"Why Linux Is Still Not Ready For The Desktop"

[Luke]

Lightworks uses pay codecs for H264

@Luke

I don't get what codecs you need to transcode. If you use H.264/AAC (mp4 container) you can use html5 video tag for IE, Chrome and Firefox since they added H.264 on Windows (on Linux it is done via gstreamer/libav/ffmpeg). Any Linux media player is linked against ffmpeg or libav - on Windows you can get similar tools like VLC, Kodi or transparent as ffdshow (tryout) that use the same libs. If you upload to YouTube the codec you used does not really matter.

In Kdenlive we use free codecs for both free algorithm and patented codecs alike, as the software itself is not monetized. Lightworks is sold for profit in paid versions, so the use of paid H264 codecs both served to force people to either use the paid version or switch and to protect Lightworks from an MPEG-LA lawsuit seeking a piece of that monetized pie. Kdenlive does not need to distribute codecs at all and is thus out of reach of MPEG-LA. FFMPEG is hosted in places where software patents are illegal, again out of MPEG-LA's reach,

I do not use nor recommend Youtube, in fact I won't even connect to them except via Tor. Google scans all content for backing music and sells extra ads on videos that get a match. The concept of fair use is totally thrown out the window. Perhaps it has to be, as they are a for-profit business, and fair use does not mix well with profitmaking. They go out of their way to track every website your viewers ever surf to and are suspected of fingerprinting browsers. Also, they will remake your video file and the transcode will hurt the quality. If you are bandwidth limited and cannot upload at many times the bitrate of the final file, this can really hurt the final result. Same for a transcode from any lossy codec to any other lossy codec if both versions have much compression. Lossy compression to a tight bitrate must be done once only.

I have come to prefer archive.org for video hosting, as they return your original uploaded file as well as offering a more heavily compressed .ogg version, and do not throw ads of any kind at your users. So long as you do not depend on the hosting service to provide the audience nor seek to monetize your videos, it's really hard to do better. Best of all, their stated mission of trying to archive the entire Internet means they would have to download and store a copy anyway, so they are happy to take it directly.

[Kano]

ffmpeg/libav has full encoding support in Debian, ffmpeg can even create H.265. There is not even a real need to use a MM repository. For HTML 5 you basically needed 2 variants to play with all browsers as IE only supports H.264 and informer Firefox/old Opera did not. If Lightworks lets you pay for H.264 this is pure marketing and has nothing to do with anything else. Btw. ffmpeg is mirrored on lots oft country specific servers and you can get it from github as well. Maybe you live in a parallel world...

[DDF420]

Gimp is ok but when it comes to doing work with layering i found it inferior to not only photoshop but also Pixlr

Id also like to mention a pet hate of mine that has caught out many a friend trying Ubuntu

Throw a usb in windows and adding or deleting files is very simple

Now try deleting files on a usb using Ubuntu or i presume anything using nautilus

Right click file and you are presented with a move to/copy to/or move to trash option.

User gets confused why there is no delete and hits send to trash

Folder now looks empty to the user so attempts to add another file

User is confronted with a error message telling them the usb doesn't have enough space for that file despite looking empty

User checks usb properties and it still shows a full disk but nautilus shows an empty folder

User may or may not discover how to show hidden folders discovering the .trash-1000 folder

If they do the pain continues. User .trash-1000/files/right click file and again no delete option only a move to trash but moving to trash just dumps the file right back where you are trying to delete it from.

User decides to try and delete entire .trash-1000 folder again with no delete option they try sending it to trash, to which they finally get to delete, after receiving yet another error telling them you cant send trash to trash do you wish to delete.

Finally the USB is empty and you can add your files

It is hard to imagine why such idiocy is implemented and then called a feature.

[nslay]

Linux is one of the easiest Unix-like systems to use!
But it's one of the worst/hardest Windows-like systems to use though ... That's too bad if you use computers with a Windows mindset.

This guy and his learning curve claims. Doesn't he know that any Unix-like user can drive Linux without learning much of anything? Jeez...

[nslay]

Gimp is ok but when it comes to doing work with layering i found it inferior to not only photoshop but also Pixlr

Id also like to mention a pet hate of mine that has caught out many a friend trying Ubuntu

Throw a usb in windows and adding or deleting files is very simple

Now try deleting files on a usb using Ubuntu or i presume anything using nautilus

Right click file and you are presented with a move to/copy to/or move to trash option.

User gets confused why there is no delete and hits send to trash

Folder now looks empty to the user so attempts to add another file

User is confronted with a error message telling them the usb doesn't have enough space for that file despite looking empty

User checks usb properties and it still shows a full disk but nautilus shows an empty folder

User may or may not discover how to show hidden folders discovering the .trash-1000 folder

If they do the pain continues. User .trash-1000/files/right click file and again no delete option only a move to trash but moving to trash just dumps the file right back where you are trying to delete it from.

User decides to try and delete entire .trash-1000 folder again with no delete option they try sending it to trash, to which they finally get to delete, after receiving yet another error telling them you cant send trash to trash do you wish to delete.

Finally the USB is empty and you can add your files

It is hard to imagine why such idiocy is implemented and then called a feature.

Well, if you were using Linux like the Unix-like system it is, you wouldn't be using a file browser for much more than visualizing thumbnails.

Really, nothing beats the command line on Linux. No matter how much eye candy and UI those desktop environment developers add, you're going to need the terminal. And that's how Unix-like systems were meant and designed to be used.

I'm not trying to defend it. It's just a different OS, a different a concept, a different world and perspective altogether. To approach Linux with a Windows perspective is just the wrong way to look at it.

The problem is that a bunch of morons are trying to make Linux Windows-like to inexplicably attract Windows users to use Linux. And in doing so, they implement such idiocy as you described. Because, well, Linux is not Windows. It's not Windows-like, and it will never be anything like Windows (well, unless they make changes like tossing X for example). Well, at least this is my hypothesis. They're certainly not attracting users like me. We already know how to properly use a Unix system and all the flaws in desktop environments vanish because we're using the terminal anyway.

But really, learn that Unix-like command line and you'll feel very comfy. You can do practically anything. And some things are even easier (if you remember or know how). The Unix desktop is little more than a window to draw your web browser and terminal. The rest is a sham to attract Windows newbies.

[computerquip]

Well, if you were using Linux like the Unix-like system it is, you wouldn't be using a file browser for much more than visualizing thumbnails.

Really, nothing beats the command line on Linux. No matter how much eye candy and UI those desktop environment developers add, you're going to need the terminal. And that's how Unix-like systems were meant and designed to be used.

I'm not trying to defend it. It's just a different OS, a different a concept, a different world and perspective altogether. To approach Linux with a Windows perspective is just the wrong way to look at it.

The problem is that a bunch of morons are trying to make Linux Windows-like to inexplicably attract Windows users to use Linux. And in doing so, they implement such idiocy as you described. Because, well, Linux is not Windows. It's not Windows-like, and it will never be anything like Windows (well, unless they make changes like tossing X for example). Well, at least this is my hypothesis. They're certainly not attracting users like me. We already know how to properly use a Unix system and all the flaws in desktop environments vanish because we're using the terminal anyway.

But really, learn that Unix-like command line and you'll feel very comfy. You can do practically anything. And some things are even easier (if you remember or know how). The Unix desktop is little more than a window to draw your web browser and terminal. The rest is a sham to attract Windows newbies.

Except the command line isn't user friendly at all. It requires a manual sit next to you as you type in commands or for you to fetch help from the command itself. It requires you struggle with human error. None of this is ideal compared to a GUI or even CLI that can accomplish 100% of what the command line can do.

The flaws don't vanish. I still require a bash manual after over a decade of using it. I admit it has times when it's powerful and things like piping and redirecting are especially so but these are very minor cases for power users. Accepting a user unfriendly environment that's harsh towards anyone who isn't already familiar with the territory is a mindset that will prove time and time again that Linux isn't the OS for the desktop.

That said, a lot of core applications already have a GUI to replace the CLI interface, such as NetworkManager, UIs for power management, sound, monitor resolution, etc. provided by most DEs. The terminal is not, and will never be, the most convenient solution for the user, even if it is the most convenient for the developer.

[nslay]

Except the command line isn't user friendly at all. It requires a manual sit next to you as you type in commands or for you to fetch help from the command itself. It requires you struggle with human error. None of this is ideal compared to a GUI or even CLI that can accomplish 100% of what the command line can do.

I think you're exaggerating. A lot of the most common operations become second nature once you learn the basics. But you do need the man pages for less common operations.

The flaws don't vanish. I still require a bash manual after over a decade of using it. I admit it has times when it's powerful and things like piping and redirecting are especially so but these are very minor cases for power users. Accepting a user unfriendly environment that's harsh towards anyone who isn't already familiar with the territory is a mindset that will prove time and time again that Linux isn't the OS for the desktop.

The flaws in desktop environments do vanish with the terminal because Linux and its arsenal of small tools are so very good at the command line. So much so that you don't even need the desktop or GUI to do most things on Linux.

I disagree. I don't think the environment is harsh at all. In fact, I find it liberating when I can't (or don't know how to) easily do something on Windows (like, say, using find(1) to delete all files in deep a file tree with specific extensions, or replacing text in thousands of files all at once).

But Linux is certainly not the system to use if you're expecting Windows. It's really a different world no matter how hard desktop environments try to hide it.

By the way, I have trouble believing you've used Linux for over a decade if you struggle with the basics of the command line.

That said, a lot of core applications already have a GUI to replace the CLI interface, such as NetworkManager, UIs for power management, sound, monitor resolution, etc. provided by most DEs. The terminal is not, and will never be, the most convenient solution for the user even if it is the most convenient for the developer.

I often find the terminal more convenient and useful than the GUI on Unix-like systems because it always works consistently and reliably when I want to get something done. GUI tools for system administration are always secondary. And that's because the primary UI for Unix-like systems is the terminal.

I will just add a few more opinions/observations of mine:

• Windows is so widely used that its what everyone has to come to expect from computer user interfaces.
• The knowledge to use Windows is taken for granted. I think basic knowledge to use Unix-like systems is comparable.
• Where Unix-like systems offer man pages for more complicated operations, Windows sometimes involves undocumented workarounds involving unusual system executables and the registry to accomplish similar.

[DDF420]

Well, if you were using Linux like the Unix-like system it is, you wouldn't be using a file browser for much more than visualizing thumbnails.

Really, nothing beats the command line on Linux. No matter how much eye candy and UI those desktop environment developers add, you're going to need the terminal. And that's how Unix-like systems were meant and designed to be used.

I'm not trying to defend it. It's just a different OS, a different a concept, a different world and perspective altogether. To approach Linux with a Windows perspective is just the wrong way to look at it.

The problem is that a bunch of morons are trying to make Linux Windows-like to inexplicably attract Windows users to use Linux. And in doing so, they implement such idiocy as you described. Because, well, Linux is not Windows. It's not Windows-like, and it will never be anything like Windows (well, unless they make changes like tossing X for example). Well, at least this is my hypothesis. They're certainly not attracting users like me. We already know how to properly use a Unix system and all the flaws in desktop environments vanish because we're using the terminal anyway.

But really, learn that Unix-like command line and you'll feel very comfy. You can do practically anything. And some things are even easier (if you remember or know how). The Unix desktop is little more than a window to draw your web browser and terminal. The rest is a sham to attract Windows newbies.

You can fix it in the GUI as well going into Nautilus -> Preferences and ticking a box.

My point is the default setting IMO is ridicules and one of the reasons why i believe isn't ready for the desktop for the masses .

You may wish to keep GNU/Linux to those using the command line for everything id like to see it as an option for anyone coming from windows or simply someone using a computer for the first time without a huge learning curve.

[89c51]

I'm amazed about that answer.

When we started using Linux in our house hold I just installed Kubuntu on all the PCs.
The only remarks I got was: "The new computers looks a little strange...Shall I use Firefox???"

And we haven't looked back since

Since you mention Firefox here goes:

WebGL doesn't work with some drivers. HW accelerated video is a hit or miss and crashes the browser (vimeo usually). Of course those are not problems in FF but i think you get the point.

[Adarion]

Linux desktop experience improving greatly with GNOME

Yeah. Sure. Everybody loves Gnome 3. I wanted to stop reading there. But maybe by now you can configure what happens when you close the lid of a laptop? Can you? Or are users still forced into a pre-set default?

Anyway. This persons complains about several things. Well, while it IS okay to complain here and there and suggest improvements I think most of the points are not really valid.

1. The lack of ease to obtain and install proprietary drivers.
Not the fault of Linux.
Best would be to be able live totally without them. Then you would not even remotely have to mess around with all that blob stuff. Stuff that ist not trustworthy, sometimes of questionable quality, huge, requires specific versions of kernel or X or other libraries.

2. So what exactly is the problem of LibreOffice vs. MSO? That LibO doesn't force you into clouds? That it does not use proprietary formats? Semi-documented formats but doesn't keep to specs? That it doesn't use proprietary "C-fonts"? That it does not cost you a fortune of money for a license? Huh?

3. Gimp vs. Adobe PS
The same here. I heard from enough people that Adobe's SW isn't all that great anyway. Besides: Does Adobe sell anything for Linux? I doubt it. Adobe is also responsible for many years now for the most ridiculous software: Flash. So would the person please spend some money into GIMP development instead?

4. He has a notebook that "needs 20 minutes to download a webpage" WTF? WTF is that guy? WTF?! Even on my old geode LX 800 I never ran into such a problem.

5. "Coming from Windows 7, where a user with no learning curve can install and start work it is impossible."
Windows 7? Learning curve? Especially NO learning curve? I can't follow. Even coming from XP there are enough differences, and starters always always always have a learning curve. If you do not know what files and directories are (at least roughly) you are lost on a computer. You have to obtain some basics.
And yes, one gets installed all sorts of nonsense. Especially pre-installed mess. (And that is not only Lenovo)

6. "This means that I can't share documents in any meaningful way with Windows users, because all my formatting is screwed."

I want to hit this guy. Hard. But maybe he actually IS that stupid and just doesn't know?
FUDzilla is a good name, indeed, for this shit.

7. How much money did this person receive by whom for the writings?