Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much?

jammag writes "The Linux desktop has seen major innovation of late, with KDE 4 launching new features, GNOME announcing a new desktop, and Ubuntu embarking on a redesign campaign. But Linux pundit Bruce Byfield asks, do average users really want any of these things? He points to instances of user backlash, and concludes 'Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them. The problem is, the days when users of free software were also its developers are long gone, but the habits of those days remain. The result is that developers function far too much in isolation from their user base.' Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing."

Comments

Re:Innovate is the wrong word

[dcherryholmes]

System->Preferences->Network Connections->Wired Tab->IPv4 Settings Tab->Dropdown Menu, choose manual, the Add box below lights up.

Re:Innovate is the wrong word

[woot account]

I think you don't understand what cowboy coding means.

Re:Innovate is the wrong word

[Homburg]

Granted, I believe this dialog is quite a recent addition to the project; I'm quite sure it wasn't there a couple of months ago.

I thought NM had had a dialog for that for a while; certainly, Ubuntu has had a GUI for changing settings such as DHCP/static IP for as long as I can remember. That the OP couldn't find the setting is, I guess, a problem, although it's not obvious to me where would be a better location than the "Network Connections" item on the "System" menu.

Re:Innovate is the wrong word

[Anonymous Coward]

Must have an out-of-date Ubuntu... even with 8.04, you right click on the network thingy (that shows wired & wireless status), choose properties and the goods are all in there. For server purposes I specify manually though, I do not want to wait until the desktop's logged into for ssh etc. to work.

Re:Innovate is the wrong word

[Zancarius]

UI and workflow design and project management aren't glamorous or interesting so they don't get done.

You don't say anything about not attracting the right people, instead your words suggest that the work that needs to be done is not actually considered important or worthwhile by the people who should be doing it. I can't see how anyone could get anything else from those words

Wampus has probably already left this thread of discussion because you seem to keen on reading into what he's writing.

Let me help.

When he said that "UI and workflow design and project management aren't glamorous or interesting" they "don't get done," he's right. It isn't about important work not being done. It's being done because it's necessary, but since developers aren't often also designers, they're not always fond of what they see as unnecessary grunt work. UI design is something that requires very special talent--and not everyone has it. Most programmers I know find a specific subset of problems interesting and while they'll try their hand at nearly everything, there are some things (like visual/UI design) that they do only when they're required to.

Here's a shorter version: Not everyone likes to do design. F/OSS tends to attract people who like to work on the backend--more interesting and challenging things, that is--than to work on the user interface. They'll do the latter, usually because no one else will, but it's not necessarily something they're going to enjoy.

Plus, when it comes to project management, I'm sure most developers have a disdain of anything "management" simply because they tend to be reminded of past or current managers they don't like... I'm sure I don't have to connect the dots for you on this one. ;)

So really, you're interpreting something into a relatively benign phrase that isn't even remotely there. It's not insulting. It's truthful.

It's like saying the Linux kernel is "crummy software" then arguing that "crummy software" is just a term meaning that it's developed using a distributed version control system. When you say someone's a cowboy coder it just sounds like you're dissing them, and that's really all there is to it.

I'm insulted by your suggestion of being insulted! I live in the southwest. Out here, being called a "cowboy" is a compliment.

I suspect you're probably from either the left or right coast. Only stuffy Urbanites would find "cowboy" derogatory. ;)

I think you might need cultural sensitivity training. Just a thought!

are you kidding?

[speedtux]

X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks. A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain.

The graphics subsystem in Windows is a frame buffer graphics library poorly retrofitted for asynchronous calls. X was designed from the start for asynchronous client/server communications and operation in a separate "window server". X got it right 20 years ago. After two decades and several rewrites, both Microsoft and Apple have finally arrived at an X-like architecture.

There are some parts of X that aren't being used much and where desktops like Gnome have their own systems (e.g., Gnome configuration data and DBUS communication). The solutions adopted by the desktops are generally still inferior to the original X mechanisms.

If anything should change, it's that people should take a good hard look at Gnome and KDE and get rid of some of their windows-inspired cruft and replace it with better X-based solutions. This may involve an overhaul of some X mechanisms (X properties and events probably aren't up to the demands of a modern desktop, but that's fixable), but the principles and approaches embodied by X are superior to the "single user desktop PC" view of Windows and its clones.