Window managers
By installing the proper package,
Ubuntus login screen allows to choose which window manager to use -
and by installing gnome-session-fallback,
it even allows to choose the old GNOME Classic. Let's consider seven
window manager choices for Ubuntu 11.10 (and before you say it, yes,
I know that some of them turn out to be just flavours from a same
window manager) : Cinnamon, GNOME (3.x), GNOME Classic (2.x), Jwm,
MATE, TWM, and Ubuntu/Ubuntu 2D. All work OK with my encrypted home
folder mounted by the PostLogin script - well, at least they do after
some tuning on my part. Now, let's find out about their usability.
First key: What menu do you have?
Once you get one hundred applications
carefully ordered into submenus, getting to order submenus from the
start again seems just monkey business. So, because I found these
window managers by using Ubuntu, having my Ubuntu menu available
became essential for me - and I mean the classic menu present up to
Ubuntu 10.10. From this point on I will be indicating the menu type
the window managers use.
Second key: Do you have a desktop?
What is the desktop? It's the
background below the windows, where you can place files, folders and
shortcuts to applications. Pretty obvious, isn't it? However, the
Timeless Windows Manager (TWM) doesn't have one. This 25-year old
manager, now light-weight oriented, doesn't allow a use for the
background. Neither allows for maximizing windows, just resize. And
it uses a Debian menu - Ubuntu classic menu cannot be used here. If
you select from the menu Debian→Applications→File
manager→Nautilus; you do get a desktop, yes... one
inside a fixed-size window, without a taskbar and a system tray. At least you get a
list of open windows by selecting Show Icon Manager. It's barely usable, so save it for legacy computers.
Third key: Do you have an open windows list?
All right, we started at the very
bottom. So it's all up from here, the rest of window managers
provide us with desktops and taskbars. But wait a minute - what kind
of taskbar? You don't mean a taskbar that doesn't show what windows
are open, do you? Everybody needs a clickable open windows list in
order to go to the desired window in just one click. Even TWM did
that.
Actually yes, shit happens. Ubuntu/Ubuntu 2Ds Unity interface is a modern one, with a
state-of-the-art design and... no open windows list. No kidding.
What you get is a scrolling sidebar on the left with the icons for
the most used applications, and if you scroll through it
you will see small triangles pointing to the icons corresponding to
open applications. Yes, you get to scroll and wait. Or,
you can press Alt+Tab. Also, you're prevented to open more than one window from the same application. Gratuitous, unnecessary awkwardness - or pure
sadism, have your pick. Also, you don't get the classic Ubuntu menu
either - you get a new menu with new, different submenus chosen
pretty much at random. On the other hand, Unity's got system tray, minimize and maximize buttons, and Startup Applications.

Unity
Fourth key: Do you have a system tray?
What is a system tray? It's the area
in the taskbar where are placed the icons for the programs that are
running all-time without necessarily having an open window. Whenever
we need to access these running programs interface, instead of
selecting the menu item for the program we click on the icon from the
system tray. Pretty obvious again, isn't it? We have already left
the worst part behind - the rest of window managers have all got
desktop, taskbar and a clickable open windows list. So, they surely
will have an usable system tray - even Unity did have one, so the
rest wouldn't forget to have one... or would they?
Actually, they did. GNOMEs taskbar
it's a very minimal one that doesn't have an applications menu, an
open windows list, or an usable system tray. For the first two, you
have to click on Activities. For the usable
system tray, you just don't get one. That brings trouble with some
applications intended to run full-time such as Skype. When you're an
full-time application, and you're meant to run in the background most
of the time, having an open window only means disturbance for the
user, who is constantly switching between windows, and who would be
annoyed to land one time after another on any unnecessarily open
windows. So full-time applications as Skype do the trick of having
system tray icons, and no open windows unless needed. Closing their
windows doesn't get these applications to close, but to "minimize
to tray".
But then, what happens when Skype fails
to put an icon on GNOMEs system tray? It happens that whenever
Skypes window closes, Skype continues to run in the background. And
when the users want to use this running instance of Skype again, and
have no system tray icon to access it, trying to launch
Skype from the menu will result in a second, separate instance of
Skype running which won't allow the same Skype user to log in because
this user is already logged in through the first instance. An ugly situation, solved only by forcing the first instance of
Skype to close by killing its process or logging out from the
computer. If you want to prevent Skype doing this in GNOME, you must
never close Skypes window once opened. Also, you must prevent Skype
minimizing to tray when it starts by going to
Options...→General and getting sure the
Start Skype minimised in the system tray box is
unmarked.
And even that isn't enough if you use
an Skype account in Pidgin. The Pidgin application is capable to
handle most Instant Messaging accounts for itself, but not so with
Skype accounts. The Skype plug-in for Pidgin doesn't really enable
Pidgin to handle Skypes conference and videoconference services, but
rather allow Pidgin to start Skype as a servant - Pidgin gets to
access Skypes contacts list and to handle Skypes chat while
conference and videoconference services will continue to work through
the Skype application. The problem with this is that whenever Skype
is started by Pidgin it always starts minimized even tough
set otherwise at Skypes options. If you intend to use
Pidgin and Skype with GNOME, you must use them separately - sorry, no
Skype account handling from Pidgin. And if you want them to start up
automatically after logging in, you must set them up separately at
GNOMEs Startup Applications.

GNOME
Fifth key: Do you have minimize and maximize buttons?
We already found out about the open
windows list and applications menu not being shown at the GNOME
taskbar, but rather accessed by clicking on Activities. And sure, when you click there you're presented with a nice view of
all open windows for you to choose from - a second click on the
Applications tab will present you with the
Ubuntu classic menu, although with a two-second delay. It works,
doesn't it? You can manage your windows from there all the same...
or can't you?
Actually, GNOMEs windows haven't got
minimize and maximize buttons, and you really don't miss them...
except for the times when you work with two or more windows sharing
the screen, and then you momentarily invoke a third one on top.
Instead of minimizing it when you're done (one click), you get to use
the Activities menu to bring the previous
windows to the front (two clicks for each). Oh yes, I know: we're
supposed to forgot about minimize and maximize, and to use different
desktop workspaces instead. That's the dogma here. But it turns out
that even at its best, multiple desktop workspaces don't best
multiple windows. You may substitute window buttons for workspace
buttons at the taskbar, and still a third window will cost you one
click to invoke and another click to dismiss - that is, if you still
haven't ran out of workspaces. The "enlightened ones" are
trying to "educate" us - how curious it is that they do it
not by supplying us with improved choices, but by worsening our
traditional choices.
Fortunately, GNOME provides a fix for
this: the gconf-editor tool allows to
add the minimize and maximize buttons, in the key
/desktop/gnome/shell/windows/button_layout. Also, GNOME's got Startup Applications.
Sixth key: Do you have a desktop icon?
All window managers reviewed here,
except TWM, have got desktop. Well, if you've got an desktop with
usable elements, it very much follows up having single-click access
to it, doesn't it? You get a a desktop, you need a desktop icon.
Isn't it pure logic?
Well, not for some "enlightened
ones". GNOME and Unity both provide taskbars, but never with a
desktop icon. Do you want to minimize all windows at the same time?
You can't. If you want a clean desktop quick, and want to avoid
minimizing all of your windows one by one, the
closest thing you get is a new desktop workspace - and even then, you
can't have it on a single click.
In GNOME, you click on
Activities and then double-click on the right
sidebar - you will always find a new desktop workspace at its bottom,
there's apparently no limit. So, GNOME developers have changed the
paradigm of window use: one window, one workspace. You don't switch
windows, you switch workspaces. You're still allowed to share the
same workspace between multiple windows, and you can still show
multiple windows simultaneously (i.e., so you can copy elements from
one window to another). Even the Alt+Tab function has been improved
for switching between different workspaces. All right, it pretty
much works... except for needing three clicks instead of one to
switch window.
In Unity it works even worst, because
the number of desktop workspaces are limited, so you eventually will
run out of them and have to resort to minimizing windows. Even
worst, switching workspaces is done by keyboard only. If you get the Indicator Workspaces plug-in, you will be able to
change the four-workspaces limit, and also to switch workspace by
clicking - but still, it will take you two clicks.
Seventh key: Can you have a single taskbar at the bottom?
Smartly used, a single taskbar will
provide you everything you really need. Having two taskbars is just
a waste of screen space. And then, I want my single taskbar to be at
the bottom.
It's not that I am fond of Microsoft
products - it's just that placing the taskbar at the top causes me to
occasionally mistake the taskbar menu for the applications menu.
Placing the menus on opposite edges of the screen makes more sense to
me. I know that this is very debatable, and is not to be taken as an
usability rule, but now that I am started on usability I am just
throwing it in with the rest. I want a single taskbar at the bottom.
Then again, GNOME and Unity won't let
me. Their menu-less taskbars are fixed on top. This is a kind of
setback, specially when the GNOME Classic taskbar allows me to place
it anywhere.
Eight key: Do you have Startup Applications?
We're getting to the top. The rest of
managers provide us with desktop, taskbar, open windows list, usable
system tray, minimize and maximize buttons, desktop icon, and single
taskbar at the bottom. We got the perfect layout, so it's time to
think about startup configuration. In the classic Preferences menu
from Ubuntu, there is the Startup Applications item that allows you
to set which applications are to run after login. It will work with
every window manager, won't it?
Actually, not. Startup Applications
works with all GNOME-based window managers, such as the already
reviewed GNOME or Unity, or the ones that we will review later - but
it won't work with non-GNOME managers. That means TWM, and also a
new one: Jwm.
Jwm is a light-weight window manager
like TWM. Like TWM, it has no Ubuntu classic menu but Debian menu,
and the desktop starts up by selecting Debian→Applications→File
manager→Nautilus. But Jwm has all the of features
that TWM and the rest of window managers have been missing so far:
desktop, taskbar, open windows list, usable system tray and minimize
and maximize buttons. It looks very much like a complete window
manager, only simpler... and lacking Startup Applications.
Ninth key: Do you have support?
All right, the rest of window managers
are nearly perfect. They have Ubuntu classic menu, desktop, taskbar,
open windows list, usable system tray, minimize and maximize buttons,
and startup applications. We cannot ask for more, they're just
usable. But still, we have a concern: do they have support? Without
support, the manager will stay forever the same - and tough we might
like it this way, it means no further improvements will show up in
the future.
Actually, that is what happens with
GNOME Classic: its last version, 2.32, came out in September, 2010.
You might like it, as I do, but if you found another window manager
with the same features and support,
wouldn't you want to use it?

GNOME Classic
The great final
So, we have reduced the most usable
systems to two.
MATE is a fork from GNOME Classic
(2.x), MATE 1.2 version released on April 2012. It's got
everything that GNOME Classic has, plus support and new features,
although it places my icons in the wrong places of the desktop.

MATE
Cinnamon is a fork from GNOME (3.x)
with improved usability, Cinnamon 1.4 version released on March 2012.
It's got everything that GNOME has, plus usable system tray, desktop
icon, one-click menu, minimize and maximize icons out of the box,
and... yes!, taskbar at the bottom.

Cinnamon
Both have Ubuntu classic menu, desktop,
taskbar, open windows list, usable system tray, minimize and maximize
buttons, startup applications and support. Which one is the best?
Because of GNOME being the most used
desktop for Ubuntu and for GNU/Linux, mainstream GNOME (3.x) is
expected to have the better quality code. Thus, I expect a GNOME
(3.x) fork to outdo a GNOME Classic (2.x) fork. Cinnamon, I am
working with you from now on.
Created on April 18, 2012
[ Language selection | Entrance | Updates | Seven window managers for Ubuntu | Entities | Curriculum vitae ]