Comparison of Linux Desktops OpenGL Performance

With Steam officially being released for Linux I took some time out this evening to run a few benchmarks on my Ubuntu 12.04 based Bodhi system to see how a few of the different modern Linux desktops compare in terms of OpenGL performance with the source engine. Please do not take my numbers to be anything super scientific or precise. I simply recorded a short demo using Team Fortress 2, loaded TF2 from Steam under each of the Linux desktops with no other background applications running and ran the demo through a built in source engine bench marking tool.

The benchmarks were run on my very modest gaming laptop which sports an i7 processor, 6GB of RAM, and an nVidia 330m GT graphics card. I utilized the Steam recommended nVidia 310 driver for these tests. All the desktop setups I used were "stock" from the Ubuntu 12.04 repos, minus E17 which is using the E17.1 snapshot and Bodhi's laptop profile with compositing enabled.

Lets get right to the data shall we? You all love charts I hope!

It is clear from the bar graph that E17 came out towards the top and Gnome Shell was near the bottom. Here are the numbers to a single decimal place:

• Gnome Shell - 51.5 FPS
• KDE   - 55.0 FPS
• XFCE - 55.7 FPS
• Unity  - 60.5 FPS
• KDE, Disable Compositing on Full Screen - 63.2 FPS
• LXDE - 66.5 FPS
• E17     - 66.7 FPS

I was not surprised when I saw E17 and LXDE had the best performance, they are after all some of the best light desktops today. What did shock me though was that XFCE - which claims to be fairly light - was very low in terms of performance! 

Based on the above numbers XFCE performed around 17% slower than both LXDE and E17, while Unity was around 9% slower than the lighter desktops, and Gnome Shell was a staggering 23% behind.  One other thing worth noting is that KDE has a HUGE performance difference when you check the "disable compositing on full screen applications" box in your Kwin settings. In fact ignoring this setting loses you around 13% in performance:

Obviously someone should run some further tests (I know I plan to when I get some more time), but from my initial small test it is obvious - if you are looking to game on Linux your choice of desktop very clearly matters!

~Jeff Hoogland

Shuttleworth Misses the Point Yet Again

I caught an article on Lxer.com entitled:

"Shuttleworth: Linux Power Users Aren't too Cool for Unity"

There are a number of quotes in the article from the originator of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, Mark Shuttleworth, that clearly attest to the fact he is completely missing what so many people find wrong with Unity. He starts with an completely misplaced "fact" for which he does not provide any backing:

"There is a bit of a myth that power users don't like and aren't interested in usability and ease-of use," 

Who ever said this? I've been using Linux for more than a few years now. I read many a different FOSS news wires and never before have I seen this idea thrown around. Perhaps there was an article or two I missed on this topic... At any rate Shuttleworth is going to continue digging a hole for himself:

"There is going to be a crowd that is just too cool to use something that looks really slick and there is nothing we can do for them,"

I can't speak for everyone, but I can at least speak for myself. I am not "too cool" to use something that looks "slick" (I mean comon, have you seen Enlightenment). 

What I'm not about to use though is something that was clearly designed for a touch screen on my computer that has a 15+inch monitor driven by a keyboard and mouse. I'm not about to use something that is resource greedy. And I most certainly not about to use something that makes most all the choices for me about how my desktop should be laid out. I'm the one that is going to be using my computer - so how about I get to choose how the GUI works best for me?

I know everyone is bound to have one of those "open mouth insert foot" moments at one point or another, but Shuttleworth's blatant disregard for why users dislike Unity is just shocking to me. 

~Jeff Hoogland

Something Gnome3 and Unity could Stand to Learn from Windows 8

I've mentioned a few times now that I don't understand this touch infatuation technology has developed in recent years. What ever the reason, there is no doubting this technology is going to be around for some time. In the Linux world the releases of the Gnome 3 and Unity desktops have been pushing a touch-geared interface not only to touch-screen devices, but also the large screen of your home PC! Mac's OSX followed this line of thinking and it appears Microsoft's Window 8 will be no different:

Windows 8 Default Interface

It is still early, but there appears to be one important detail that Microsoft is getting correct that Gnome 3, Unity, and OSX all seem to have failed at.

They are making it easy to switch to a classic desktop.

If Microsoft's choke hold on the market still is any indication we should all know end users are very resistant to change. Up and redesigning the entire desktop experience because you think it is "for the best" is not about to win you any awards. 

Sure Ubuntu 11.04 has a "classic desktop" login, but this will be removed in the 11.10 release. Sure Gnome 3 has a "fall back" mode, but you have to dig through settings to get to it and calling it "fall back" makes it sound like something is wrong with your computer if you are using it (which is half true as it is intended for use on systems that lack 3D acceleration). Not to mention this fall back mode supports far less options than Gnome 2 had, but then Gnome 2 also had less customization than Gnome 1, smell a pattern anyone?

So please, Gnome 3 and Unity developers (heck even OSX) take a hint from Windows 8 (because you sure as heck haven't taken any hints from Enlightenment) and make a stand desktop configuration option a priority - not an after thought.

~Jeff Hoogland

Hacking to make things Usable

I've noticed a disturbing trend occurring with software. Until recent months it was largely limited to closed source software such as iOS, but today we see it even in the FOSS world.

Users hacking at locked down software just to get the functionality out of it they need.

It amazes me that the faithful masses continue to do work for projects that try to undermine them at every turn. Apple users have been doing this for a long time. They buy iPhones, iPads, iPhails and "jail break" them to get around the locks imposed by the creator. They spend their time creating new an innovative programs, only to have them get rejected and then later stolen by Apple.


Something that troubles me greatly is that we have seen similar things start to happen in the world of open source with the releases of the Gnome 3 and Unity desktops. Maybe I am just used to the flexibility the Enlightenment desktop offers, but I am disturbed by the number of "tutorials" and "extensions" I have seen being written for these new desktops just to accomplish basic tasks.

I caught a post the other day that detailed all the things the Gnome 3 developers have decided their users no longer need. It is fully within the Gnome/Unity developers rights to make such choices. However it baffles me that their users continue to stick around and write "hacks" instead of moving onto another desktop where their valuable work would be appreciated and could eventually be accepted upstream. Are people so afraid of change they would rather continue to have their ideas treated poorly rather than move on to something different?

~Jeff Hoogland

Thoughts on the Unity Desktop

Ubuntu's 11.04 release is now on the horizon and unless you have been living under a rock then you know that their big change is going to be the move to the Unity desktop. Personally I found this move to be odd when I first heard it, I mean after all it was Ubuntu that allowed the Gnome desktop to initially take off and beat out the KDE desktop. There have been piles of different articles about Unity, so I'm not going to bore you with the same details you can find lots of other places.

My question is this - Was this second project necessary?

I understand Ubuntu wanted to get away from the old Gnome 2.x desktop, but so did Gnome! Now I could see the need for another GTK desktop still if the two groups had two radically different ideas, but from what I have seen, read, and used they are fairly similar -


They both use GTK (although Unity is using the older GTK2). They both share so many common traits I have to wonder if both parties would have been better served with Ubuntu simply investing itself into Gnome 3 instead of creating something completely new.

I've mentioned my next idea once before and it seems my thoughts are still relevant nearly a year later. How much of the desktop does Ubuntu feel it is necessary to lock down in the name of user friendliness? I came across a HOWTO on Lxer.com the other day describing how to re-enable a full system tray in the Unity desktop. The fact that a HOWTO for this even needs to exist, makes me question the direction Ubuntu is headed in. If they continue down their current path, I have no doubt their days as the top dog of desktop Linux distros will be numbered.

You know what they say in the FOSS world though, if you don't like - FORK. Just this has been done to Ubuntu countless times, however I think with this upcoming Unity release it will be a chance for some of these other derivatives to really shine. Both Linux Mint and PinguyOS have stated they plan to stick with a more classic Gnome desktop for their 11.04 releases - so those facing shell shock over Unity will know where to turn to.

What are your thoughts on these newly created desktops? Needed change or unnecessary evil?

~Jeff Hoogland