Contrary to the obviously cherished beliefs of the bods in charge at Real, not everyone who wants online content over broadband connections is an empty-headed R&B clone who wants to listen to the same drone all the time over their expensive cable connection. Nor are they satisfied with paying almost twelve pounds sterling (US readers work it out: expensive) every month to discover that the televisual content never seems to change. Last weekend I lost it completely and unsubscribed - making my credit card imbalance automatically almost twelve quid a month lighter. Did RealNetworks try to persuade me to change my mind? No. All I got was an automatic e-mail to remind me that since the "services" were paid one month in advance, I could still "enjoy" them until expiry. As if!

So, RealNetworks lose another customer because of crap, yoof-oriented content not really deemed remotely interesting to a fortysomething like myself. Very flash-looking "Guide", but little substance. A tale of our times, indeed. And useless under Linux, of course . . . ^_^

Anyway, today's theme: The Constant Arguments Between Proponents of Different Linux GUIs and Lovers of the Command Line.

Hardly a day seems to go by when I don't encounter some pointless troll ranting on about why KDE users should switch to GNOME, why all of the available Linux GUIS are crap for Windoze-addicted zombies who need to become Real Men (read: "Real Geeks") and start using the command line for everything they do, and so on. As it happens, this all coincides with my own participation in a very hard online English teaching (TESOL) course. Part of this involves a look at different aspects of the psychology of learners and one particular aspect, which I had encountered previously and had not until now explored in any depth, was the different types of learner.

I'll explain. Some time ago, the author Howard Gardner published a list of learner types subsumed under his theory of "Multiple Intelligences", according to which people would learn best in an environment which was arranged to support their particular style of learning. Later, in Australia, Murray Loom produced a list of attributes which might be found in these people, and it makes interesting reading:

Linguistic Learner: Word Player. Likes to read, write and tell stories. Is good at memorising names, places, data and trivia. Learns best by saying, hearing and seeing words.

Logical/Mathematical Learner: Questioner. Likes to do experiments, figure things out, work things out, work with numbers, ask questions, explore patterns and relationships. Learns best by categorising, classifying, working with abstract patterns/relationships.

Spatial Learner: Visualiser. Likes to draw, build, design and create things, daydream, look at pictures, watch movies, play with machines. Learns best by visualising, dreaming, using the mind's eye, working with colours and pictures.

Musical Learner: Music Lover. Likes to sing, hum tunes, listen to music, play an instrument, respond to music. Learns best by rhythm, melody and music.

Bodily/Kinaesthetic Learner. Likes to move around, touch and talk, use body language. Learns best by touching, moving, interacting with space, processing knowledge through bodily sensations.

Interpersonal Learner: Socialiser. Likes to have lots of friends, talk to people, join groups. Learns best by sharing, comparing, relating, cooperating, interviewing.

Intrapersonal Learner. Likes to work alone, pursue own interests. Learns best by working alone, individualised projects, self-paced instruction, having own space. (1)

One thing is obvious from this list: it is quite normal for any individual to have any or all of these characteristics to a greater or lesser extent - effectively, each of us has a "matrix" of different learning capabilities. Naturally, therefore, our urge would be to "personalise" everything in our lives to optimise our enjoyment experience - it seems illogical to assume that these characteristics should apply only to the learning process, which often officially occupies only a limited fraction of any person's lifetime. So if we apply this type of logic to the GUI question - which is as great an expenditure of hot air as one might reasonably expect to find outside of some country's legislature - some people are better served (and are happier with) a command-line interface, whereas some feel more secure with a rich GUI. Some might prefer to stick with a full-featured interface like KDE whereas others feel that GNOME's simpler approach is more appropriate. More adventurous souls might seek out Enlightenment or other more exotic interfaces, as I did recently. I didn't stay with them, but I was not disappointed. They are still installed and will also be in my future installations.

As I say, this is a subject which generates an awful lot of pointless hot air. I prefer KDE but there are plenty of users who are happy with GNOME. Do I have a right to argue over this? Short answer: NO. If you think that this is really a worthy subject for discussion, look back for a moment at that "certain other alleged OS" which you were so happy to abandon when you first discovered the strange joys of Linux. The latest version of that "OS" has only one GUI! Unless you go into "Display Settings" and opt for the "Classic" look of 98SE/2000, you are stuck with that silly, uniform blue Desktop. Urrrgh! When I first installed XP Pro on my hard drive, I had already been repulsed by what struck me as a GUI for five-year-olds - round corners! Thick margins on windows! Ohhh, nnnnooooooo . . . . . the bells, Esmerelda! The Beeeellllllssss . . . . Windoze offers no "out-of-the-box" choice at all for GUIs. How is this a good thing?

So to cut a long story short: all this debate about which GUI (or whether to use a GUI at all) is fatuous. People gravitate naturally to that matrix of features which they find most appealing; how they run their desktop is a matter of personal choice, something they basically are not allowed under Windoze. If dyed-in-the-wool Linux users really feel that Windows is little more than a kid's toy rather than a serious business proposition, then they surely cannot be surprised at the idiotic interface. Linux, on the other hand, is geared towards helping consumers to create the environment which suits them, rather than being forced to shell out lots of money for proprietary software. Choice in every dimension is the order of the day, and that includes defending your right to use only a command-line system, KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment or any of the rest, against a monopolising entity whose sole interest is robbing you of your hard-earned dosh by tying you in to its wares and services. In my own experience I use the command line interface on a frequent basis for virus scans, pattern updates, rootkit scans and updates to the rpm database, as well as a few other functions; I don't need a "GUI" for these things. I am using the "Dark Blue" colour scheme under KDE 3.4 as issued with Mandriva 2006.0 and everything works fine. But next year I might change my mind. And Linux allows me to do this.

And I don't complain about it.

(1) Quoted in ISBN 0-582-40385-5, Jeremy Harmer, "The Practice of English Language Teaching". Third Edition, Longman (Pearson Education Limited), 2001, p. 47.