"Why Linux Is Still Not Ready For The Desktop"

[liamdawe]

Why was this even covered by Phoronix? Come on! It's obvious flame bait and advert bait from Fudzilla, and then used in the same way on Phoronix.

The guy obviously just doesn't want to re-learn anything.

[blackiwid]

Way to take a quote out of context...

hmm because it was in context you or to whomever I anwered with that, listed some ubuntu only problems and made a case of this to say that "linux is not desktopready" I just say if ubuntu is not desktop ready it does not mean linux as example gnome is not ready.

EDIT: Not to mention the success stories like the phone market or servers. Two completely different scenarios where Linux seems to fit their needs flawlessly.

to the Android thing, do you mean linux as os what most people use as shortcut for GNU/Linux or do you mean a Linux (kernel) BASED os. a Kernel alone is no Operation System.

[duby229]

It doesn't matter if you're a developer or not. If -you- don't like using a terminal, then linux wasn't made for you. Use something else and stop bitching about it.

[computerquip]

So ubuntu is a really shity distro now. I agree to that, but ubuntu is not linux.

Way to take a quote out of context...

And I very much hope that people with your mindset stay completely away from linux. -Obviously- it wasnt made for you.

Actually, I can make Linux do whatever I want. I'm a developer, it literally is made for me. It's not your place to decide who or what Linux is for. If you ask Linus if Linux is designed around the terminal, he would probably call you an idiot.

EDIT: Not to mention the success stories like the phone market or servers. Two completely different scenarios where Linux seems to fit their needs flawlessly.

[duby229]

Then why compete if you won't accept what people don't like? I'd very well like to leave your mindset in the past.

And I very much hope that people with your mindset stay completely away from linux. -Obviously- it wasnt made for you.

[blackiwid]

I understand that there are DEs other than Unity but presentation is part of the key to any product. If you're selling gold but presenting shit, people are gonna think your gold is shit. In this case, the gold really is shit in some cases...

So ubuntu is a really shity distro now. I agree to that, but ubuntu is not linux.

[computerquip]

No, you completely missed my point. It's not that Unix-like desktops are imperfect or perfect as they are. Unix-like systems are just different. You work with them differently. It's a little like the differences between working with OS X and Windows. Only Unix involves a terminal.

It's not that Windows is necessarily easy or intuitive at everything it does. Or that basic Unix command line usage is impossibly hard. It's that everyone already knows how to use Windows. As it's practically everywhere, you're constantly finding yourself using Windows quite often. So it's no surprise that the Windows interface is the norm for computing and that desktop environments try to mimic it.

Unix was developed for the terminal. All the tools were developed for terminals. It's really awesome with terminals because decades of development tailored it to terminals. This is the de facto interface for Unix-like systems. It's how it was designed to be used. The GUI is a later, tacked-on, addition (and man does it feel tacked-on). It's even a 3rd party process that you start from the terminal (startx or /etc/ttys) and even runs in a terminal (I think it's ttyv7 in FreeBSD). It can even crash and return you to the terminal...

On the other hand, a system like Windows was developed for the GUI from the very beginning. Everything in Windows was designed for the GUI from the start. Decades of development tailored it to the GUI. It's the de facto interface for Windows. It's very well integrated into the OS.

Then why compete if you won't accept what people don't like? I'd very well like to leave your mindset in the past.

[nslay]

So the entire market share that we're lacking is just a hoax? Nothing needs to change in the desktop environment, it's perfect?
One reason why we have so many distributions is the difference in out of the box experiences in the desktop. We can just as easily have one specifically for the sake of adhering to what people like in Windows and MacOSX... which just so happens to be more user friendly and something people tend to like. There's no one specific way for a Linux environment to work.

I don't think Ubuntu should be considered the ideal for this situation at all for what it's worth. Ubuntu/Unity feels like Windows 95 in stability terms compared to Windows 8.1 or MacOSX. It's also just an odd interface that not many from MacOSX or Windows can relate to or like at all. I can't stand Unity... I find it convoluted and messy. I can only imagine how someone from a clean MacOSX environment would feel.

I understand that there are DEs other than Unity but presentation is part of the key to any product. If you're selling gold but presenting shit, people are gonna think your gold is shit. In this case, the gold really is shit in some cases...

No, you completely missed my point. It's not that Unix-like desktops are imperfect or perfect as they are. Unix-like systems are just different. You work with them differently. It's a little like the differences between working with OS X and Windows. Only Unix involves a terminal.

It's not that Windows is necessarily easy or intuitive at everything it does. Or that basic Unix command line usage is impossibly hard. It's that everyone already knows how to use Windows. As it's practically everywhere, you're constantly finding yourself using Windows quite often. So it's no surprise that the Windows interface is the norm for computing and that desktop environments try to mimic it.

Unix was developed for the terminal. All the tools were developed for terminals. It's really awesome with terminals because decades of development tailored it to terminals. This is the de facto interface for Unix-like systems. It's how it was designed to be used. The GUI is a later, tacked-on, addition (and man does it feel tacked-on). It's even a 3rd party process that you start from the terminal (startx or /etc/ttys) and even runs in a terminal (I think it's ttyv7 in FreeBSD). It can even crash and return you to the terminal...

On the other hand, a system like Windows was developed for the GUI from the very beginning. Everything in Windows was designed for the GUI from the start. Decades of development tailored it to the GUI. It's the de facto interface for Windows. It's very well integrated into the OS.

[computerquip]

Right, this is why I said that the Unix desktop is mostly used to draw a web browser and a terminal. This is how a lot of experienced Unix users use a GUI-based Unix-like desktop.

And why is that? For a lot of system administration and miscellaneous things, the command line just beats everything else. GUI tools are secondary. CLI tools are king (especially on a system designed for terminals!).

I said it already, I'll say it again:
Linux is one of the easiest Unix-like systems to use.
Linux is one of the worst/hardest Windows-like systems to use.

And why do you suppose? Because it's a completely different concept to Windows! It's like skiis vs bicycles. They work differently!

So the entire market share that we're lacking is just a hoax? Nothing needs to change in the desktop environment, it's perfect?
One reason why we have so many distributions is the difference in out of the box experiences in the desktop. We can just as easily have one specifically for the sake of adhering to what people like in Windows and MacOSX... which just so happens to be more user friendly and something people tend to like. There's no one specific way for a Linux environment to work.

I don't think Ubuntu should be considered the ideal for this situation at all for what it's worth. Ubuntu/Unity feels like Windows 95 in stability terms compared to Windows 8.1 or MacOSX. It's also just an odd interface that not many from MacOSX or Windows can relate to or like at all. I can't stand Unity... I find it convoluted and messy. I can only imagine how someone from a clean MacOSX environment would feel.

I understand that there are DEs other than Unity but presentation is part of the key to any product. If you're selling gold but presenting shit, people are gonna think your gold is shit. In this case, the gold really is shit in some cases...

[blackiwid]

Right, this is why I said that the Unix desktop is mostly used to draw a web browser and a terminal. This is how a lot of experienced Unix users use a GUI-based Unix-like desktop.

And why is that? For a lot of system administration and miscellaneous things, the command line just beats everything else. GUI tools are secondary. CLI tools are king (especially on a system designed for terminals!).

I said it already, I'll say it again:
Linux is one of the easiest Unix-like systems to use.
Linux is one of the worst/hardest Windows-like systems to use.

And why do you suppose? Because it's a completely different concept to Windows! It's like skiis vs bicycles. They work differently!

my operation systems name is emacs

so I dont now what you are talking about for some tasks emacs has also terminals but if possible I have function for everything on my emacs command searchfield, just wrote a few kodi control commands for emacs (over the json interface)

the emacs operation system allows to not use terminals for nearly every task maybe even the new emacs browser (eww) gives a good alternatives with good page modes and something like tapatalk build in.

the funny part I am not really are thrilled about wayland because for tiling wms and emacs operation system it brings not really much except maybe faster boot time what does not matter much.