Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How Would You Fix the Linux Desktop?
itwbennett writes "Slashdot readers are familiar with the Torvalds/de Icaza slugfest over 'the lack of development in Linux desktop initiatives.' The problem with the Linux desktop boils down to this: We need more applications, and that means making it easier for developers to build them, says Brian Proffitt. 'It's easy to point at solutions like the Linux Standard Base, but that dog won't hunt, possibly because it's not in the commercial vendors' interests to create true cross-distro compatibility. United Linux or a similar consortium probably won't work, for the same reasons,' says Proffitt. So, we put it to the Slashdot community: How would you fix the Linux desktop?"
I've been using Linux on my desktop for 13 years now. It works just fine for me.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I don't see why anyone would want it. I would rather lag behind with open source application support and have security knowing that my apps are not working against me. I want to know that my softwares motives are my motives. So much commercial software now is about artificial limits and openly working against the owner of the PC. Either to sell functionality piecemill or because they are under the thumb of some watchdog like the RIAA or MPAA. I'm not a programmer, but I would hazard a guess that 50% of the coding done in todays software is to LIMIT you in some way, not to enable you to do all you can do even/and especially if it wasn't planned for by the author of the software.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
The one thing Linux does not need is more applications - how many DVD rippers or MP3 players does one desktop O/S need (BTW, the answer is: just 1. But it needs to work intuitively, simply and flawlessly - not attributes Linux apps are known for).
What Linux needs is professionally designed and written apps. Ones that preserve a "look", a common and familiar set of controls and deep, deep integration. It would also be nice if there was documentation, starting with an idiot's guide and going all the way up to "this is how to modify the automated test suite" (and to actually HAVE an automated test, and acceptance suite).
However, we'll never get to that level while the distributions are reliant on hobbyists writing code because they like to, then tossing it over "the wall" and calling it a Linux application. That's what distinguishes Linux and the apps it comes distributed with from commercial operating systems and the apps people are willing (and, admitttedly, have to) pay for. The old excuse of: hey, don't complain, it's free! is no help whatsoever when the time-cost of getting some downloaded junk to work is far higher than the price of a piece of commercial quality software.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Fix the damn audio and stop shoving a new sound daemon/system down our throat every year.
The problem here is the assumption that something is broken.
Generally, the Linux desktop is fine. There is a choice of UIs, sure - and recent developments in KDE then Gnome haven't helped much. Big changes made people say it was broken - but over time, it seems to settle down.
And with the competition (Apple and Microsoft) also making changes to their desktops, Linux is hardly unique here. We seem to be in a time of change, where people have been challenging the old paradigms. Apple are being the most conservative, Microsoft the most radical, Linux is somewhere in between.
Hardware support? Not necessarily a desktop job, but I'll address is anyway. Linux can't do jack here without more support from manufacturers. When I installed Windows 7 on a (then) new Sandy Bridge motherboard, it found NOTHING. It literally booted into a low res desktop with no sound or network. Only the large collection of driver CDs saved the machine - Windows had nothing to do with it.
Support of Windows from the manufacturers was the key factor.
So let's not bitch about Linux's support of hardware - let's get it right, and bitch about hardware manufacturer's support of Linux.
Apps? We've got plenty, and are getting more. Some commercial apps (Corel Aftershot Pro, Sublime Text 2, VMware are ones I personally use) support Linux as well as Mac/Windows. It gets better every month, when it used to get better every year.
And I guess that's my key message. "You've never had it so good". You may not feel that way, but Linux is on a roll right now, and the question is not whether or not it becomes a 'usable second option'. It's already usable.
The question is whether or not it becomes a SUPPORTED second option - by OEMs, hardware manufacturers, and software companies.
And the signs are getting more positive as time goes on.
That's frankly the biggest load of crap I've heard all day. You're comparing a professional development tools to Anjuta and KDevelop? For fuck's sake.
The attitude that these half-baked, ancient development tools are as slick as what MS and Apple are offering sums up the problem with the Linux desktop: a steadfast refusal to stay competitive and serious delusion about why the Linux desktop hasn't caught on.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Standardizing on xfce would be the sanest thing to do really.
At least you don't need a manual for it - unlike the ui experts seal of approval(tm) "innovative" shit that gets pushed by some distros.
it's no good trying to take over the desktop with ever moving research project beta ui's that nobody knows how to use.
clean, simple ui and working drivers(user doesn't really care where/how the drivers end up to the machine as long as they do).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
You need to be asking this on some other board. Slashdot users are power users and thus cannot bring themselves to get into the 'everyday' user experience. I know they use systems other than Linux, but it's the mindset that is different. I teach this very thing at a University and it is extremely difficult for developers to get into the 'user' experience. That's not a bad thing, it's just a different animal - most users don't understand the things that most Slashdot users will take as common knowledge. If you really want to know then take a survey on a more general site.
I'd love to see PCs sold with the option to have Linux installed. Of course, it'd need to be supported which is probably where being open-source could pose some difficulties (e.g. where's the motivation to support an OS a developer doesn't make money on). I think Linux has been mature enough for everyday use for years now, it just needs better support and a push into retail outlets. Right now it's a hobbyist and server OS.
I know Slashdot hive mind thinks M$ is evil (i think it too), but even Microsoft knows it's not about the OS, it's about developer tools (developers, developers, developers).
Unix API is nice. Sockets? include sys/socket.h plus a couple of other headers and you are fine. Graphics? include opengl/gl*.h. But how about other things? Playing sound? Choose between OSS, ALSA, JACK or dozens of sound servers. KDE x GNOME war? Both lost.
I love linux, but it's truly is a PITA using and programming for it's desktop environment.
Preinstallation, preinstallation, preinstallation. That's all that matters. Preinstallation with icons already on the desktop. Why do you think Microsoft fought so hard and long to keep anybody else's browser icons off their precious desktop? Why is the stupid desktop icon worth any price to companies who want their commercial crapware pre-installed?
People will use whatever is in front of their faces. Linux is never in front of their faces. It's not commercial, there are no kickbacks, so it's never going to be in front of their faces. Business IT departments want an 800 number they can call and scream at when things go wrong. Linux has no 800 number. Business IT depts aren't going to demand it, no matter how much sense it makes for the business.
So is it all hopeless? I don't think so. The only thing we can do, you and me, is hold installfests. Help people over that initial hurdle. I've gotten about ten people moved over to Linux (ubuntu) in the last four-five years purely by doing installations for them. And they're thrilled. No more virus problems. Everything works. They're not worrying about the artwork or whether it's a "modern" interface. If we could propagate the get one - install one meme, you can calculate how long it would take for every desktop and laptop to run linux.
The content of his post is actually irrelevant.
Here is a first time poster posting at the same exact time as the story is posted posting a very pro-microsoft comment in a story about linux.
The person who posted did not do so to further his own ideas. The person posted to have an effect.
Now is that effect to try to get the linux users here to go pro-microsoft? Unlikely, but if he is getting paid then perhaps.
Is this person attempting to get more page views for this story because he is getting paid by /. to? Perhaps, a bit tinfoil hatish, but considering other things that have happened it is possible.
Is this person just a troll? That is probably the most likely answer especially considering this websites past history with organized trolling.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Stop alienating power users. We're not the problem. We're the beginning.
If I and hundreds or thousands of others tell you that your desktop doesn't provide the configuration capabilities we need then listen and provide the configurability we're asking for. If we tell you your crazy bloated akonadi/nepomuck/whatevertheflip is too big (a mysql instance in my home directory??) then listen and rethink your design. When we complain that your latest major release is a fabulously buggy mess (KDE 4.0) then listen and don't do that to us again. When you hear from people that want a regular orthodox file manager then listen, provide one and don't deprecate it in favor of some granny-safe photo album browser.
It's not hard, really. It just isn't a lot of fun. Which is why it doesn't happen.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Linux suffers from diversity... Seriously - it's a bad thing sometimes. If you want Linux to succeed on the desktop then take one distro and kill the others. It won't matter which - just so long as there's one. People will bitch and complain but it would simplify *everything* (package management, sound systems, GUI layout and functionality, etc.).
When sound isn't working you shouldn't first have to figure out which of the myriad sound systems you're using. When you want to install an application from a site you shouldn't need to figure out how to convert RPMs to .DEB or tgz's.
The community can't consolidate around a single path forward. This is what happens when there is no clear leadership. And this is exactly the way the community likes and it and why it will continue to be third-rate as a desktop platform.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Volunteers view their time as hobby-time, which means they want to work on what interests them.
Paid employees do that, and also the un-interesting stuff, like documentation, drivers, non-critical bug-fixes, interface standardization and so forth.
If you want to fix Linux on the desktop, imitate those who are succeeding (Microsoft and Apple): be customer-driven, not developer-driven.
Work on what the customers need. To do that, you may need to make the volunteer community a paid one, or at least one where there are consequences for not doing what is necessary, and leaders to implement those strategies.
Heresy, I know. But heresy that works, and would have avoided the absence of market share that Linux desktop solutions now experience.
For a little bit of background:
Futurist Traditionalism
I agree. What additional apps are lacking?
- huge behemoth office suite that interoperates w/the defacto standard? libre office. check.
- popular, familiar browser? firefox, check.
- cross platform gui toolkits? QT, others, check.
- *stable* API? I dunno what people are complaining about. The standard c library and POSIX OS API have been stable for ages. check.
I think the bigger problem is *too many* apps included by default--no defacto standard across distros. (But this is what *choice* brings us.)
Users cannot sit down at any linux machine and expect the same experience. They can't expect to always find:
- IE
- office
- outlook
- msn
- notepad
- ms paint
- solitaire (seriously--it's one of the most commonly used apps in the world)
in the same place and working the same way.
There's no IE browser, but there could be konqueror, firefox, chrome, opera.
There's no MS Office, but they might find kofifce, libre office, abiword, etc.
There's a dozen possible IM clients.
There's a dozen possible text editors.
There's no IE GUI file explorer--but there could be konqueror, nautilus, dolphin, or other
There's a half dozen paint programs that might be there.
There's no outlook, but there could be kmail, thunderbird, or a few others.
And that's just the common apps.
They want to install something else, they immediately find:
- there is *no* consistency between distros
- the app they want is probably not ported to Linux in the first place (guess that answers my question--"what apps?"--well we just don't know, but can't expect every dev to make every app cross platform for our favorite platform)
This doesn't even consider what developers have to do to target different distros. RPM, dpk. portage, etc.
Linux is certainly for the most part *source* compatible with a stable c library and POSIX API. But any number of combinations of library versions could be found on a target system--which is why any time I've ever got a commercial app, it usually came w/static linkage so that it would just work.
I see no difference between linux distros and the developers behind them--they are all cats and you cannot herd them.
It's a problem, that by the nature of it's participants cannot be solved.
Desktop Linux will largely remain for developers, by developers--or for people closely related to developers/admins that will install and maintain it for them, or for tinkerers. But not average-day Joe and Susie--it's not consistent enough.
Users no longer anticipate sitting down to a computer system and having to learn it/figure it out.
They expect uniformity to the commodity systems in existence.
*Unless*, they *know* it's some new system and are expecting to figure it out--but in that case, they *expect* it to be the same everywhere they go.
Thus "Linux" is not the best name to use. Really, you'd have to distinguish by saying the distro name. Eg, "Android"--everyone knows what to expect--there are small variations, but they all work essentially the same--no worse than differences in version of Windows.
Thus, "Linux on the Desktop" is a misnomer. It really should be "Ubuntu on the desktop" or "Suse on the desktop" or "Debian on the desktop". So really, it's two problems:
1) which distro is defacto standard (there will never be one--intractable problem)
2) for said distro, what keeps it from becoming a good desktop alternative to Windows and Mac? (see problem #1, and issues above)
Between your post and mine, the dichotomy/disagreement has been made clear.
There are two views of users, computing, what computing is for, and what useful computing actually is at work in this discussion. Another way to say what I was saying is that broader Linux community's ideas of what computing is for and what a user is like are very different from the ideas that are in the economic mainstream.
Rather than respond to your points, I'd like to draw them into relief and point to them. You've made good points with respect to a particular set of goals and a particular value system. But the continuous questions about Linux on the desktop that we see on Slashdot suggest that there is some ambivalence in the Linux world about the ways in which meeting these goals and these values does not seem to lead to widespread adoption.
The stalemate (a decade-old, at least, one) is crystallized by the way in which the Linux community does not want to change its goals and values, yet wants somehow to enjoy widespread adoption. The two are not compatible; to enjoy widespread adoption, Linux must share the goals of the people walking around Best Buy right now. If the broader community wants to distance themselves from these people and these goals, it is destined to fight windmills for a long time when it comes to widespread adoption.
Better, to my eye at least, to simply concede on that point and enjoy the system that exists, understanding that for the limited userbase that it has, it is probably currently the best choice.
Or: You can have users that are not developers or you can have users that are also developers, but there is a distinct limit on the degree to which you can have both groups with the same product.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
You have left the land of sense make. You are too emotionally committed to what you beleive to be true to pay attention large pieces of evidence that contradict your beliefs.
How many windows users are protesting Windows 8's interface and clamouring for the more traditional desktop? Does that mean that the windows community prefers good enough over anything thats trying to move forward?
How many Mac users complain about the Ios-ification of OSX? Does that mean that the Mac community prefers good enough oer anything thats trying to move forward?
There is a large amount of innovation and experimentation all across the linux desktop landscape. That is not a real problem. The real problem is much, much, much more boring: a lack of committed qa and testing to perfect and refine that wildness. RHEL desktop works great and provides a stable platform for application developers, its just years behind the upstream desktop projects as it takes them that long to refine the associated technologies.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.