16th November 2007 One of the nice things about the world of Linux and UNIX is the availability of multiple workspaces. In Window, you only ever get one and the likes of me can easily fill up that task bar. So the idea of parceling off different applications to different screens is useful from a housekeeping point of view so long as icons only appear in the task bar foe the open workspace; Ubuntu respects this but openSUSE doesn’t, a possible source of irritation.
However, a case can be made that UNIX/Linux needs workspaces more than Windows because of the multi-window interfaces of some of the software applications. The trouble with each of these sub-windows is that an entry appears in the task bar for each of this, creating a mess very quickly. And it can also be an issue working out which window closes the lot.
Examples of the above that come to my mind include GIMP, XSane and SAS. The Windows version of the latter’s DMS is confined to a single application window while the UNIX incarnation is composed of a window each for individual components like program editor, log, output, etc. Typing "bye" in the command line of the program editor is enough to dispatch the GUI. With GIMP, Ctrl+Q will close it down in any window apart from the "Tip of the Day" one that pops up when GIMP is first started. The same sort of behaviour also seems to dispatch XSane too.
Switching form one workspace to another is as easy as clicking the relevant icon in the task bar in all of the UNIX variants that I have used. Switching an application from one workspace to another has another common thread: finding the required entry in the application window menu.
In Ubuntu, I have seen other ways of working with workspaces. In the interface with visual effects turned off, hovering over the workspace icons in the task bar allows you to move from one to another with the wheel of your mouse. Moving an application between workspaces can be done as simply as dragging boxes from one task bar icon to another. Turning on the visual effects changes things, though. It might appear that the original functionality still works but that seems not to be the case: a matter for Canonical to resolve, perhaps?
The visual effects do provide other ways around this though. Keeping all your application windows minimised means that you can run through workspaces themselves with your wheel mouse. Moving applications between workspaces becomes as simple as grabbing the title bar and pulling the window left or right until it changes workspace. Be careful that you do the job fully though or you could have an application sitting astride two workspaces. It would appear that ideas from the sharing of a desktop across multiple monitors have percolated through to workspace behaviour.
Aside (regarding Ubuntu visual effects): I don’t know who came up with the idea of having windows wobble when they’re being moved around but it certainly is unusual, as is seeing what happens when you try prising a docked window from its mooring (particularly when you’re pulling it up from the bottom task bar). The sharper font display and bevelled screen furniture make more sense to me though; they certainly make a UI more appealing and modern.
30th March 2007 At work, we still use Windows 2000 on our desktop and laptop PC’s. This may (or may not) surprise you but the XP upgrade seems to have been thought a premature move and Vista turned up later than might have been expected. Now that Microsoft is winding down support for Windows 2000, thoughts have started to turn to a Vista upgrade, but the realisation soon dawned that a move to Vista was a major one and it now looks as if we will be on Windows 2000 for a little while yet, until 2008 at least.
I, too, have Windows 2000 lurking around at home as a testing platform, not a work copy I hasten to add, and software vendors increasingly are not supporting the operating system any more. Symantec is one of these with the 2006 versions of its products being the last ones to support Windows 2000. Initially, I was left with the impression that Kaspersky was the same, but this does not seem to be the case. While the open-source community can continue their supply of productivity applications such as OpenOffice, the GIMP and so on, it is the security side that is of most concern as regards the future of Windows 2000. That said, its successors are not the prime targets for cracking but shared code could mean that it falls foul of the same exploits.
I have yet to notice it with the hardware that I am using, but hardware advances may yet put paid to Windows 2000 like they did to members of the Windows 9x line, especially when you consider that the operating system dates from 1999. Then again, you may find that you don’t need the latest hardware, so this might not affect you. This is not all that unreasonable given that the pace of technological progress is less frenzied these days than it was in the nineties when Windows 95 was more or less out of date by the turn of the millennium. Having the gold OEM version of Windows 95 as the basis for a Windows 9x upgrade treadmill meant that my move into the world of NT-based operating systems was a clean break with a full version of my new operating system and not its upgrade edition.
Nevertheless, there remains a feeling that Windows 2000 is being cut off prematurely and that it could last a while longer with a bit of support, even if there is a late nineties feel to the thing. After all, Windows 2000 probably still supports a lot of what people want to do and without the Big Brother tendencies of Vista too.