Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnIdiotOnTheNet | Hacker News Reader

> The fact that Linux is still underrepresented on the desktop just shows that we're willing to put up with it to get the shiny thing.

Alternatively, it just shows that the Linux Desktop experience is still so terrible that people put up with Windows's bullshit. I know I'm in that camp. In theory I'd love to be running an open source OS, but in practice Linux Desktop just annoys me with its completely backwards way of doing just about everything I want to do with a computer.

And before you start: no, this isn't a hold over opinion from 2008. I have used Linux Desktops on and off since 2000, have contributed to FOSS software, put together my own distro once, and was once president of a LUG. I speak from experience: The problems I have with Linux Desktop are deeply rooted and systemic and show no signs whatsoever of improving.

View on HN

I believe you, but you also have to understand this is largely a preference thing. Which is okay: It's all just whatever gets the job done in the end!

I'd say I have the opposite experience: I've had to use the Windows Desktop for extended periods before, and found it, as you put it, "completely backwards way of doing just about everything I want to do with a computer". I even went through all sorts of lengths to "fix" it with alternative WMs, launchers, etc, but as no matter how much I tinkered with it, I couldn't even get fairly "vanilla" features (eg multidesktop support) sufficiently working without constant papercuts and limitations. Of course, things may have improved since I last used it, so I'm sure Windows Desktop circa 2020 has much improved, but a few years back it seemed very broken.

Ultimately, it's just preference, and what workflows you grow used to.

Sure, if you like the way it works then that's great for you, but I think it is worth noting that despite the stated desire of many in the Linux Desktop community to see the fabled "Year of the Linux Desktop", it still languishes in a distant 3rd place. I personally think that's because it has deeply rooted systemic problems that it has refused to address in any meaningful way for the past 20 years, which is incredibly frustrating for those of us who'd like a real alternative to Windows for what we do.

True, but if the goal is to no longer languish in a distant 3rd place, then the power-user features that we find lacking on Lin/Win are a red-herring, since we constitute a tiny fraction of computer users. From my experience, I don't think Lin/Win DEs are actually so bad so as to affect mass adaption. I've introduced dozens of new students to Linux, and have had largely positive results, and also generally found the Windows -> Ubuntu switch easier than Windows -> macOS (assuming all are pre-installed)

And that last assumption is truly the hard part. There is no software meritocracy. There is no "if you build it, they will come". It's sales all the way down. Until this changes, whatever is outputted from FAANG/MS market research firms will be what's popular, end of story.

To be frank, I think this line of reasoning is something Linux Desktop evangelists tell themselves so they can feel better about their abject failure to gain any significant desktop market share.

For starters, the separation of the world into "power users" and "normal users" is, to me, a sign of flawed thinking. The goal of a personal computing system should be to allow a complete novice to onramp into a "power user" as their understanding of the system grows. Discoverability and consistency are absolutely key to this and Linux DEs have always been terrible at both (and other Desktops are getting worse too). There are many more problems I could go on about, like walled gardens like Apple's App store or Linux's package repos creating another boundary between users and creators that need not exist, for example.

Point being, separating the audience into "people who get shit, like me" and "people who just want X" is an excuse for having a bad system. Instead of admitting and attempting to address the issue, you instead get to say "well, normal users don't need that and power users should be able to deal with the bullshit".

My point is that I'm not sure even how I would "address" these issues that you are insisting Linux Desktop evangelist "stop excusing". That is, 1) I'm not getting paid to work on Linux DEs or have the time (right now) to volunteer, and 2) I don't think you could get 10 people in a room to agree how a DE should behave. Like, what would I change to what? I've consumed plenty of blog posts complaining about UI inconsistencies on Windows, macOS, or Linux, but these all still seem like preferences with no single "correct" answer as to how a GUI should be.

Even taking the one concrete example you provided in this thread, Apple's App Store is incredibly popular -- in fact in the US it has a 56% marketshare [1] -- so why would a Linux OS moving toward what you prefer would increase adaption? I really see no actual evidence of this; as in the example you give is literally the most popular way to do it. That said, I don't even think it matters either way. I've grown cynical enough by now to realize that humans are a lot more complicated, markets more monopolistic, and purchasing habits are better explained by market researchers than developers (or even HCI researchers!)

[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...

> My point is that I'm not sure even how I would "address" these issues that you are insisting Linux Desktop evangelist "stop excusing".

If any one person could do it, it'd have been Linus but he doesn't seem interested. It isn't anything a single individual can deal with because it's part of the community culture.

> Even taking the one concrete example you provided in this thread, Apple's App Store is incredibly popular -- in fact in the US it has a 56% marketshare [1] -- so why would a Linux OS moving toward what you prefer would increase adaption?

It's just one aspect of the problem. Apple's App Store has one thing going for it that Linux doesn't: there is one App Store. You get your application onto the App Store and everyone can use it. This is not true of Linux Repos. Besides which, the number you quoted is for mobile, not a desktop operating system.

Linux Desktop culture has this rhetoric of freedom and control, while simultaneously pushing an application distribution model that wants to manage everything in a very limited way. You can't install applications onto other disks, you can't have two versions of the same application (unless the maintainers have deemed it a worthy use case), and you can't keep old versions of applications around unless you want to keep your whole system back too.

That's why you focus on command line. Much more productive anyway. Only need X for browser and maybe 1 or 2 other apps.

The command line is much more productive for programmers. The entire issue with open source OS adoption is that these systems are not being designed with non-technical users in mind, and their GUIs are lackluster to say the least.

I really don't understand this attitude. It's like a woodworker talking about how much better handcrafted furniture is than the mass-produced stuff you'd buy online. Of course it's better! But does that really mean the answer is for everyone to spend years learning furniture-making? Same goes for computer systems: most people are not, don't want to be, and never will be technical users.

If we want open-source systems to beat closed-source, consent-engineered spyware from dominating people's online lives then we need to meet them where they are.

I don't even think it caters particularly well to technical users, since I am one. I think it caters mostly to C programmers who don't use GUIs and web developers. Anyone else is encouraged to change their use case to match if they want to use a Linux Desktop.

Most modern GUI IDEs are well integrated with the command line.

My opinion is that until the Linux Desktop Experience is redone from the ground up to cater to the "It Just Works" crowd, the people who don't want to search the internet for 45 minutes to get the one line of code they need to type into the terminal to get the app they want to use to work correctly before realizing that the app doesn't fit their use case and they now need to search for another one, that Linux will always remain the OS equivalent of a tank when people want to drive cars.

Sure, it will get you there, and practically nothing can stop it, but it's never going to reach the "climb in, sit down and go" ease of a sedan.

> but it's never going to reach the "climb in, sit down and go" ease of a sedan.

For someone fluent in command line usage, this is very wrong. I'm 10000x more productive in a terminal and X Browser session than on windows, and almost never need to look things up (and when I rarely do, it's on man pages, not web).

But otherwise, I don't disagree. I'm not trying to convince windows users to switch to Linux (unless they're devs, in which case they will suffer professionally if they don't).

For most regular users, I recommend Chromebooks these days.

I was taking about devs above, since we're on hn.

And good command lines, like propeller configured bash or zsh, have better discoverability than most GUIs.

But sure, I point non devs to Chromebooks, Macs, (or windows if absolutely necessary).

That assumes my use case for a PC is the same as yours, which it isn't since I need more than just a terminal and a browser.

Since we're on hn, I'm talking devs. But anyone can benefit from command line. I've taught some data science people who are very happy now.

The fact that you don't get what I'm saying at all is part of the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com