Slashdot Mirror
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."
When you say "Linux" I think Linux kernel.
But that's why he didn't say "Linux". He said, "Linux Desktop", which I take to mean the entire software ecosystem based on Linux on a user's desktop. It's an appropriately apt description.
It's not a misleading title, if you accept the premise that "over-innovation" is what is causing the disjoint between developers and users. I think it's just more likely that developers don't really understand the users, and for all the merits of free software, there are some things that centrally-managed, proprietary software does better, because the non-programmer professions involved in product development expect to be paid for their services, and most open source projects do not have a workable way to monetize the overall project to cover those costs.
all the average user wants is to chat via live messenger, check their hotmail account, look at facebook, and check how badly their ebay listings are doing... they generally couldnt give any less of a toss about everything else that is going on
portfolio
Most people -- except tech geeks -- do not want to learn a new way of doing things once they learn a particular way that suits their needs.
Moreover, learning takes time and money. If your company has 100,000 employees, then training them to use a new desktop can cost millions of dollars.
If GNOME developers want Linux to take a significant share of the consumer market, then they must ensure continuity with the past. Before they embark on the next super-duper upgrade of the desktop, they should spend some time in asking their grandmothers what they want in the next super-duper GNOME desktop. Grandma's advice could help a lot.
It's not necessarily a misunderstanding. I, and most of my friends and colleagues, use "Linux" as shorthand for "Linux-based operating system". We are fully well aware what the Linux kernel is, and what the operating systems consist of. However that usage is both concise (no, I will bloody well not say "GNU/Linux" every time, andy more so than "Linux-based operating system") and understood to a sufficient extent by non-techies as well as IT people. By all means try and earn nerd-cred by complaining about it if you want, but I view that behaviour as pretty much on the same level as the grammar-nazis here on slashdot - they may be technically correct, but they are annoying and unproductive, and we could get by with a lot fewer of them.
Oh no... it's the future.
In English when a misunderstanding like that becomes "general" or "prevalent" it stops being a misunderstanding and starts being correct. Kleenex and Xerox are the most obvious examples.
Last I checked, Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks.
Perhaps the community should be asking whether it's more important that we add a fun new Swirl effect to switch to another desktop or if people would rather have a sane and complete GL API. Do we need the entire desktop to be rethought or should we simply settle for having a sane and unified sound solution?
I would have to agree in saying that the desktop linux community is getting way too ahead of itself if they think they're innovating themselves away from the mainstream. Read the NYTimes article on Ubuntu Linux and tell me whether or not they even mention innovation- They viewed it as a free but lower quality alternative to commercial systems that was very attractive but failed during basic maintenance tasks.
Why create an Earth-shattering new desktop-web interaction paradigm when users would probably rather have sane and cohesive documentation?
Here are some no-brainers, if you want to see linux improve:
* Now that OSS 4.1 is open source, drop ALSA. It is a proven failure. PulseAudio obfuscated the problem to the point of ruining audio in linux, specifically when low latency is required.
* Support forward-thinking projects like Wayland instead of putting another car on the fail-train that is X. 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.
* Write documentation sometimes. Format it well an ship it with your projects!
Or, if you're really clever:
* Realize that open source != linux. Look at desktop-oriented free software sytstems like Haiku and imagine a world where Linux can be built into an excellent server (or mediocre workstation) and desktop users can have a system purpose built for their priorites! There is no rule that says that linux needs to be the only free system. With the magic of things like POSIX, we can write software that runs on either!
The strength of open source should be versatility, not futility.
Dream big.
Don't feel ashamed.
It's been said time and time again, but it bears repeating - developers don't understand how important a GUI is to the end user. All those little things you mentioned were an annoyance to implement, and yet had a cumulative effect that even you could appreciate. The problem is that you had someone to kick your ass and tell you what was necessary to implement for the GUI, and since it was your job and you were being paid to do this, you obviously had to implement the additions. Developers for OSS unfortunately do not have such motivation and do not have an external force to push them into improving the GUI in such subtle ways, and this is why OSS tends to (but not always) have a far less slick interface than their closed-source counterparts.
The iPhone has a slick interface. This is noted by virtually anyone who uses it, but this interface wasn't an accident of design.