Slashdot Mirror
Elementary OS "Freya" Beta Released
jjoelc (1589361) writes One year after their last release "Luna", Elementary OS (a Linux distribution with a very heavy emphasis on design and usability which draws a lot of comparisons to Mac OS X) Has released the public beta of their latest version "Freya."
Using core components from Ubuntu 14.04, "Freya" sports many improvements including the usual newer kernel, better hardware support and newer libraries.Other updates include a GSignon-based online accounts system, improved searches, Grub-free uEFI booting, GTK+ 3.12, an updated theme, and much more.
This being a beta, the usual warnings apply, but I would also point out that the Elementary OS Team also has over $5,000 worth of bugs still available on Bountysource which can be a great way to contribute to the project and make a little dough while you are at it.
Unless there is some killer feature, or the distribution is tailored well to a specific niche, I am quite bored with the "yet another Linux distro" articles
"draws a lot of comparisons to Mac OS X" or Draws a lot of cues from OSX?
Drawing a comparison would suggest its different but comparable, and not inspired by. Straight up copying as it is I wouldn't even suggest saying it's drawing cues.
If I wanted OS X I'd run OS X. I'm not sure why Slashdot is bothering to cover a distro whose claim to fame is ripping off somebody elses design. Or at least cover it and act like they're doing something unique.
Maybe you're thinking of Froyo?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Seriously, who cares about design? There are plenty of usability issues in GNU/Linux, but none of them have anything to do with design.
I guess they just evolved then
"In Norse mythology, Froyjo (Old Norse the "Lordo"), son of Njörðr, is a god associated with yolo, swag and yogurt. "
As someone who uses Ubuntu as their primary desktop OS both at home and at work, I have to say that usability is the biggest feature holding back Linux desktop. It is the reason all those "year of the linux desktop" stories are BS. Hence it is the killer feature for the Linux Desktop.
Linux Desktop feels like someone built a great desktop but never went back and reviewed their work. There are so many little things daily that cause the OS to be hard to use for regular people. And yes, that includes Ubuntu.
I wish there was a commercial Linux desktop option that offered create support, spent some time cleaning up and smoothing out the rough edges on the Linux Desktop, and had just one top tier hardware partner. I would gladly pay a few hundred dollars a year for this.
Lubuntu is Elementary OS in every way but with a gigantic repository of software already as a click and drool install.
What are they trying to target as a demographic?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Let's see, the number one most common reason to create a distro is "usability" and we've already got hundreds. Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, Ubuntu to name a few. None of them became as usable as they claim.
Maybe there's something awfully wrong with that recipe, maybe usability comes as a result of other factors, such as choice, determinism, *nix philosophy or any number of other things, which these distros clearly don't focus on.
I typed yolo into a search engine, and it said it stood for
You Only Live Once
I haven't seen that movie, but I did see the sequel with Sean Connery
Swag of course is the ill-gotten gains of a crime, usually burglary
"once a jolly swagman
camped by a bilabong
under the shade of a cooler-bar tree
There are so many little things daily that cause the OS to be hard to use for regular people. And yes, that includes Ubuntu.
Such as? Are you sure it's not a question of familiarity, where someone who has used almost nothing but Linux might notice similar irritations about other OSs?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It seems like Chrome OS already won the usability contest and has had significant commercial success. It's funny because Chrome OS is so easy to use and polished that even techies assume it's not linux. Just flip a switch though and you've got a bash shell and you can install an Ubuntu system on top of it.
Here's an example of a guy easily turning these $199 chrome books into ubuntu based coding machines:
http://blog.codestarter.org/po...
If you are going to actually work with Linux professionally, you will probably have to use Red Hat.
Red Hat seems determined to force crappy, and unwanted, interface, and other technologies, on it's users. Very Microsoft like in that respect.
Gnome2 is far superior to anything based on Gnome3. And it's hard to see where Systemd is much of an improvement.
I envy home Linux users who get to have a nicer interface.
I've been using Elementary OS Luna for about a year now. It's just lovely.
It has no grand plans of world-domination or a perfectly converged all-in-one interface to rule them all. It does give me the stability and packages of Ubuntu with excellent desktop usability and elegance.
It offers a consistent, well-thought out interface. It easily supports colour calibration, multiple workspaces and monitors, great keybindings, etc. After using it for a bit, it has become an effortless part of my workflow in a way that Unity failed to.
And that's the old version.
This is news. As someone using Desktop Linux daily, a new release of Elementary OS based on the latest LTS of Ubuntu is what will finally have me upgrading my machines. I have great respect and appreciation for what Cannonical has done for the Linux desktop. I use Ubuntu everywhere I can, but for day-to-day Linux desktop use, I use and recommend Elementary OS.
Try it. If you like simple and elegant interfaces, I think you'll like it.
In the US at least, the word "elementary" means "elementary school" 95% of the time, so that's the association I have with the word "elementary". I'm sure I'm not the only one. It doesn't look like it's actually designed for children, so why in the world would they use that name. Might as well call it Kindergarten OS or Playskool OS.
* No GUI for a lot of small-thing configuration activities;
* Invariably having to drop to terminal to do this and that;
* When I double-click on an "executable" I want it to execute, not open it in whatever equivalent of Notepad there is;
* I want my updates to install as seamlessly as possible, e.g. download and install updates in the background then let me know I need to restart (if that's the case), much like Android does;
* App store for my favorite flavor, where I could sort by features, not by category;
* While you're at it, give the applications proper names. A Text editor named "Kate"? A streaming application called "XBMC"? A music placer called "Clementine", "Banshee" or "Amarok"? Please...
* Make it absurdly easy to mount an ISO or browse a network/network share.
* Enable "Win" key functionality and try to replicate as many "Win"+key commands to make former Windows-based power users feel at home (Win+R, Win+Arrows).
* Make it easy to search for files and folders. Many times I copied a file or downloaded a file and I had no idea where it was, searching for it yielded no results but manually browsing around eventually found it. Y U NO SEARCH???
The above are off the top of my head and represent just a little part of my overall "user-inducing frustration" that pretty much every Desktop Linux flavor thrown at me so far.
I don't know how to best emphasize on this: as a desktop user, I simply loathe having to open terminal and drop to root 50 times a day, when whatever I have to do should involve a right-click and picking a menu entry or a couple checkmarks selected in a configuration GUI window. People eventually start doing everything as root and then they are laughed at for "not being secure". Well, doh. It's the OS pushing that behavior, not the user choosing it deliberately.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
"emphasis on design and usability which draws a lot of comparisons to Mac OS X"
I've been switching between win/linux/osx on a daily basis for a couple of years now, and I honestly have no clue where the idea comes from that OSX is superior when it comes to usability...
It's even the OS with the weirdest UI quirks IMO...
I keep wondering about this one. Because of work requirements, I started using windows again after a long hiatus, and find it rather cranky (windows 7). It was easier to program the reactions to my marble ball mouse under linux than it was under windows 7 (essentially impossible to get reasonable scroll-wheel emulation). Then there isn't anything remotely comparable with xmodmap. I can't have multiple desktops. Files are named in weird ways (PROGRA~1, etc) that have their special rules (it really is much simpler in linux). The keyboard layout kept unhelpfully switching to whatever it felt was right, and it took a long battle to ensure it stays where I want it. And Skype has annoying ads under windows.
Installing updates is gargantuan pain in the buttocks, especially when compared with ubuntu. In windows, a reboot is almost always necessary after downloading and installing updates. Quite often you need multiple reboots, and all of it takes ages. Under ubuntu they are much faster and unintrusive.
So, in my experience Windows actually sucks compared to a decent linux distro. All the talk about the little annoying things in linux is, I think, due to an illusion. Windows is popular today because it was popular yesterday, so people are used to it and all its little (and not so little) annoying things. They just don't notice anymore.
Linux developers are notoriously terrible at designing user interfaces. For example: 1. The Unity lens 2. GIMP 3. Open/LibreOffice And those are the "big" applications. When you start looking at the smaller applications its gets even worse. Alot of half-assed, ugly looking applications. Then there is hardware support, which they like to blame on the hardware vendors, but if you look at the poor quality user interfaces you can see that the vendors are only part of the problem. I'm not saying all Linux developers are lazy or poor at design, but that's what comes across when I use Linux applications. It's missing quality control and developers have no incentive to make their programs look nice.
In fairness, Microsoft Windows sometimes feels like a great desktop OS where the designers never went back and reviewed their work. They have occasional spurts of activity where Microsoft goes back and fixes things, but that's only between spurts of activity where they add a bunch of nonsense that doesn't work, while breaking things.
Well, exactly. I find Gnome on Debian a very un-annoying desktop. It all just works. Compared to Windows 7, Debian is for me much less annoying and more productive.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Allow me to give an objective reply (sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing).
* No GUI for a lot of small-thing configuration activities;
* Invariably having to drop to terminal to do this and that;
I'm a complete n00b with Linux Mint 16 installed, and I hardly ever have to do this for my regular use. Everything worked out of the box. I only use the command line for a particular video editing feature, because I am too cheap to buy a better program, and because someone wrote a simple program that does exactly what I need.
* When I double-click on an "executable" I want it to execute, not open it in whatever equivalent of Notepad there is;
I agree with this one.
* I want my updates to install as seamlessly as possible, e.g. download and install updates in the background then let me know I need to restart (if that's the case), much like Android does;
Actually, no, that is really annoying, because you end up with a computer that does stuff behind your back, and is using bandwidth/processor power when I need it. I will choose when my computer can have those resources. For me, the way Ubuntu / Linux Mint does its updates is by far superior to any other method I have seen.
* App store for my favorite flavor, where I could sort by features, not by category;
The app stores are relatively new to Linux, and this may be built in the future. I generally end up googling for the program that I want, then selecting it from the app store for installation anyway. But it is probably true that Linux' app stores are not as fancy as the commercial ones. Also, the apps are almost all free, which may have something to do with it.
* While you're at it, give the applications proper names. A Text editor named "Kate"? A streaming application called "XBMC"? A music placer called "Clementine", "Banshee" or "Amarok"? Please...
As opposed to your document viewer called "Acrobat Reader", your browser called "Firefox", and your video player called "VLC"? Please...
* Make it absurdly easy to mount an ISO or browse a network/network share.
(sorry, not sure what this is about)
* Enable "Win" key functionality and try to replicate as many "Win"+key commands to make former Windows-based power users feel at home (Win+R, Win+Arrows).
If you're a hardcore Windows user, I recommend Windows for you. However, you are not the average windows user. The large majority know zero such combinations. But I believe Ubuntu with Unity uses a lot of win-key combinations for useful stuff. Personally, I only use it to open the "start" menu in my Linux Mint. I can do without all the fancy stuff.
* Make it easy to search for files and folders. Many times I copied a file or downloaded a file and I had no idea where it was, searching for it yielded no results but manually browsing around eventually found it. Y U NO SEARCH???
I also agree with this one. There are tools, but they are not user friendly enough, and I also struggle sometimes. The method most often recommended is something called grep, I think, and that is always command line which just sucks because I always fail to get a result.
The above are off the top of my head and represent just a little part of my overall "user-inducing frustration" that pretty much every Desktop Linux flavor thrown at me so far.
I don't know how to best emphasize on this: as a desktop user, I simply loathe having to open terminal and drop to root 50 times a day, when whatever I have to do should involve a right-click and picking a menu entry or a couple checkmarks selected in a configuration GUI window. People eventually start doing everything as root and then they are laughed at for "not being secure". Well, doh. It's the OS pushing that behavior, not the user choosing it deliberately.
I agree that it sucks to have to open a terminal. But I don't mind to have to enter my password to allow my computer to do something. And if anything, it seems that other OSs are going the same way. My work computer requires a password for almost everything.
There is, although it is based on BSD. It's called OSX
"Actually, no, that is really annoying, because you end up with a computer that does stuff behind your back, and is using bandwidth/processor power when I need it. I will choose when my computer can have those resources. For me, the way Ubuntu / Linux Mint does its updates is by far superior to any other method I have seen."
1. Using the lowest CPU priority and network QoS ensures you have all the bandwidth/power you need, when you need it.
2. I maybe WANT an OS that does some things behind my back. I'm not a control freak, and I see some automation as empowering me to focus on my tasks rather than the operating system's maintenance.
"As opposed to your document viewer called "Acrobat Reader", your browser called "Firefox", and your video player called "VLC"? Please..."
Acrobat Reader actually says in the app name that is's a "Reader". It reads files. Firefox and VLC are both F/OSS which might be the root cause for the funky naming conventions. I didn't say Linux is responsible for funky names. Maybe F/OSS is, and Linux being part of it inherits the funkiness :)
"But I don't mind to have to enter my password to allow my computer to do something."
Me neither, but when that happens every 5 minutes it adds up to a lot of interruptions. I like staying focused for more than 5 minutes at a time, and asking for a password too often is like the stewardess asking you to show her your plane ticket every 5 minutes for the duration of an 8-hour trip.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
There are so many little things daily that cause the OS to be hard to use for regular people. And yes, that includes Ubuntu.
Such as? Are you sure it's not a question of familiarity, where someone who has used almost nothing but Linux might notice similar irritations about other OSs?
In other words: "Are you a complete noob and therefore it's your fault?" "Are you sure you're smart enough?"
To be fair, you phrased it nicely. But it's still the same old mindset underneath that prevents Linux desktop from getting any traction. As soon as the Linux community takes on are default mindset that any negative user experiences are the desktop's fault and not the user's fault, things might have a prayer of getting better. Sure, you're never going to make an OS that has zero learning curve, but apologizing for the learning curve rather than trying to lessen it doesn't help anybody.
I could not agree with your comment more. I've been using elementary since its original beta and absolutely love it. It not only looks great, but it is laid out to be usable. My core i5 dell with elementary luna is my go-to coding machine. This new release should make it even better. Having used quite a few distros over the last 12+ years (RHL, gentoo, mandrake, Suse, ubuntu, fedora, debian, cent, *BSD), I can say this is by far the best thought-out release I have ever used. Seriously, give it a try.
Re: "looks like OSX so who cares" comments:
The only feature this distro really shares with OSX is the dock, which BTW, can literally be installed on an OS now. The animations are crisp, memory footprint is light, and it has enough unique usability feature to make it transcend the "OSX-clone" status.
If their website's design is anything like their OS design, count me out. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be usable and elegant.
To see a sample screenshot of the desktop, I click on a tiny thumbnail of a seashell? Or a pink feathery-looking thing? Why are those icons the only way to see screenshots of the thing? And the majority of the text on the page is nothing more than flowery text explaining that it's open-source. Where's any actual description of what makes it different from other distributions?
Not that there's anything horribly wrong about all that, but for an OS that's supposed to be all about design, usability and elegance, their website looks like a fluff PR piece. It sure doesn't inspire me to want to try it.
(Although, to be honest, I'm happy that the main page of their project actually tells what the project is, instead a list of bullets about news items, which seems to be the case with most open-source projects)
The CPU power is a non-issue for an application like this.
Windows solved the bandwidth problem by creating BITS, Background Intelligent Transfer Service, that only consumes bandwidth when no other processes are making bandwidth demands. So if you're halfway through a 2-GB patch, and start up Battlefield 4, the patch download will automatically stop until BF4 is done using the network.
Surely Linux has a feature like that that can be used? This should be a 100% solved problem in 2014.
Comment of the year
you forgot Git and Gimp. That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard ... must be what people call "ad nominem" attack
Might be ridiculous to you, but I am comparing to Android application names.
Opening my Tools folder, I see Calculator, Clock, ES File Explorer, Flash Alerts, GPS Essentials, My Files, Settings, Speech Synthesis, Speedtest, Translate, Voice Recorder and Wifi Analyzer. Guess what each does?
The problem is not the "chosen name". "Gimp" would be fine if it would be called "Gimp Image Editor". So, okay, it's an image editor which is called "Gimp".
But it's a matter of subjective perception.
ubuntu does just that again: double-click on *.iso, it opens as a folder.
Which doesn't help me a bit. I want it to mount as a drive. As for browsing a network, I usually found it painful to mount a network drive which is still there after a restart. Speed comes secondary.
why ? is Windows suddenly going to implement all the awesome shortcut we have in Linux (copy-paste with mouse selection for one) ?
See, that't the problem. Windows doesn't want to replace some of Linux Desktop's market share, it doesn't need to implement Linux shortcuts. It's the other way around.
Linux's market share is tiny. If it needs to expand, it would have to become attractive and "dress" like its "foe". It's fine if it doesn't do that, but how hard would it be to implement an install-time configuration window saying "enable Windows-like shortcuts?"?
But many of your others opinions seem based on +4-year old issues
I admit I haven't got that far as to testing some of them as of late, but I did install Ubuntu 14.04 recently as well as CentOS 7, and although better than their predecessors, they're simply not quite there.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I actually AM using Windows and would like Linux to succeed. I'm trying to do Linux good, and it's saddening how you fail to comprehend that.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Thank you for confirming my GP statements.
As a desktop user, I don't have to log a root shell, I don't have to read man sudo's man pages. I need a GUI with point-and-click and embedded help. Because I am a fucking desktop user, yeah, the "idiot" who is referred to as "luser" and has to work on those boring spreadsheets and webapps that the mighty developer doesn't give a fuck about.
With most of my work taking place in web-based applications I struggled to switched to Linux for no compelling reason. Nobody's forcing me to do so.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
It's true that funky names are ubiquitous in the free software world, and I often wish developers came up with something better. But unhelpful names aren't limited to FOSS. What would your grandmother (if she's familiar with computers, pick another relative :-)) guess Adobe Acrobat does? Or Microsoft Silverlight? Windows? Visual Studio?
To be fair, you phrased it nicely. But it's still the same old mindset underneath that prevents Linux desktop from getting any traction.
No, it's really not. Familiarity is amazingly important. The thing is I use Linux more than anything else. If I go on a Windows or OSX machine, I'm presenetd with all sorts of weirdnesses and illogical things and things which plain old get in the way.
It's not a question of n00bishness but not working on the systems I work on day-in day-out every day.
My point is that the irritations might simply be lack of familiarity (and seriously how did you jump from that to me accusing the GP of being stupid?). You can make all of those disappear by making it *identical* to your OS of choice. That won't necessarily make it better, just more familiar.
But it's still the same old mindset underneath that prevents Linux desktop from getting any traction.
At what cost? If the cost is that in order for Linux to gain traction then it has to be like Windows or OSX, then there doesn't to be a whole lot of point. I personally prefer using Linux to either of those two, so changing things to be more like other systems and less like linux, especially when there is no improvement, would be a detriment to me.
As soon as the Linux community takes on are default mindset that any negative user experiences are the desktop's fault and not the user's fault,
Again, you're just making stuff up about what I said. Linux is not perfect, and certainly has things wrong with it. However many of the "wrong" things aren't: they're just different.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
For example: 1. The Unity
I don't use Unity, but sure fine. I don't like it.
2. GIMP
Some people seem to dislike this program. I've never understood that. I think it works substantially better if you have a quality window manager.
3. Open/LibreOffice
What the heck is wrong with LibreOffice? it's a perfectly normal program in almost every way with no surprises.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Not sure about OS-X but under Windows I can alter that behavior (asking for a password, prompting for an accept) with a drag of a slider.
Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\User Accounts - Change User Account Control settings. Click-click-click-drag a slider, OK.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
if you work in a terminal all the time then this topic branch is not for you.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I was talking about me. I am not unfamiliar to computers. But fine. I am crazy :)
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
To be fair, you phrased it nicely. But it's still the same old mindset underneath that prevents Linux desktop from getting any traction.
No, it's really not. Familiarity is amazingly important. The thing is I use Linux more than anything else. If I go on a Windows or OSX machine, I'm presenetd with all sorts of weirdnesses and illogical things and things which plain old get in the way.
It's not a question of n00bishness but not working on the systems I work on day-in day-out every day.
Except the GP explained that he uses Linux as his primary OS at home and at work. Your response was to question whether he was familiar enough with it. Well yeah, it's safe to say that he's familiar with it.
You can make all of those disappear by making it *identical* to your OS of choice. That won't necessarily make it better, just more familiar.
If the cost is that in order for Linux to gain traction then it has to be like Windows or OSX, then there doesn't to be a whole lot of point.
Making it familiar and making it complete are different. Don't think that the GP (nor I) were arguing that Windows/OSX are perfect and should be verbatim copied.
Suse
On GIMP, you don't even need that, single-window mode with panes you can arrange and stuff, a very standard look, has been there for at least two years already.
And thank god it is, everything about using GIMP is 10 times more pleasant nowadays. I wouldn't pick anything else for serious spriting. (For traditional drawing I'd rather use Krita or Mypaint, though)
Why on earth would Linux do any of these things? If you want an OS that looks and works like Windows, USE WINDOWS! If you don't like using the terminal, USE WINDOWS (the fact that Windows treats the command line as a red-headed stepchild is not nearly a good enough reason for Linux to stop using such a powerful interface)! Linux does it's own thing, in it's own way, and it has absolutely no need to become more like Windows in order to be useful.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
I want an OS that also looks and works like Windows, essentially taking the best of both worlds.
The inability to understand the power behind such a concept gives Linux its insignificant desktop market share.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
However, you could just as well argue that on Windows, you invariably need to open the registry editor to configure this and that.
WHAT??? .reg file but I'll count it as registry hacking. Before that... I don't even remember. Maybe I edited the registry 5 times in more than 14 years. Maybe.
The last time I had to go and alter the Registry was more then a year ago, when I used a registry-hacking workaround to trick a corporate application into using an older version of JDK. I actually double-clicked a pre-existing
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I admit I'm looking at this from a migration perspective: Windows user trying to switch to Linux. It's only normal that I'd wish to have a smooth transition, rather than re-train myself into using all the different shortcuts and automations that make me more proficient.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
* I want my updates to install as seamlessly as possible, e.g. download and install updates in the background then let me know I need to restart (if that's the case), much like Android does;
Available for years now.
* App store for my favorite flavor, where I could sort by features, not by category;
Done years ago, though the features search could be better.
* Make it absurdly easy to mount an ISO or browse a network/network share.
Done years ago. Put the disk in, file management window pops open.
* Make it easy to search for files and folders. Many times I copied a file or downloaded a file and I had no idea where it was, searching for it yielded no results but manually browsing around eventually found it. Y U NO SEARCH???
Done years ago. Y U NO click 'Search for files...'?
Done years ago. Y U NO click 'Search for files...'?
I... did. Few days ago. Search came out empty, after a LONG time.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
There are two worlds.
In one, there are two operating systems, that look and act identically.
In the other, there are two operating systems, both of which try, intelligently, to provide the best and most productive user experience.
I want to live in the second world, not the first. I appreciate you want to live in the first, we know you do, there's usually a bunch of you that pop up in every UI experience discussion on Slashdot. You're not uncommon, and there was even a time that GNOME development was driven by someone like you.
We just don't, for the life of us, understand why. How does it benefit anyone, how does it benefit you, to have a "choice" between two essentially identical (yet incompatable!) systems?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So you expect to be able to use a general purpose system that does accounting, astronomy, genomics, etc etc on everything from a modern mainframe to a pocket watch with NO learning whatsoever? Were you born knowing how to use Windows 7 or did you learn it?
That's what he was saying. It's not hard at all but we can't learn it for you. Even if we copied every bit of the clunky Windows interface, we'd just get sued by MS and forced to change it.
When you got old enough, did you just hop into a car and go get your license or did you have to learn to drive?
I would guess that the hammer and screwdriver have the simplest and most obvious 'user interfaces' of any tool we have today and yet I see people using them poorly all the time.
So you expect to be able to use a general purpose system that does accounting, astronomy, genomics, etc etc on everything from a modern mainframe to a pocket watch with NO learning whatsoever? Were you born knowing how to use Windows 7 or did you learn it?
Sigh... Read the GP again. He uses Linux as a primary OS for home and work. Learning curve is not the issue here.
That's what he was saying. It's not hard at all but we can't learn it for you.
In other words, "it's your fault for not learning it, not our fault for not making the user experience on par with commercial alternatives".
the simplest and most obvious 'user interfaces' of any tool we have today and yet I see people using them poorly all the time.
In other words, "it's your fault, you must be using it poorly". Or, "you're so incompetent you can't even use a hammer or a screwdriver".
I know I ramped up the flammage factor in my paraphrasing, but seriously, that's the type of worldview that has Linux desktop going nowhere fast.
How is it Linux's fault you searched for a file that wasn't there?
I have seen people who have been using a hammer poorly for years.
They let the apparent simplicity of the interface fool them is all. I have seen the same thing with people using the Windows UI inefficiently.
I said nothing about their intelligence in general, just that they hadn't learned to use the tool well.
Good, I like that.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
It was there, I said before I manually browsed folders until I found it.
Maybe it wasn't indexed, I don't know. Fact of the matter was: a file existed on the HDD and the search function couldn't find it.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Odd, I haven't had that problem.
If you were using (possibly indirectly) the locate program, it only indexes once a day by default.
It's amazing how people just don't get it.
Say I build a piece of software (or GUI, or operating system, game, whatever). My aim is to penetrate a market which is dominated by the 800 pounds gorilla, the big-ba-da-boom product which 95% of the market uses. That dominating product has certain features, one of them being a certain functionality the market is used to. My product is faster and more secure and also has some extra functionality, so I know it's better in some ways, and in others is different.
My goal would be to smooth out the perceived differences and offer prospective customers a transition which is as seamless as possible. If, for example, they're used to having a basic commands toolbar on the left, I'd put mine on the left too. If the default "save" hotkey is Ctrl+S, I'd implement the same functionality. If maximizing a window is done in the dominant application by pressing Win+Up, I'd implement that hotkey for my product as well. The key component of taking market share is "better", not "different".
This is where, in my opinion, Linux developers failed to accomplish the task. They want to penetrate the Windows Desktop market but they insist on implementing GUI changes that are not needed or short-circuiting users' expectations (the infamous "let's move the window buttons to the left" being a very good example).
Windows 7's Aero was an improvement compared to XP's look-n-feel. The Ribbon (loathed by many!) was, to me, a huge productivity increase, but I'm not going to comment on that, let's just say that many people didn't like it, but they had to adjust, simply because the 800-pound gorilla could afford to bully them into that corner. Linux can't afford to do the same, and from a GUI perspective, we have KDE, Gnome, Unity, X-Windows and some more, each being sufficiently different in terms of behavior from every other to mandate re-learning to some extent. Granted, Metro was a huge fail, the 800-pound gorilla pushed too hard and in the wrong direction (read: they wanted something that was stupid to begin with).
So yeah, replicate what the vast majority of people are used to and offer further GUI-based configuration, e.g. "your window behavior buttons are on the top right but you could move them around to be on the top left if you wish to". That is perfectly fine, I'm a sucker for infinite configurability and I commend such an initiative. But don't make "different for the sake of different" a default, that'll frustrate and antagonize me to no avail.
You're saying " there are two operating systems, both of which try, intelligently, to provide the best and most productive user experience." I'd add ", each following their own, incompatible and divergent visions" and that's the problem. Now, if the market would have been split 50-50, yeah, by all means, be different and maybe you'd attract some 5% who would feel that re-training their memory muscles is worth it. Which is totally not the case.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
You're telling me that one can't change a config file through a GUI interface?
Config files are structured well enough to be... hmm, GUI-able, if that makes any sense. Even programatically, by parsing the config file and dynamically building GUI-based forms around the parsed contents.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
That's the point, as a standard, Average Joe desktop user, I don't know (I really don't know) and shouldn't care. The OS should ideally detect a new file was created and add it to the index, problem solved.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Add overhead to every single write /create/rename op? I would consider that severe breakage.
You didn't say which distro you were using, but the help for mine says:
Search for Files uses the find, grep, and locate UNIX commands. By default, when performing a basic search Search for Files first uses the locate command, and then uses the slower but more thorough find command.
The case sensitivity of the search depends on your operating system. For example, on Linux, the find, grep, and locate commands support the -i option, so all searches are case-insensitive.
Which would be the right thing.
There is not only an app store concept that is being developed, but also a sandboxing mechanism for better safety when you run your apps. On top of that, you should be able to use apps that have older libraries and so forth using a system that Lennart Poettering has come up with. Again though, we do have to change Unix cultural for some of these things.
Right now, we need to continually upgrade ourselves otherwise, it will be Android that wlll be the desktop of choice on Linux machines. In fact, even the identifier 'Linux' will be gone, nobody will even know that they are running Linux since FSF can't seem to come up with something better than 'GNU/Linux". *sigh*
Well that's fair enough. Not being a Windows user, I do not have that perspective.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The reverse is true as well. As a Linux user, you might want the same functionality (from a perception perspective) if you decide to switch or try out Windows-based operating systems. Sadly, Windows is even less configurable (GUI-wise) than Linux.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
So link the checkboxes to appropriate man pages which would display in a GUI pop-up. not saying it's easy but it's damn useful.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
They also hate designers. So, what do you do? There are a lot ore reasons why people are in Linux, some of it has nothing to do with well designed apps or eco-systems.
So you expect to be able to use a general purpose system that does accounting, astronomy, genomics, etc etc on everything from a modern mainframe to a pocket watch with NO learning whatsoever?
Don't be daft, it isn't the same system, it's (mostly) the same kernel, people aren't running RHEL or SLES on their smartphones. Apple uses the same kernel for their desktop, server, tablet, phone and media player operating systems and those are very intuitive so yes Linux-based products should be be intuitive, because going between Windows and OS X is nowhere near as difficult as going to a desktop Linux distro.
But I personally don't think that's the real issue, people will adapt to using even unintuitive products *if* they are significantly better than the incumbents. The problem desktop Linux has is that it has a couple of big negatives:
-Usability/Intuitive-ness (even if that just means a different paradigm)
-Incompatibility with applications
Now people will get past those *if* there is a killer benefit to outweigh the negatives and the fact remains that there isn't. Linux distros have been ridiculously easy to install for the last decade or so, even Live CDs/USBs to try them out first have been around for that long but still it hasn't caught on because there's no reason for the average user to use it. You can't just continue to blame the user for that.
Considering the amount of pushback I got trying to move 5 outlook express users who were losing data on a monthly basis to thunderbird where no crashes were happening, I believe I can blame the users. Personally I see very little if any difference in the interfaces of those two.
I Honestly cannot see what is so hard about Linux desktop. Significantly, people who first learn to use a computer with a Linux desktop find that the jump to windoes is nearly impossible. Interestingly, when workplaces switch to Linux and tell people there's no point in complaining because the decision is made, they get up to speed quickly enough.
It really is just a matter of what you're used to. I can use Windows if absolutely necessary but I find it clunky and awkward. OSX is somewhat better but it feels quite limited to me.
As for the system, there are people running Debian or Ubuntu on a smartphone. I have installed Debian on routers and other embedded boxes. Linux had been put on phones years before Android came out.
Considering the amount of pushback I got trying to move 5 outlook express users who were losing data on a monthly basis to thunderbird where no crashes were happening, I believe I can blame the users.
And did you try to understand why it was difficult? What was it they were attached to? If outlook express crashes while they were typing an email and they then have to revert to an auto-saved draft you can see that not being that much of a big deal.
I Honestly cannot see what is so hard about Linux desktop.
The reason people don't switch is not that it's necessarily that hard, it's that it's not worth it. It's just change for the sake of change but in addition to that you lose application compatibility in exchange for ... what?
As for the system, there are people running Debian or Ubuntu on a smartphone.
Yes of course some people are but saying it's the same system "on everything from a modern mainframe to a pocket watch" is just nonsense.
And did you try to understand why it was difficult? What was it they were attached to? If outlook express crashes while they were typing an email and they then have to revert to an auto-saved draft you can see that not being that much of a big deal.
I did attempt to. Evidently it was that the icons on the buttons had minor stylistic differences and it wasn't called outlook express. And by crash, I mean corrupt the mailstore and not being able to get all of the mails (claimed to be CRITICAL) back.
And keep in mind, that wasn't an attempt to change the whole OS or any of the other software, just the email app.
Larger organizations have saved MILLIONS by switching. Maybe you have an unwanted spare million bux in your pocket, but many don't.
Yes of course some people are but saying it's the same system "on everything from a modern mainframe to a pocket watch" is just nonsense.
How so? True the tiny systems are often barebones install, but it still all comes from the same source packages, it's just a matter of which compiler is used and which arch flags are set. I use the same binary disk to install on an embedded Atom system as I do on a Desktop or server.
Larger organizations have saved MILLIONS by switching. Maybe you have an unwanted spare million bux in your pocket, but many don't.
Very few large organizations have done so and ultimately that's just the argument that it's cheap and just pleasing the beancounters. If somebody like Microsoft (or to a lesser extent, Apple) come in with a cheap deal or something desirable then you find yourself offering nothing, which is precisely what has been happening in the consumer space for nigh on 2 decades. It's not that it's not as good as the commercial offerings, it's that it's not measurably better, it isn't disruptive. Even Microsoft has stumbled with releases like Vista and 8 that have introduced huge changes and desktop Linux distros still faltered because they were different but not innovative.
So like I said, they accept changes in usability and lose application compatibility for what? All you've offered is that it's cheap.
How so? True the tiny systems are often barebones install, but it still all comes from the same source packages
The kernel is (somewhat) the same even though you're compiling with different features for different architectures but you aren't running all the same userland packages. So I don't see where you think the usability aspects of a pocket watch translate in any way to supercomputers except for some things at the syscall level.
What you're saying is that the kernel of the system is built from the same generic source tree, well what's your point?
The problem is, no matter how cheap, unless it is Free, you still get to spend money on license compliance. The very largest organizations need not worry because they likely have a very expensive site license, but anything smaller does not. And license compliance can be quite hard. Even Microsoft can't tell you exactly how many of what licenses you will need (seriously, call them 3 times, give the same description, get three mutually exclusive answers!)
If you want other benefits, there are plenty. Consider all the pain now as various organizations now have to either migrate off of XP now or cough up huge sums to maintain support for a few more years. Not a problem with a Free OS.
BTW, multiple workspaces are NICE to have. I generally use 6 (technically 5, the 6th is the one my wife uses for some quick browsing and such).
Does Windows FINALLY have a compose key? Nice if I need an ümlaut (yes, I know umlaut is not spelled with an umlaut)
As for the system portability, I explicitly stated that it includes the userspace software.
Yes, at the pocket watch scale you must make concessions to the limited power of the platform and the limited UI, but the standard cli utilities work just fine. The GUI stuff needs a bit more oomph than a pocket watch can provide but it does scale from small SBCs that can be attached to the back of a monitor on up to a z system. That's a mainframe, not supercomputer, BTW. It does all work fine on a supercomputer though (it's quite common to install the GUI on the master node and login nodes).
Another nice thing with the Linux GUI is that even on a multi-user system, each user can have the desktop he/she wants. I can select xfce, you can have Gnome3, someone else can have KDE. It's a good thing too. You might have noticed that many people consider the changes made for Gnome 3 akin to pissing on the Mona Lisa. No problem, just pick a different desktop. Still not a problem is another user of the same system is a Gnome 3 true believer.
While Windows has made great progress in stability and durability, it still has a habit of periodically crapping it's pants such that a re-install is the best answer.
In cases where something goes wrong (like a user error that runs the load average up will over 100), Linux can likely be recovered through the CLI or even a serial console. Yes, that's more often called for in a server, but in Linux the difference between server and workstation is just a matter of which packages you choose to install.
Install Windows and you have an OS. Install a Linux Distro and you have a huge variety of software to choose from. Office suite, image editing/processing, genomics, etc all there and part of the official distro.
While a typical user may not be comfortable on the command line, it is there for the power user in Linux. And I don't mean the crappy DOS shell, I mean a choice of feature-full shells each speaking a Turing complete script language.
You can mix and match as needed. Usually NetworkManager is a good choice for desktop users. But if not, run something else instead, use the older configuration system, a custom script, or manually configure. No need to reboot.
All that and nobody can force me to 'upgrade' if I don't want to. And nobody shoves the cup under my nose if I *DO* want to. Know that 'old' Windows box that can't run Win7? Install the latest and greatest of the distro of your choice and it's nearly as good as a brand new computer. Really need some small change in one of the apps? It will (usually) cost more than beer money but there's plenty of people ready and willing to fix it up for you.
The problem is, no matter how cheap, unless it is Free, you still get to spend money on license compliance.
I don't.
The very largest organizations need not worry because they likely have a very expensive site license, but anything smaller does not.
Smaller ones generally buy their licenses included with their hardware, just like regular consumers do.
If you want other benefits, there are plenty. Consider all the pain now as various organizations now have to either migrate off of XP now or cough up huge sums to maintain support for a few more years. Not a problem with a Free OS.
There is no free OS version that has had 13 years of support and even large corporations are reluctant to maintain an operating system themselves due the huge cost, the alternative for them is to cough up huge sums to companies like RedHat to maintain support, so no real benefit there.
BTW, multiple workspaces are NICE to have.
Yeah I have that in OS X, use it all the time.
Does Windows FINALLY have a compose key?
I don't know.
As for the system portability, I explicitly stated that it includes the userspace software.
Yes, at the pocket watch scale you must make concessions to the limited power of the platform and the limited UI, but the standard cli utilities work just fine.
How disconnected from reality are you to really think this benefits average users in any way?
Another nice thing with the Linux GUI is that even on a multi-user system, each user can have the desktop he/she wants.
But most people don't have regular multi-user systems. It's a nice benefit but not useful to most people, again that's why it's niche.
While Windows has made great progress in stability and durability, it still has a habit of periodically crapping it's pants such that a re-install is the best answer.
Yeah I haven't had that since Windows 95 and haven't had it at all with OS X (maybe it happened with Mac OS but I didn't regularly use that).
Install Windows and you have an OS. Install a Linux Distro and you have a huge variety of software to choose from. Office suite, image editing/processing, genomics, etc all there and part of the official distro.
There's no reason you can't install what you want on Windows or OS X either, the same office suites and image editors. Actually i'd be annoyed if my OS install also installed a bunch of bloatware like genomics that I don't want or need.
While a typical user may not be comfortable on the command line, it is there for the power user in Linux. And I don't mean the crappy DOS shell, I mean a choice of feature-full shells each speaking a Turing complete script language.
Just like any power user can use bash, powershell, perl, or whatever on Windows. You see you're trying to sell a power-user feature on the fact that it's pre-installed, no power user is going to be deterred by the need to download and install something.
All that and nobody can force me to 'upgrade' if I don't want to.
I don't think you know the meaning of the word 'force'. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade anything, but you won't get support for outdated distros either, even LTS releases eventually go out of support. In fact Windows XP has been supported longer than any version of any Linux distro, the same cannot be said for any version of OS X though.
And nobody shoves the cup under my nose if I *DO* want to.
Again, cheapness.
Know that 'old' Windows box that can't run Win7? Install the latest and greatest of the distro of your choice and it's nearly as good as a brand new computer.
No, no I don't. Something that old is just a space hog and a powe
You can install bash on Windows, but only if you install the rest of Cygwin (basically a Unix userspace ported to Windows).
You can very well be stuck if you use XP. Let's say, one of those nice pre-installed machines craps out. Now, if you want consistancy, you're SOL.
With Linux, since you can mix and match, you can either install the old distro on a well chosen new machine or you can install the latest but keep all of the old userspace in a chroot for that special app that needs the old libraries.
But to each his own. You are free to pound nails with a rock if you like, but I prefer a hammer or a nailgun for that.
I think you underestimate the magnitude of user inertia. I suspect as the generation growing up to expect varied interfaces matures, they'll be more open to a Linux desktop.
Certainly: one of the things I'm most used to is focus follows mouse without autoraise. I find it very awkward to operate without it. Most people used to click to focus with autoraise find my setup terribly awkward.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I use Linux when it makes sense, OSX when it makes sense, and Windows when it makes sense (although now just for using the program Access).
It's futile.
And really, really funny !
A really good GUI just isn't for some people; so they just use Linux.
You can install bash on Windows, but only if you install the rest of Cygwin (basically a Unix userspace ported to Windows).
Nope, you can use win-bash.
You can very well be stuck if you use XP. Let's say, one of those nice pre-installed machines craps out. Now, if you want consistancy, you're SOL.
How are you "stuck"?
With Linux, since you can mix and match, you can either install the old distro on a well chosen new machine or you can install the latest but keep all of the old userspace in a chroot for that special app that needs the old libraries.
Which is a nice feature, but of no value to the vast majority of people. That's been proven already.
But to each his own. You are free to pound nails with a rock if you like, but I prefer a hammer or a nailgun for that.
And you can keep you head in the sand just ignoring reality, I'm not quite sure what your analogy is supposed to mean as I use OS X primarily and that has all the same tools as Linux, I can even replace the shell if I want. So it seems you're just very uneducated about what is available.
I think you underestimate the magnitude of user inertia. I suspect as the generation growing up to expect varied interfaces matures, they'll be more open to a Linux desktop.
Changing interfaces is not a big deal, I've already said that. The problem is that Linux offers no valuable features so no incentive to change from the incumbents, you learn a new interface and you get nothing for it. The only benefit you've given is cheapness (which comes with incompatibility), whether that's the lack of license cost or re-purposing ancient machines that can't run other modern operating systems.
I gave many examples of advantages but you don't value them. That's fine, but others do and would switch but for inertia. All those corporations stuck with XP and IE6 probably wish they could make the jump to Win7 and keep IE 6 for their internal craplications. A few years ago, they wished they could compile the latest and greatest IE for XP.
As for OSX, I have a lot less problem with it. It's not quite my cup of tea but it is my next choice after Linux. Of course it's not exactly the year of the OSX desktop in corporate America either. It remains the slightly odd choice that people have heard of on the desktop. iOS OTOH is a real contender and while not as big as Android, it has a respectable market share.
1&2. GUI? A sysadmin is expected to know how to edit text files and use the console.
3. Auto-running executables by accidental click is a very bad idea. Especially for "Usability". It's configurable for more advanced users.
4. Seamless updates cannot be accomplished without killling programs that are running and running into config issues. The problem is that the program needs an update.
5. App store? so linux gets more of the shitty types of apps that phones have?
6. You are free to rename free software to your liking
7. How do you know someone wants to mount an iso? Maybe they want to record it on an optical disc? Or maybe they want to use it for a virtual machine?
8. Windows shortcuts are absolutely retarded, and should not be emulated when most *DEs already offered much better ones long before windows.
9. Ever tried typing "locate" or "find"?
I think the problem is that you are using an indexed search, which for obvious reasons won't know what's not in the index.
You do not understand the Unix philosophy, since most of your suggestions are done differently on purpose.
Learn how to work with a powerful and more secure system, or go back to your smartphone, it's probably more to your liking.
GUI? A sysadmin is expected to know how to edit text files and use the console.
Have you read this?: "There are so many little things daily that cause the OS to be hard to use for regular people."
"regular people"
"REGULAR PEOPLE"
I guess you haven't. Why am I not surprised?
Auto-running executables by accidental click is a very bad idea.
No, YOU THINK it's a very bad idea. For a regular user it's expected behavior. If anything, just add a pop-up saying "are you sure you want to execute this script?" but it would be useless anyway.
How do you know someone wants to mount an iso? Maybe they want to record it on an optical disc? Or maybe they want to use it for a virtual machine?
Contextual menu with choices to pick. Hardly a novelty.
Windows shortcuts are absolutely retarded
My oh my. See, the smug "mommy knows best" attitude that keeps Linux flavors at 2-3% overall.
You do not understand the Unix philosophy
The "philosophy" you talk about is bullshit for Average Joe and will keep Linux Desktop in the gutter indefinitely if its makers will resist understanding their potential customers.
Take Elementary OS, for example. I installed it in a VirtualBox VM at home. All went well except it was showing a shitty 640x480 resolution, so I wanted to install the Additions. Mounted the item, couldn't get it to run from the GUI. It was "forbidden". I had to drop to terminal and do it as root within 3 minutes of installing a "GUI-friendly" operating system. Sorry, but this behavior is anything BUT GUI-friendly.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Most people don't care if Linux has a low market share, we think it's an advantage, keep the good users in and the trash out, and it's most certainly better the less Linux resembles crap like Windows, a system that will soon be remembered only by history books.
Users are only "good" if they are qualified enough to keep software working smoothly, instead of just whining.
I don't want Joe Average (assuming he's a retard like you put it) to be filling up support forums with junk because he can't RTFM.
I'm sorry, but an OS designed for your definition of "Joe Average" is an OS that would cause a mass exodus of anyone skilled enough to work on it.
There are plenty of those, like Etch-a-sketch. Have you tried it?
You're contradicting yourself.
If Linux-based OS is for "31337" only, how would Windows fade away? What are 97% of people using computers going to switch to? MacBooks? Something else that hasn't been invented yet?
Please, enlighten me.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Because, despite it being for the elite, it's still a lot better and easier to use than the alternatives.
Most people however, are switching to mobile handsets that run Android, and don't seem to need a full blown PC at all.
Good God, man, I just told you why it's NOT easier to use and you keep going in circles.
I rest my case.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I gave many examples of advantages but you don't value them.
No it's not that I don't value them, it's that the vast majority of people don't value them. They aren't significant or disruptive changes, look at what the iPhone did to the smartphone market, that is what will make people switch. Real significant, tangible benefits are what people are willing to put up with change and incompatibility for.
That's fine, but others do and would switch but for inertia.
There is absolutely no proof of that whatsoever, the only proof is to the contrary: OS X marketshare has grown over the past decade while desktop Linux has not. Windows has gone through 2 major disruptive changes yet that hasn't caused any significant number to switch to desktop Linux.
All those corporations stuck with XP and IE6 probably wish they could make the jump to Win7 and keep IE 6 for their internal craplications.
Right, they want to go to Win 7, not to Linux. We all know what the IE6 issue was - and had Netscape been the one to succeed we would have been stuck with applications tied to their proprietary extensions too - but thankfully the web standards are capable for producing functional web applications these days and those standards are mostly adhered to by the big players Firefox, Chrome, Safari and even IE. Back then you needed to use proprietary extensions because the standard was too limited, the choice was IE or Netscape so you were tied to them either way, had people used Netscape's embedded objects or dynamic documents or multicol, spacer, etc... they'd be tied to non-compliant old Navigator versions too.
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, that's the problem with Linux advocates: they think Linux is the solution for every problem, from smartwatches to mainframes. It's great for embedded systems (the various embedded versions of Windows are only appropriate for a small niche there) and it's great for mainframes (not sure why anybody would run Windows there) but it's unnecessary on the desktop because it adds nothing of value over the incumbents.
No, it's just *your* definition of what easy to use is. Most of us don't agree, which is reflected in your unhappiness with the software.
I'm not saying free software GUIs are perfect, far from it, but they are in general a lot better and more usable than proprietary ones.