Sign In

    Enjoy FOSSwire's content? Have it delivered! Subscribe

    GNOME Do vs Launchy

    Launchy and GNOME Do are both two launcher programs that are designed to let you quickly open applications and files and perform tasks you want done quickly, with just the tapping of a few keys.

    Previously, Launchy had been an open source solution, albeit for Windows only, and GNOME Do was the Linux solution.

    Launchy is now available for Linux too, so I thought I would do a brief side-by-side compare of the two programs.

    Installation

    GNOME Do

    GNOME Do has the advantage of being a well-established program on the Linux platform, and you'll probably be able to find it in your software repositories with no problems for the easiest installation route.

    Launchy

    At the current time, I don't think Launchy is in any standard software repositories for any of the major distributions. Debian and Ubuntu users can grab a .deb for relatively simple installation, but otherwise, it's from source.

    Installing from source isn't all that difficult, though, if you've done it before, it is just an extra step.

    Interface

    Interface-wise, the two programs are pretty similar, but there are some subtle differences in the interface.

    GNOME Do

    Our resident GNOME flavoured launcher shows up an attractive interface by default when you press the hot-key and start typing what you want to do.

    For example, here I can type Firefox. By default, the action is to launch the Firefox browser, but I can press down to see other possible actions based on my search.

    GNOME Do Interface

    It is a good interface that is functional and simple whilst still being attractive. Notice also that it integrates well with the Ubuntu look-and-feel (but on my Fedora system shows up in blue to match that theme).

    Launchy

    Launchy's interface is similar, going for a black theme by default (different themes are configurable via a right-click), once you press the hotkey.

    Rather than simply highlighting the letters you are typing as they appear in the result, like GNOME Do, Launchy gives you a full text field so you can see your query more clearly. Results then drop down from that.

    Launchy interface

    In some ways, I think I mildly prefer Launchy's way of doing things in terms of the interface, but I think it ultimately comes down to personal preference which method you will prefer (especially if you are already accustomed to one interface).

    Plugins

    Launching applications is all well and good, but Alt-F2 can do that pretty well, if you know the name of the command you want to run. Where these applications really come into their own is when you add plugins to them so they are capable of doing other things - launching websites from bookmarks and integrating with other programs on your desktop.

    GNOME Do

    GNOME Do has an impressive array of different plugins offering application integration and unique functionality. A whole section is dedicated to them on the wiki.

    Of course, many of the plugins listed there ship with the standard package, so you won't have to do anything to be able to make use of the extra functionality they provide.

    Launchy

    Launchy doesn't have quite the same volume of plugins as GNOME Do, at least not on the Linux platform at the current time.

    Launchy plugins display

    Nevertheless, it does do a good job with what it has, and didn't need a special plugin to read in my Firefox bookmarks, for example.

    Whether you find the lack of plugins right now a limitation will depend on how you use your launcher and what third-party programs you use - Launchy may well easily be able to offer what you need it to do. However, GNOME Do does appear to be the leader in this department right now.

    Integration

    You could argue that this category isn't going to be fair to Launchy - that doesn't have a specific focus on one desktop environment. Nevertheless, how well a launcher integrates with the rest of the environment you work in is pretty important.

    GNOME Do

    The clue is in the title. GNOME Do is straight-up written for excellent integration into the GNOME desktop environment and a GNOME-based workflow. It runs perfectly fine elsewhere, of course, but the emphasis really is on making it a GNOME desktop launcher.

    To that end, it integrates well with your theme, including your GNOME icon set and colours. The rich set of plugins for GNOME applications also mean that you will be able to achieve more than just starting programs.

    Having been around for much longer on Linux, GNOME Do again appears to have the edge.

    Launchy

    Launchy, unlike GNOME Do, is written using the Qt toolkit (which underlies KDE). It is not a KDE application, however, but neither is it a native GTK application (GTK underlies GNOME, Xfce etc.).

    This means that on GNOME, the interface is likely to feel more out-of-place. This is especially noticeable in the Options dialogue, where the Qt-ness stands out from other GTK applications.

    Launchy Options, Skins tab

    On a KDE system, this will be much less of an issue as it will look more integrated, but there is not a specific focus on making Launchy a launcher 'for KDE'.

    One positive aspect of Launchy, however, is its support for Themes. The main Launchy window that appears on pressing the hotkey can be set up to use any one of several 'skins' and I'm sure third party skins can be created too.

    This means that it might be possible to make Launchy feel well integrated into a much wider range of different desktop environments, with full customisation possible.

    Conclusion

    There isn't an awful lot to choose between these two programs. They both generally do the job and they both do it well.

    If you are a GNOME user and use a lot of applications where GNOME Do has plugins available, I'd recommend sticking with GNOME Do for now. It's worth watching the Launchy on Linux effort to watch new developments, of course, but for the time being, GNOME Do appears just about ahead.

    KDE users, or users of other DEs might want to try Launchy as an alternative, especially if you're used to Launchy over on Windows. Its skinnability and possibility for future plugin development mean that there could be a lot more great things to come. (KDE users should also evaluate Katapult, for a native, integrated KDE launcher).


    OpenOffice.org 3.0 Beta on the Mac vs. NeoOffice 2.2.3

    OpenOffice.org logo

    OpenOffice.org 3.0 Beta is now out, and available to download. It has been a long time coming now, and one of the big new features being trumpeted is native Mac support.

    I thought I would cross over to Mac OS X for this FOSSwire post, to compare the new native OpenOffice.org there to an unofficial fork called NeoOffice that has offered native support for a while now. I'll explain more about that later.

    Whatever your views on the Mac platform, FOSS support on platforms other than Linux is undeniably important, so going over to view OOo from that perspective is something I think that is good to do. So let's get started!

    What's NeoOffice?

    For those who don't know, NeoOffice is a fork of the original OpenOffice.org code that started in 2003. Its aim was to bring the office suite natively over to the Mac platform.

    The reason why this was necessary is that OpenOffice.org was written basically to run under two windowing environments - it ran under Windows natively, and used X11 for Unix systems. While it certainly is possible to run X11 on Mac OS X and therefore run OpenOffice.org, it hardly provided a good user experience, and made it a right pain to do.

    For lots of different reasons, the official project wouldn't devote the time and resources to doing the Mac port, so a group of developers took the OOo source code and made their own derivative just for the Mac, called NeoOffice.

    The differences between the two versions aren't just code and branding, however. The NeoOffice distribution is available only under the GPL, whereas OOo official has other licensing options available.

    This meant that when the official team focused their attention on a Mac port, all the hard work that the NeoOffice guys had done on getting their Mac port going couldn't be introduced back into the core source code, due to the licence differences.

    Differences Between OOo 3.0b and NeoOffice

    OOo 3.0 Beta splash screen

    Anyway, enough politics. Apart from the new features in OOo 3.0, what are the differences between the two native Mac implementations?

    Speed

    This might be just down to the official build's general speed improvements, but OOo is miles faster to cold start that NeoOffice.

    The NeoOffice interface actually uses Java as a bridge to get to the Aqua user interface, as far as I'm aware, OOo doesn't. Taking Java out of the equation might be one of the elements speeding it up.

    Once you're actually in the app, however, the speed of both apps is comparable, apart from in one area.

    Using the mouse wheel to scroll through a document is relatively speedy in NeoOffice (albeit not as smooth as most apps), but right now is very sluggish and a bit disappointing in the OOo beta. Hopefully this should be addressed by the final release.

    Interface

    Branding differences aside, the two applications generally look and feel mostly the same. NeoOffice does have a custom icon set that looks more Aqua-ish, but OOo's one isn't bad either.

    Dialogues and windows generally use the same layout across the two distributions. From a Mac user experience perspective, many of them still feel a bit 'Windows-like' and thus may put off the Mac user, but that is something largely unavoidable without rewriting a lot of the application.

    Fonts on buttons and in interface elements do look better in OOo, in my opinion, but still look obviously out of place with other Mac applications. Again, this is pretty much something unavoidable without a completely separate app for Mac OS X - something quite infeasible and a bit unreasonable.

    Functionality

    Functionally, there is little difference between the two, apart, obviously, from the new features offered in the new version of OOo.

    Which One Is Better?

    If you're not bothered about being 'official' to OOo, I would recommend that Mac users wanting to use the Free office suite stick with NeoOffice (unless you want to run a beta).

    The stability provided by NeoOffice is pretty good in my experience, and the beta credentials of the official build mean that for important stuff, it's probably worth sticking with 2.2.3 right now.

    There is very little to choose between the two implementations. Once OOo3.0 has matured and the final release is made (and therefore stability can be guaranteed), it might have just enough in terms of speed and subtle improvements to sway you in that direction.

    Provided that the laggy scrolling issue can be dealt with, of course.

    Give It a Spin Yourself!

    Anyone wanting to try the new OpenOffice.org 3.0 beta can download it and give it a try, while NeoOffice can be downloaded for Mac OS X only.