Why The Linux Desktop Still Rocks | Hacker News Reader

Why The Linux Desktop Still Rocks

lxer.com

57 pointsGarbage40 comments

Honestly, I was expecting a "next year is the year..." post.

But this is a point that I can definitely relate to, especially as someone who regularly flies to africa with some Ubuntu CDs in my backpack. A completely free stack (both as beer and as speech) has a tremendous advantage in countries where owning hardware is already a big feat. The ability to tinker with everything that comes with the system is a also a huge advantage for people inclined to learn by doing, which seems to me one of the best ways to learn in the so-called "development countries".

Yes, I've been using Ubuntu exclusively on the desktop for about 6 years now. I recently bought a new laptop (from LinuxCertified.com) and tried out 11.10 (Unity) for the first time. At first I liked it pretty well, but a few days later realized that I really missed the GNOME task bar, where I could see everything running at a glance, and click to open an active window, and click again to minimize it.

That feels indispensable to my work flow, so I'm logging in with GNOME Classic now instead of Unity. Although I commend Mark Shuttleworth and his crew on their achievements with Unity, I just gotta have that task bar. Right now the laptop feels like a dream machine -- the keyboard is perfect and I'm a master with the touchpad.

Also, the desktop behaves so beautifully that it makes my wife slightly jealous, so when her Windows computer gives up the ghost I think she's gonna want the Linux desktop.

Talking about wives... My wife has been using Ubuntu for some years already. For a while she went back to Windows, until she found the countless problems with Windows bugs, spyware, adware, etc. again. That was the last time she used Windows on her computer.

Maybe the year of the Linux Desktop already happened some time ago.

Regarding perennial Year-of-the-Linux-Desktop talk, I think it's as Gibson says: "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." I got my wife a Dell Mini 9 a few years ago running Ubuntu 8.04.1 LTS. Her response was "This is almost Mac-like". After the initial updates, all the hardware worked correctly, including sleep-on-close. She then declared that she didn't want Windows anything in the future. We've not had a Windows machine since. People act as if Linux will be "on the desktop" all at once. I think instead it's been a matter of various persons' comfort levels being met as the Linux desktop experience gets continually refined. For my wife, 8.04.1 hit the mark. For others, more recent revisions fit their needs.

There is a GNOME Shell extension at extensions.gnome.org that gives a list of running windows to the top panel. Slightly tweaked version that looks cleaner:

https://github.com/cannonerd/gnome-shell-windowlist

Makes sense to me.

Just as Android is spreading like wildfire in the developing world via lower-end handsets, I would expect zero-cost free-software desktop stacks to gain share in 'less-developed' countries as hardware prices continue to drop. (The Free desktop stack is already economically viable in the new range of sub-$25 PCs; proprietary stacks are not.)

My impression (based purely on anecdotal evidence) is that use of Free software on the desktop has been growing at a fast pace in the poorest regions of the world for some time, but the trend is still somewhat 'invisible' as the aggregate numbers are still quite small.

Poor countries have very little (if any) piracy control. Cost of Windows XP or Win7 even in Eastern Europe is usually exactly the same as Ubuntu.

eigenvector, apetrovic -- that used to be a more important factor some years ago, when the Free desktop was unusable for regular folk, and pirating software was much easier.

I'm not sure it's an important factor anymore, because the Free desktop has become more usable, and using pirated software has become much more difficult.

Nowadays, users who pirate proprietary operating systems end up with unpatched, insecure systems that can't be easily updated, and which require all sorts of workarounds for installing non-pirated applications, among other problems. Meanwhile, proprietary software vendors have been hard at work to make life unpleasant for anyone who attempts to use their code without permission.

You can't install pirated iOS on a low-cost handset. If the same were true of Windows you'd be right, but for many users GNU/Linux and Windows have the same price: $0 or the cost of the installation media.

> I later got Real Player to work which allowed me to play some mp3s. That was one of my best days ever,

I only don't think I've ever seen "Real Player" and "one of my best days ever" that close to each other.

Seriously, do people actually still use Real Player? Doesn't Ubuntu have better solutions for playing MP3s than that?

Tons - but the context is that it was "during my second year at the National University." Back when I got Real Player to run on my SparcStation in (maybe 1998?) I remember thinking it was pretty cool too.

I did not hear of Linux until a year and half later and the worst part, I was misinformed about it. They said, "It is expensive and you cant get applications for Linux very easily"

I really wonder how was that possible: Linux expensive? Who could say such a thing in a university??

>Who could say such a thing in a university? I've heard way dumber things come out of college students mouths.

where are you people getting all of these viruses from? I use probably 75% Linux, 25% windows and I can honestly say I've never gotten a virus on windows 7 OR Ubuntu.

Dunno. I got one yesterday that I could not remove after trying all sorts of anti-malware and googling to find the actual problem. While running Windows Update get the latest security updates, one or more of the updates failed and left my install in an unbootable state. I had to format & reinstall the whole thing, even after diddling with the "recovery" options on the Windows install disc. It sucked and I was disappointed at the state of the art for Windows (I use Mac, but boot into Windows to work). I suspect the IV was the Java plugin.

If I could only find a laptop vendor that could replicate the build quality of my MBP, I'd be in.

Which MBP do you have? The original MBP's have high failure rates. Pretty much any "business-class" laptop would have been more reliable.

The unibody MBP's are much better, though.

Reviews are indicating that the ASUS Zenbook has a similar build quality and a MBA design aesthetic.

Of course, there are also specialty laptops like the Panasonic Toughbook that are designed to withstand abuse.

They may be better now, but I used to run into toughbooks all the time in the Army. Basically they were just designed as a way to scam the government out of 5k per machine. They broke more often than anything else we had, including gateways.

I've owned an asus republic of gamers laptop and an eee slate. Both of them are very well built.

Old school Toughbooks were tanks. I had both a CF47 and CF61 way back when and they were indestructable. Of course, those were old P1 era machines. I know I've seen some Toughbooks that didn't really look any more rugged than regular consumer stuff, so maybe that's what you were dealing with?

EDIT:

I will add that I did do some repairs on newish Toughbooks owned by the Army maybe 3-4 years ago. The big plus with them is that they were repairable; all the ports were on separate daughterboards so they could be easily replaced when broken, whereas they're soldered directly to the main board in more typical laptops.

This might be of some help: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MactelSupportTeam/CommunityHelpPages (I know it's not really what you asked, but still).

  ome may say that the Linux Desktop is dead

No, the desktop user-interface paradigm is dead. Overlapping windows, scrollbars, context menus, using a mouse and cursor... it's all dead. This style of computing that Xerox invented, and Mac and Windows perpetuated is getting awfully long in the tooth.

Linux never innovated over and above the desktop model that Windows and Mac used, and it will die along with them, and be replaced with mobile/cloud/touchscreen systems.

I am not sure if this is the part of the computer that's dying. I'd bet on the file and application management versus the kind of curated experience Apple popularized.

Why do you think Microsoft is going ahead with "Metro" touch interfaces in Windows 8? How applications are installed and files are managed is a different issue, it's irrelevant to how the user interface operates.

Why do you think Microsoft is going ahead with "Metro" touch interfaces in Windows 8?

Because a new form factor has emerged. It hasn't killed the old one, though- very few people that use computers (i.e. in an office, sat at a desk) could perform their job on a tablet.

Metro sits on top of the existing UI without replacing it, in the same way that tablets complement existing computing setups, not replace them. I don't doubt that tablet usage will increase and that PC usage may decline, but tablets still fill a specific role.

It's not surprising that most people (even programmers, and the technically inclined) can't even comprehend how the desktop model will be replaced by natural user interfaces. That's precisely why paradigm shifts catch people and entire industries off guard.

I guarantee in 10 years you won't be using a mouse, you won't be resizing windowed applications, and moving scrollbars up and down, none of this will be necessary. I'm not just talking about iPad replacing your Windows PC. I'm talking about a mouse not even being necessary to perform your tasks. Why use a mouse to click a button, when you can just touch it with your finger, or why click through 20 context menus to activate an option when you can just speak to your computer and say "turn music on".

The operating system and form factor of the device is irrelevant. Natural user interfaces (touch, sound, speech, vision, gestures) are going to blow the desktop model into the dark ages. And it's going to happen way, way faster than most people expect.

why click through 20 context menus to activate an option when you can just speak to your computer and say "turn music on".

Imagine, for a second, an entire office of people using voice-activated commands. It simply would not work.

Why use a mouse to click a button, when you can just touch it with your finger

Because that would involve raising my arm and would actually be far more work (and less comfortable) than just using a mouse. OK, we think- let's put the screen where the keyboard is. Now I'm staring downwards for the entire day. And where does my keyboard go? I'm sure as hell not going to dictate this document.

I'm not saying that things won't change, but "natural interface" means precisely nothing.

  "natural interface" means precisely nothing.

Like I said, it means using touch, speech, and gestures instead of using these arcane mice and cursor metaphors. The computer mouse only exists because they needed a way to activate the UI controls like scrollbars and cascading menus. Once you eliminate the desktop UI controls, most uses of the mouse aren't necessary. Instead of a mouse, you use your voice, and a tablet/touchscreen device beside your keyboard. Keyboards will probably stay around for a long time. But what I'm specifically saying is the traditional desktop we've been using for the past 25 years is most certainly going to go away.

I don't see why one thing has to die for other things to appear. There is room for a huge variety of devices with different input methods.

I know people who have touch screen monitors which are useful for some things but the majority of the time people still use the mouse. The same with the apple touchpad thing.

I'd like to be able to use gestures and speech commands etc with my computer but I'm not throwing my keyboard in the trash until there is something that let's me input data just as fast, quietly and ergonomically.

I don't want to browse NSFW material at 2AM while my other half is in bed using voice commands :)

But you still aren't outlining why any of this would be better. Like I said- an office full of people using voice commands on their computer would be a total, utter nightmare. How is it better than using a keyboard and mouse?

A voice command computer would allow me to walk into my kitchen and say "make me a coffee", whereas the ancient desktop model of computing would require me to log into my Windows desktop and scroll and click through menus to connect and schedule time with my coffee maker.

There is an order of magnitude difference in usability between these paradigms, and it doesn't matter how good the Ubuntu Unity Linux desktop is, it won't make tasks like this any bit easier.

In every office I have worked in, people are already talking on their phones, I don't see how talking to your computer is any different.

When was the last time you made a coffee with your computer? You're talking about scenarios that are entirely unrelated to how computers are used 99% of the time.

In every office I have worked in, people are already talking on their phones, I don't see how talking to your computer is any different.

Orders of magnitude different. Is every single person in your office talking all the time, at once?

There is no such thing as a "natural user interface". What is natural is learning by reapplying already learned concepts.

Stay off the weeds for awhile.

No such thing? Really? So you're saying "touch, sound, speech, vision, gestures" for using computers does not exist?

You have inadvertently proved my point, few people today can comprehend how computers will be used tomorrow. And it is this exact reason that Linux is going to be light year behind the rest of the world when it comes to user interface design. The people making open source duplications of windows aren't the ones innovating for the future.

Anyone who thinks Linux desktop is going to take over the world needs to stay off the weed.

I don't know how you took that away from my simple sentence. You're like my wife that always reads "between the lines".

You're also either building a strawman or you're losing yourself in your own arguments to somehow reach your original point - interaction with a desktop computer, featuring a keyboard and mouse, also relies on "touch, sound, speech, vision and gestures" (again, stay off the weeds).

First of all, let me quote Wikipedia:

     A common misunderstanding of the "Natural User 
     Interface" is that it is somehow mimicry of nature 
     or that some inputs to a computer are somehow
     more 'natural' than others.

In truth things that feel "natural" to us are things that are familiar to us, just because we interacted with similar things before. If moving a box from one screen corner to another with our finger feels natural, that's only because we've been using our hands to move objects since forever. However, that doesn't mean a keyboard is not natural. Quite the contrary, because of repeated usage I can now type at 100 WPM, which is a speed that can't be matched with a touch-screen or speech recognition. I never think about the keyboard in front of me, but the on-screen keyboard on a tablet is definitely not "natural".

Touch-screens are not natural when you want to write text (a trait essential to humanity as a whole btw). Touch-screens are also not natural when you have complex interfaces with functions organized in a tree-structure. For example you can use a simple word-processor or a simple photo retouching app with a touch-screen, however, try imagining how Adobe Photoshop would "feel" on those tablets.

Bill Buxton, of Microsoft Research [2], says in his own essay "Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved":

     Everything is best for something and 
     worst for something else

Also, see this essay published by Don Norman in the ACM CHI magazine: "Natural User Interfaces Are Not Natural", which explains with detail how interactions based on touch aren't a panacea [1]

[1] http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/natural_user_interfaces_are_not_na...

[2] http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

No such thing? Really? So you're saying "touch, sound, speech, vision, gestures" for using computers does not exist?

No, what he and I are saying is that you're drawing an entirely artificial line in the sand about what is and isn't "natural". Desktop interfaces today use "touch" in the sense that you touch a keyboard and mouse. They use sound. Obviously they use vision.

Why is pressing on the screen with my finger more "natural" than using a mouse? What does "natural" even mean and why is it better than "non-natural"?

few people today can comprehend how computers will be used tomorrow

For a second there I imagined I was in the 1960s, talking to someone who is convinced that everyone will be driving a flying car by 1990. Predicting with absolute certainly how anything is going to look in the future usually doesn't pan out.

  Desktop interfaces today use "touch" in the sense that
  you touch a keyboard and mouse

Touchscreen interfaces, speech recognition and dictation, and computer vision are NOT part of the desktop GUI paradigm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elements_of_graphical_user_inte...

  someone who is convinced that everyone will be driving a
  flying car by 1990. Predicting with absolute certainly 
  how anything is going to look in the future

It is not just me that is convinced that next-generation interfaces will replace conventional desktops. Steve Jobs did too.

I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to the iPad's success. Much like Windows Mobile, the gloss is only skin deep. A desktop is a couple clicks away and is probably what most people will use in the end.

Linux will be replaced by Android?

I said Desktop will be replaced by Mobile.

I'm not sure that makes sense, how do you define mobile? Something that can run off batteries? Then maybe but that's already happening to an extent with laptops but I have noticed allot of laptops around now that have large enough screens and keyboards that they are basically desktops.

So there is still clearly a demand for computers with allot of screen real estate and a full size keyboard, perhaps allot of processing work can be offloaded to the "cloud" so processing power becomes less important than battery life.

I don't really see the future as an office full of people sitting down hunched over their 9" tablets poking away at the screen (or making hand gestures all day, or talking to the computer for 8 hours straight).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com