On 04.03.2022 21:08, bilsch01 wrote:
Over the years I have used the black screen for entering text commands
to get things done in ubuntu (ubu). I think of the black screen as a 'terminal' interface, though I'm not sure if that is the correct word
for it. I never have been good at the 'shell script' language of linux
but have done much by pasting stuff into the terminal. I associate the
word 'gnome' with the terminal interface.
People also refer to something called 'unity' or 'unity interface' which
I always thought of as ubu's clickable icons and also the vertical bar
of icons along the left side of ubu's desktop screen.
QUESTION: Am I correct about 'gnome' and 'unity' ?
Please straighten me out if I an wrong.
You've already got some information and a few informative links. So I
just want to add an aspect or two. (Note that it's a rough description
not so much aimed at a precise technical definition but to show the
relation of some terms used in your post.)
The term terminal stems from days where you have the access point to
a computer separated from the processing unit. Terminals were stupid,
basically just accepting and forwarding keystrokes from the keyboard,
enhanced by control sequences. The devices usually were just green
or white text on black screens (no GUI elements like scroll bars, no
windowing, etc.). Later that was advanced by X-terminals where more
information was passed between the terminal client and servers, and
where windowing functionality was supported at the client (terminal)
side. Today on your computer you have both running, the X-server and
the X-clients.
What you see implemented on Linux systems and also called terminal runs
a shell, a program that is an interactive interface to the functions
of the operating systems. There are many different shells available on
Unix systems you may choose from (the bash shell is the quasi-standard
just on Linux, and you can change your shell). If you want to execute
only simple commands there's not much difference between shells (i.e.
WRT execution of the programs; there is a difference in the interactive features, editing the command line, command completions, and so on).
The shell language is important if you use shell for programming more
complex tasks.
There's also an access to your system that uses no windowing layer,
often (also) referred to as terminal, and accessible (on my system)
by typing Ctrl-Alt-F1 (and F2..F6 respectively, for more than one
terminal session). (I can return to my windowing interface by typing Ctrl-Alt-F7.)
Since communicating through shells is considered too technical for use
by ordinary (non-tech) people graphical interfaces had been invented.
These allow to do "everything that is usually necessary" by clicking
on GUI elements on the screen. The inherent problem of the approach is
that you just get what some developers have decided to be useful or
necessary, and also that you get the functionality the way that had
been considered as most comfortable (or most fancy) by the designers.
That's where different graphical systems appear, because any supported graphical interface is hardly the right one for everyone. That's where
window managers appear. Luckily (on Unix systems) you have also the
choice to choose from a couple available window managers. You decide
whether it's a primitive one supporting the essentials in a clear way
(often a compact and fast one), or a more complex and/or a fancy one.
The various Unix systems and Linux distributions come with their own
standards for the default appearance of the system (Unity, Gnome, KDE).
Not surprising that there's many arguments, pros and cons, discussed.
Janis
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
