuntu Software Center.

Now in the past USC was painfully slow and did require reasonable amount of system resource while installing applications, etc. But the 'new" one feels a bit faster and has gone through some major changes, at first I didn't even recognize her! (kidding).

Although the "Our star apps" takes a huge space out of that window which is waste since as long as I was using it didn't do anything other than displaying that "message". The only good thing about is that you can access all the "starred" apps by clicking on it. Other than that... that's A waste.

Users: Um, what exactly is your purpose again? | USC Star-apps Logo: "Well I'm here for... oh you know, I mean I do that... that, but ..."

 Anyhow, when compared with the current USC in 11.04 the "Installed/Get/History" buttons are moved to the top and the categories are to your left and in the middle sit the "starred" apps. A quick reminder, if you want "Synaptic" back (heck you do :P) then simply search "Synaptic" and simply follow the on screen instructions to install it (ahh finally :D).

Other that the UI changes the performance is also improved but not by a huge margin, while I was using it. And I don't think they can make it as fast as Synaptic because USC is designed for achieving different goals (Mark did mention about "different ways of monetizing Ubuntu", nothing wrong with that anyway). But there's still room for improvement but for a start, this is not bad.

The preferences window and the menu are almost the same and nothing major to report there.

"ahh the same old me..."

*. System Settings: This is another area that has gone through some changes and it feels like you're inside Apple Mac OSX Lion :D. I actually liked the "old" interface in 11.04 but in a way this new window lets you access things much more faster.

And as said, most of the individual application changes inside the System Settings, such as Keyboard layout changing or user management is due to the Gnome 3 changes thus has nothing to do with Ubuntu.

The new "Screenshot tool" does something cool (highly relative :D). Now whenever you take a screenshot, it'll output a camera shutter sound + will "white" the heck out of your screen too :).

Ehh... what was that all about! :D...

And as many knows, Ubuntu 11.10 comes with a backup software by default called DejaDup which you can access via the System settings which will be appreciated by many for its simplicity and usability.

Other minor changes includes such as: the default image viewer is the one comes with Gnome desktop thus if you wan to crop, etc then you'll have to use the Shotwell (which is also installed by default).

LibreOffice still comes without the "indicator menu" support. If they can't find a work-around that... it could be a bit disappointing when 11.10 comes out.

Oh one more small thing, the Terminal window now has a small White strip around it (as in the below screenshot) which looks awesome!. Since this is still one of the most widely used utilities in GNU/Linux... I think most would love it.

The "System Settings" menu has also received few new options. Now you can use it to configure network printers, add a web-cam software (which will take you to installing the Cheese web cam utility in USC), access display settings (another useful update) and startup applications and can configure attached devices directly from the menu as well.

The Shutdown menu is also changed quite a little which now lets you reboot as well.

How was the performance??

Well, I didn't measure the seconds but things were noticeably faster (startup/boot, etc) and the new LightDM theme also loads fast (looks good too). If you use AMD fusion chips, then 11.10 comes with the latest builds of the Kernel 3.0 which brigs enhanced support for these never chips (including ARM). I'm also quite pleased with the open-source ATI/AMD GPU driver which worked really well under Compiz without any issues whatsoever + it detected my monitor this time correctly.

As always, if you want the best performance, then I highly suggest that you install the proprietary driver.

But I'm not entirely happy with the ACPI since the Fan on my netbook kept running in  a decent speed (even while I wasn't doing anything at all) but I cannot blame this on Ubuntu since it could be some issue with the Kernel and most probably is related to my hardware specifications.

To be honest I've been one of these that criticized the Unity desktop for sometime but after using it for sometime + when looking at the changes in the 11.10, although they aren't that "huge", but from a users perspective these small changes do make a difference and I actually love the Unity desktop. 

But as with Gnome Shell, Unity has its issues and some absolutely hate it (which is totally understandable, but for me personally it only needed just a little getting used to).

But if you're an average computer user or someone who's new to GNU/Linux and still learning about Ubuntu and other stuff from scratch and looking for a professional looking GNU/Linux distribution that's slightly faster than the predecessors + which is user friendly too: then I gotta say that I was a bit wrong about the Unity interface and even though it's still at its beta stage, yet, I think Ubuntu 11.10 looks really good.

So if you can't even wait till its out officially... then other than installing it in commercial environment I think it's really stable (although Nautilus 3.1 crashed ones, yikes!) enough that you can give it a try, safely :). Good luck.

Read More

LXDE vs Xfce

Nowadays, unlike in the past major desktop environments for GNU/Linux such as Gnome, Qt/KDE and especially the recently introduced Ubuntu Unity desktop which is one of the most popular ones already thanks to Ubuntu's popularity, all demand powerful hardware features (especially your VGA/GPU) to run the graphical desktops and window managers.

For instance Unity 3D uses the Compiz OpenGL compositing manager, Gnome 3 uses "Mutter" and with the plasma KDE desktop introduction, it also requires you to have a powerful hardware features nonetheless.

But unlike with MS Windows in GNU/Linux, almost all of these desktops actually come with a fall-back mode which basically gives you a lower-end version of their original OpenGL rendering desktops (with a window manager that doesn't use a lot of your GPU), thus no one is left behind ;-) (I'm serious!).

But if have a slower or an older hardware in your PC or Laptop then I think most of the time you'll always be better off with a dedicated, lower hardware "aimed" lightweight desktops rather than those above mentioned "fall-back modes", because even in the fall-back mode (Unity 2D or Gnome 3 classic for instance) the only difference is in the Window manager rather than the individual applications thus if you have a lower-end hardware then it'll still "hurt", obviously.

In that sense if you're looking for such dedicated "lightweight" desktops, I'm pretty sure there are many but both Xfce and LXDE without a doubt are the most prominent ones.

The reason is simple, these are not "just desktops" but once installed you'll get a complete desktop suite with apps such as text editors, media player, control panel, file manager, Terminal emulator, even office suits, etc thus you don't have have to install any separate applications afterward!.

(please be aware that it's pretty hard to say "everything" using a just pictures and stuff, so I'll try my best).

LXDE vs Xfce

Let's have a look at the desktops...

Xfce desktop...

LXDE desktop...

Now as you can see the desktops look a lot similar. Although it has been few years that I have used Xfce to be honest (I came across it around early 2005 if I remember correctly).

Anyhow both these desktops actually come with a rich desktop right click which are totally better than in the Gnome classic desktop (the version 3 doesn't even have one!). But in comparison Xfce has a better (not necessarily since these are highly relative terms) right click than the LXDE version.

In the past all they had for a right click was nothing but big application menu if you remember, but it's quite extraordinary how they've evolved within such short period. So basically you can create a folder, new launcher, a text file and access other desktop related settings such as change background, etc.

So the desktop is well implemented, may not be perfect, but it's certainly more than enough for most of us.

Xfce desktop configuration...

LXDE: as you can see with  the above screenshot, Xfce has a better desktop configuration window, but it's really not a game changer, so to speak ;-)...

Xfce has few additional desktop features that lets you open a Terminal and few other options + most importantly it also has a feature that's only visible in KDE. Let me give you an example, in Xfce desktop whenever you move your mouse over a folder or a file on the desktop it displays a certain information such as it's size, full name and other attributes. Xfce also does that.

This means too much features and getting in the way of the users, from"Gnome's point of view", really is this too much to ask?...

This is something a lot of other desktops (including LXDE) lack. Even the Gnome doesn't have it!. Not because they can't but they just won't, because they just want their desktop to be newbie friendly and "simple", whatever!. Again this ain't something "big" but this resembles the developer's attitudes thus I think in the future we'll see more features like that nonetheless.


Other apps...

*. File Managers:

Xfce comes with a file manager called Thunar and LXDE's one is PCMan which is actually one of the founding applications of the LXDE desktop itself. As you can see they both a again look a lot similar in both GUI and functions.

From managing your folders/files (deleting, creating, editing, etc) they also have the ability to display mounted (both local and networked) partitions, zooming, sort files and folders + let you customize few settings such as enabling/disabling thumbnails, changing toolbar icon sizes, switch between views via the "preference" windows.

Thunar of Xfce...

PCMan in LXDE...

Although PCMan loads a bit faster than Thunar (it's so little that most of the time it's almost invincible!) but then again Thunar is a bit feature rich than PCMan. For instance PCman cannot generate thumbnails for video files. But Thunar has this features (which is enabled via a separate plug-in that uses ffmpeg). But in general terms, they're both good to go!.

*. Text editors:

This is another important thing. As said both Xfce and LXDE come with text editors of their own called Leafpad in Lxde and Mouspad in Xfce. But Mousepad is actually based on the Leafpad!, thus they both look a lot a-like.

 

You can do basic text editing such as changing font, colors, underline, bold, etc with them but for serious writers you'll have to either install LibreOffice or the more lightweight Abi-Word suit, etc which enables more advanced features (spell checking, etc) + a lot of file type support as well.


*. Window managers:

If you don't know what this is, then a window manager is one of the most basic and prominent apps that underlies on any graphical user interface (GUI). It's the one that "draws" and manage all those windows/titlesbars/buttons, message boxes, etc.

This is also one of the main applications that has the ability to speed-up things a bit unlike many others. By having a lightweight window manager means better performance and low on system resources but it'll also mean that you'd have to bear not having those fancy effects such as 3D cube, transparency or other whatnots we geeks are up to these days ;-).

LXDE uses a one called OpenBox which is old, quite robust and it's a separate application (not an original LXDE "project"). But most importantly it's known for its speed!. It's simple yet quite powerful + lets you configure a lot of its options by using a back-end called Obconf. Below is a screenshot of Obconf manager in LXDE desktop.

As you can see in comparison it lets you configure a scary amount of options for the good or the worse ;-). Although while I was using the LXDE in my Ubuntu 11.04 the responsive times were excellent but there were few occasions which it was a bit sluggish/clumsy (you know less responsive, etc) and the close/minimize buttons weren't that responsive either. But in general it's a hell lot faster than Gnome and KDE!.

Xfce desktop on the other hand uses a window manager of its own called Xfwm, 4.0 is the current version. As you can see with the below screenshot, it also is pretty rich in features (maybe slightly lesser than Openbox but) and is second to no one (although in the screenshot I've chose a tab with few options but once you choose other tabs there are reasonable amount of features).

Furthermore although I'm not entirely sure whether you can do this in LXDE but in Xfce it you want more control over your desktop just like with Gconf-editor in Gnome, but better in Xfce, you can access a lot of other desktop and applications (file manager, text editor, etc) related settings via a front-end called "Xfce-Settings-Editor/Xconf".

 
But if you're a bit new to GNU/Linux then most of these settings may not be necessary anyway.

*. Archive managers:

To manage archives of almost every kind you'll get an app called Xarchiver in LXDE and a more simpler one called Squeeze in Xfce. Although they both basically do the same thing but I prefer the Xarchiver since it's a bit rich in features and gives you better control.

My personal favorite, the Xarchiver! in LXDE...

Anyhow since the post is already a bit long (way out of my league :D) I'll summarize things a bit faster.

*. Music/Video players:

LXDE has a music player which called LXmusic that has a simple GUI and based on XMMS. It loads fast and does it jobs just fine. Although not as advanced as Rhythmbox , Banshee or nowhere near Amarok! (you KDE geek).

Yet for simpling listening to audio files I find it to be more than enough. And since it's job is to remain simple we can't ask for a lot of features either.

LXDE music player (audio only)...

Although this is only capable of playing audio only, if you want to play videos then you'd have install something similar in nature (you know light weight).

Xfce has both an audio player + a separate media player called Parole (based on Gstreamer) which has a very similar GUI as the Totem in Gnome. So when it comes to multimedia support by default I think Xfce do it a little bit better.

Parole media player...

*. CD/DVD burning:

Well, Xfce has an excellent one called Xfburn. It comes with reasonable amount of features + loads fast and does its job really well while I used it. LXDE does not have a CD/DVD burner of its own at the moment. So you'll have to install one separately.

*. Web Browsers:

Xfce's version is called Midori which is again quite fast and simple + uses lesser amount of system resources than other major browser such as Firefox, Google Chrome and Chromium. 

LXDE does not have a one of its own, yet. So again, you'll have to install one separately.

*. Image Viewers:

Xfce has a pretty simple one called Ristretto and LXDE has one of its own called GPicView. They're both excellent, simple and low on your system resources. 

Conclusion...

Although both these desktop do come with a lot of other apps such as terminal emulators, etc and lets you configure a lot of settings such as panels, file manages, window managers, etc but in comparison Xfce at the moment feels more likely a completed desktop but that's because it has been there for some time now in comparison with the relatively new LXDE.

And Xfce has some additional features and apps and it's certainly faster than a lot of other desktops but if you want a desktop that closely resembles Xfce still slightly faster (just a little bit :D) Xfce, then LXDE is an excellent choice!.

But that being said, LXDE, I think has to do some interface cleaning. I mean, just right click on your panel in LXDE and in my experience it takes me few seconds to find the option that I was looking for.

It's a bit "cluttered" don't you think?, perhaps it's those icons... (or maybe I'm just nuts!)...

This is not because it has a huge list of options but I think they just gotta arrange them better. So if they can clear-out few of these minor issues and add those "missing" applications (which they will as time goes on, anyway) I think LXDE has the potential to become a replacement for Xfce.

But that's doesn't mean Xfce is bad or anything. It may be slightly slower (very little!), but then again that's because it has some additional features than LXDE and once installed it has the ability to act as a "full" desktop thanks to a separate dedicated window manager and applications of their own, etc (other than not having an office suite at the moment). So I certainly don't know which is better when considering LXDE vs Xfce, I'll let you do the "deciding" ;-).

Get More From: LXDE Home page | Xfce Home page.

What do you think ?

Read More

Is The Current Best Android Phone - Droid "Charge"??

Although it's apparent that someone Else's "best android phone" won't necessarily mean that it's going to be your best one either. But when defining the "best" if you're drifted towards an excellent camera, CPU, good GPU...etc and has a reasonable price when considered all the features, then the recently introduced Motorola Driod Charge according to the experts seems like a pretty impressive phone.

Main hardware features...

*. 1Ghz Samsung Hummingbird, not dual core, which is "interesting" when considering the dual-core trend that seems to be pretty popular these days.

*. Runs Android 2.2 Froyo.

*. Comes with both 4G (Verzion LTE) and 3G (EVDO).

*. 2GB preinstalled memory, 512MB RAM and 512MB ROM + 32GB microSD memory card is also provided.

*. Super AMOLED Plus (800x600 resolution) 4.3 inch screen.

*. 1.3MP front and 8MP back camera. Supports HD video, LED flash and auto-focus.

*. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 3.0 and GPS.

Few things about it...

Now as mentioned above, it does not have a dual core processor. As a result, even though it supports HD video recording, the resolutions are kept around 720p not the 1080p comes with most of the dual-core Android phones. But still for most of us, 1Ghz processor means a lot of power.

Camera...

Video (at 720p) is from Slashgear (link to the full review is in a below paragraph)



The picture quality are seems to be excellent (I have nothing to hide guys, I didn't test it but while I was reading few of the reviews of Droid Charge, I was impressed by some of the positive things I heard, don't worry I'll give you the original review page nonetheless :P). 8MP means a lot of capturing power and the camera is a pretty good one it seems.

Battery, 4G, etc...

Well "Charge" has been able to reach a maximum of 17.62Mbps according to Slashgear. You really can't complain about that. For a singe core phone the web browser + the OS (it makes sense why Motorola came up with the bit "older" Android version when concerning the processor) seems to have pretty impressive responsive times too.

But remember, if you go through the above slashgear review page, some of the "negative" conclusions are actually "born" as a result of comparing the Droid Charge with a dual-core CPU, another android phone called Galaxy S II. So in a way I think it's a bit unfair for the phone (Droid). So other than just believing his opinions, have a look at the videos and the pictures + make sure to read the "conclusion" section since he actually sums up it quite well.

Anyhow, for a 4G/3G phone, the "Charge" has been able to achieve 6.8 hours of battery life which is pretty good. And if you want a mobile phone with a gorgeous looking, bigger touch screen (16million colors), excellent 4G/3G and call quality, good battery life and willing to pay the $300 price tag... then heck, it seems like the new Motorola Droid Charge is actually one of the best single core android phones out there!.

May not be the fastest, concerning both CPU and the GPU... but for the price... this mobile phone comes with features that are gonna satisfy most of us anyway.

Read More