Slashdot Mirror
Is The Linux Desktop In Trouble? (zdnet.com)
"I believe that, as Microsoft keeps moving Windows to a Desktop-as-a-Service model, Linux will be the last traditional PC desktop operating system standing," writes ZDNet contributing editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols.
"But that doesn't mean I'm blind to its problems." First, even Linus Torvalds is tired of the fragmentation in the Linux desktop. In a recent [December 2018] TFiR interview with Swapnil Bhartiya, Torvalds said, "Chromebooks and Android are the path toward the desktop." Why? Because we don't have a standardized Linux desktop. For example, better Linux desktops, such as Linux Mint, provide an easy way to install applications, but under the surface, there are half-a-dozen different ways to install programs. That makes life harder for developers. Torvalds wishes "we were better at having a standardized desktop that goes across the distributions."
Torvalds thinks there's been some progress. For software installation, he likes Flatpak. This software program, like its rival Snap, lets you install and maintain programs across different Linux distros. At the same time, this rivalry between Red Hat (which supports Flatpak) and Canonical (which backs Snap) bugs Torvalds. He's annoyed at how the "fragmentation of the different vendors have held the desktop back." None of the major Linux distributors -- Canonical, Red Hat, SUSE -- are really all that interested in supporting the Linux desktop. They all have them, but they're focused on servers, containers, the cloud, and the Internet of Things (IoT). That's, after all, is where the money is.
Linux desktop distros "tend to last for five or six years and then real life gets in the way of what's almost always a volunteer effort..." the article argues. "It is not easy building and supporting a Linux desktop. It comes with a lot of wear and tear on its developers with far too little reward."
His solution? Having a foundation create a common desktop for all Linux distros, so the Linux world could finally reap the benefits of standardization. "This would mean that many more Linux desktop developers could make a living from their work. That would improve the Linux desktop overall quality.
"It's a virtuous cycle, which would help everyone."
"But that doesn't mean I'm blind to its problems." First, even Linus Torvalds is tired of the fragmentation in the Linux desktop. In a recent [December 2018] TFiR interview with Swapnil Bhartiya, Torvalds said, "Chromebooks and Android are the path toward the desktop." Why? Because we don't have a standardized Linux desktop. For example, better Linux desktops, such as Linux Mint, provide an easy way to install applications, but under the surface, there are half-a-dozen different ways to install programs. That makes life harder for developers. Torvalds wishes "we were better at having a standardized desktop that goes across the distributions."
Torvalds thinks there's been some progress. For software installation, he likes Flatpak. This software program, like its rival Snap, lets you install and maintain programs across different Linux distros. At the same time, this rivalry between Red Hat (which supports Flatpak) and Canonical (which backs Snap) bugs Torvalds. He's annoyed at how the "fragmentation of the different vendors have held the desktop back." None of the major Linux distributors -- Canonical, Red Hat, SUSE -- are really all that interested in supporting the Linux desktop. They all have them, but they're focused on servers, containers, the cloud, and the Internet of Things (IoT). That's, after all, is where the money is.
Linux desktop distros "tend to last for five or six years and then real life gets in the way of what's almost always a volunteer effort..." the article argues. "It is not easy building and supporting a Linux desktop. It comes with a lot of wear and tear on its developers with far too little reward."
His solution? Having a foundation create a common desktop for all Linux distros, so the Linux world could finally reap the benefits of standardization. "This would mean that many more Linux desktop developers could make a living from their work. That would improve the Linux desktop overall quality.
"It's a virtuous cycle, which would help everyone."
Let computer people make great computer code again.
New CPU and GPU designs need the most advanced new code. Code that is tested.
Let the smartest people write code and more code.
Time on the politics and virtue signalling of a CoC is not time used for new code.
It adds noting to code and takes time away from ver smart people who could be doing actual code related work.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
There is not a single Linux "desktop". That is restricted, authoritarian Windows lore. For example, I use FVWM as "desktop" (properly called a "window manager") and that is not even tied to Linux, but available generally on UNIX and UNIX-like OSes. Hence the connection between a Linux "desktop" and a Linux distro the author is trying to make is pretty much meaningless.
In actual reality, Linux on servers and workstations will be around as long as there is hardware to run it. And that is not going away, especially as Linux is not limited to AMD64 in the first place and runs pretty well on slower hardware. And there will always be people that mistrust the cloud with good reason and that hence want their local, independent computing capabilities.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It's been a good 10 years since you explored Linux, right? I've had none of these troubles with Debian, Ubuntu, or their many flavors.
And I disagree with Linus. The strength of linux is the different flavors. If you want an easy to use disro, there are many out there. If you want one where you have more control, there are some out there as well.
It's been a good 10 years since you explored Linux, right? I've had none of these troubles with Debian, Ubuntu, or their many flavors.
And I disagree with Linus. The strength of linux is the different flavors. If you want an easy to use disro, there are many out there. If you want one where you have more control, there are some out there as well.
All the examples I gave were from the last year on an older but still maintained Ubuntu distro.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Most people use Gnome / KDE, but I use XFCE / LXDE / Icewm. WHY STANDARDIZE? We already have several killer desktops. This "holy grail" of standardization of the desktop is not going to win converts. Why? Because people want Outlook and Quick(en|books). They buy the special app they need and the app (mostly) dictates the platform. The "killer app" is going to be .. the apps!
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
I'll just leave these Standards right here.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Translation: I like tinkering, maybe you should like tinkering.
The actual fact is, only nerds like tinkering to squeeze some extra performance out of their system, or to make a system last longer than it should.
Linux and FreeBSD's biggest strengths are that they still work on 10 year old computers.
The special sauce is Google Play Store. It gets, installs and updates apps for you, and updates automatically. Linux does have package managers but they work differently and independently depending on the distro, and Ubuntu variants have a dedicated update manager that does similar things but they're not consistent, just look at the list of package managers: dpkg apt pacman flatpak snappy rpm and they're not compatible or interchangeable except maybe flatpak and snappy, which usually works on most systems fine. Steam, snappy and flatpak work more like Google Play and Steam's ease of use would make it more like Google Play, and ease of use is the main issue here: if you have to go to the command line people will balk at it.
This thread perfectly illustrates the point by the OP. Everyone immediately turned on each other claiming that "THEIR WAY was the ONLY way" and "all other opinions were shit." Everyone immediately went to discussing the underlying technology of their preferences vs the point that THAT is the problem. Nobody gives a flying **** if you've been compiling your own desktop environment and workflow for the past 30 years. Nobody cares that YOU like x package manager over y. Its irrelevant. You aren't more or less linux than anyone else. The Linux community is virtually without equal in its ability to cannibalize itself with infighting and elitism. The major survivors, Ubuntu, RedHat among a few others quickly realized that trying to unify the rabid base into any cohesive strategy was pointless and worthless. Too much vitriol. I'm not the biggest fan of Linus at times but he is on point here. Of course the opposing point of view that Linux doesn't need a standard desktop is just as valid. There are plenty of "easy button" Linux desktop solutions in the marketplace and a little bit of research will show that basically everyone can get almost anything working on nearly any flavor. Rant over
Adapting it to YOUR needs is *the whole point*
For 99% of desktop users, their needs are for it to just work, and work consistently, and when they want to install something they just click on the installer.
And most importantly, when they want to use a piece of software, it's available and doesn't require a bunch of fucking around to make it work.
Yes, because the average user wants their desktop to break when they update their OS because their nvidia driver didn't compile correctly...
Ubuntu (and therefore everything based on it) has the http://ppa.launchpad.net/graph... repositories with the latest precompiled Nvidia drivers. Compiling an Nvidia driver hasn't been necessary in years. And Nvidia has really gotten its Linux act together recently, as their newer drivers integrate into the desktop seamlessly. This obviates all of the GCC stuff. There are legitimate problems, but having to manually compile anything isn't one of them.
My KDE desktop settings have mostly carried over for the last few rolling Kubuntu distribution upgrades. The sole exceptions have all been in the KDEPIN suite, which has gotten so bad that I stopped using every single application in the suite. It went from being a very respectable collection of integrated software to being an unpredictable, data-destroying nightmare that I can't stand anymore.
I have a small list of issues that I think would hold back the average person from being completely self-sufficient with Kubuntu, but none of them are show-stoppers.
Diversity in the Linux desktop world is a good thing, not a bad thing. I really don't get what these two are blathering on about.
Kind of disgusting that some idiot modded you troll for pointing out that Linus is wrong. It would be far from the first time, the Bitkeeper fiasco iss a marquee example. You are 100% right, Linus has not got much useful to say about the Linux desktop. Vaughan-Nichols has got it wrong too with this troll article: the more Microsoft pushes its users to do what they don't want, that is, rent PCs from Microsoft, the more Linux converts we will get. I do agree that Linux is likely to be the last usable desktop standing.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
That was my first thought.
We kinda had a standard. GNOME. Even it wasn't "first", it was created after KDE which, while decent, had legitimate licensing problems at the time GNOME was created.
Then GNOME fell apart, and now we have at least three forks (GNOME 3, Mate, and Cinnamon), one dead fork (Unity), and Torvalds is saying we need another standard?
(And another annoyance - Torvalds sees Snaps and Flatpaks as the "solution" to the package management/distro issue? Really? Yeah, let's just replicate the userland for each application you install to deal with what was a non-issue.)
Anyone remember Ubuntu circa 2008? The OS that at the time "just worked" in a way that Windows never did - it actually ran on more hardware at the time than a generic Windows installer. And was much more user friendly than XP or Vista, and just all around better?
What the hell went wrong? Was it just GNOME, or was Unity going to happen anyway? IIRC it started as a "Netbook UI".
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No.
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If the headline asks a question, try answering 'no'. In the vast majority of cases, the story is tendentious or over-sold. It is often a scare story, or an attempt to elevate some run-of-the-mill piece of reporting into a national controversy and, preferably, a national panic. To a busy journalist hunting for real information a question mark means 'don't bother reading this bit'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
The end user interface is the last thing that needs standardization. Desktops that look or act differently aren't the problem. What needs standardization is the back end API. There should only be one way for the installer to interface with the desktop manager for adding a new program icon. One way for a program to register its "settings". A single "control panel" where any program can add its configuration settings to. There should only be one form of IPC. One way for a printer to register a driver.
Once those issues are solved, once we have a rock-solid core set of standards there, then there can be a million distributions that look and feel different, that distinguish themselves by catering to X, Y, or Z. It won't matter. Any program will still be able to run on any of them, because they may look and feel different, but they will act and be configured the same.
Monoculture for UI is stifling. Monoculture for API is liberating.
Windows is far and away the OS of choice for consumers and businesses. Why? Because anybody whose uses Windows at home knows how to use it at work. Repeat after me. The Linux user interface blows because itâ(TM)s not consistent.
And we have that, in spades. Gnome, MATE, KDE.
True, that is technically standardizing but I think the real point is there should be one standard. Linux's desktop adoption is a small fraction of that of Windows and it is further fragmented by multiple desktop standards. This is further complicated by the fact that apps will follow one of the standards so even if you use Gnome the chances are you will still run some apps that were designed for KDE or vice versa.
Having a singular standard would fix a lot of this. You would still have the version issue like Windows does but this is far less of an issue because then an old app is still using a standard that you were used to using even if it is not well suited for the current version.
I use XFCE on all my computers, since the early days of Gnome 3.
I love it. And bless it, for it has never changed and has continued to work well. Software perfection.
I don't use desktop icons. I use a full width bottom bar with a menu in the corner. Focus follows mouse. 10 virtual desktops. Many instances of xterm.
My wife uses it and she probably doesn't even know it. Or what OS is running. That's another part of software perfection; users who don't care don't even know about it, they only know about their applications.
Change is great when a tool doesn't work right, but it is often toxic when the tool already works.
OP says "we need a standardized user interface".
Your reply is "we have three of those standardized user interfaces". Looking in Wikipedia, I found this:
On desktop systems, the most popular user interfaces are the GUI shells, packaged together with extensive desktop environments, such as KDE Plasma, GNOME, MATE, Cinnamon, Unity, LXDE, Pantheon and Xfce, though a variety of additional user interfaces exist.
A standard is a standard. One single thing. Not eight. Certainly not eight over umpteen distros.
I have an old ASUS Eee PC 1005HA which came with Windows 7 Start or something like that. In time, that ugly-ass sticker with the license key has faded away so I installed a Linux Mint distro on it. We plan to use that Eee PC in the kitchen, to look up recipe instructions while cooking, and my girlfriend was asking me about its OS. She's a Windows user and so am I (most of the time). I was telling her it has Linux installed and if she doesn't like the interface, there are others around. She asked "so which is better?" - hell, I don't know.
Now, if you have a normal PC user, who knows just enough about an OS UI to be able to configure the OS and use it without asking for help, how would you present these user interfaces and the difference between them? When faced with a choice between multiple software solutions I tend to construct a table having the solutions in columns and their features in rows, with each cell marked on or off showing whether A certain solution has a certain feature, compared to the rest. In this case I realized I don't know what the difference is. I'm not sure I should care, either. So why, then, do these competing solutions even exist? They don't compete commercially, because they are free to use. They don't compete from a functionality perspective, because (and I make an assumption here) top 30 UI features for any modern interface are present in all of them. So why have all those solutions, if the top reason to use one over the other is personal preference? Which, by the way, needs to be developed, and a new user (or a converted one) doesn't have.
Last thing I need when switching to Linux Desktop is a consultant to help me decide which user interface better suits me. I would very much like to install a distro and have a way to choose between the eight user interfaces above, on the fly, by choosing from a menu or something, much like themes work on an Android phone. Then yes, it would indeed be a matter of preference.
I remember when Windows 8 was released, with their new Tile-based desktop and their horrible choice of redesigning Settings, a half-assed implementation which destroyed usability. Even today, with Windows 10 v.1809, Settings are a mess. Half of them are present in the "new" UI, and half are still in the classic UI (which was way more functional, if you ask me). I, the ever-desktop-click-and-OK user, had to rely on PowerShell or Command Prompt a lot more to change settings, because the UI way was more frustrating and slower. So, yes, there is ample opportunity for Linux-based desktop UIs to replace Windows-based UI from that regard, but fragmentation is one of the big hurdles.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Windows is far and away the OS of choice for consumers and businesses. Why? Because anybody whose uses Windows at home knows how to use it at work. Repeat after me. The Linux user interface blows because itâ(TM)s not consistent.
Windows dominates because of technological lock-in. At one point it managed to grab by far the largest slice of the desktop market when it was young. The Linux desktop wasn't that much of a thing back then, it was too young and undeveloped to offer serious competition. Now everybody is used to Windows, and often has software that works only under Windows, hardware that works only under Windows, etc. It's a positive feedback loop, the fact that Linux desktops exist and actually work quite well on a variety of hardware (typing from a Linux distro right now) is a testament to the platform's resilience and capability.
The only OS seriously taking on Windows and thriving is one whose roots go further back than Windows, and which is made by a hardware manufacturer. Even that is a niche market and tied to only one hardware platform.
Meanwhile Linux has, via Android, become the Windows of the smartphone world. Due to the consistency of the user interface? Well, no, look at the differences between stock Android and the various manufacturer's flavours (Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei LG, etc.), as well as the differences between Android versions (my phone recently upgraded to a new Android version and I flipped after realizing they moved around really important stuff, like where some settings I check and change often are, etc.). It's because Android grabbed the market while it was young. Windows too has changed its interface, Office at one point changed everything, yet Microsoft still dominates these markets...due to lock-in.
Windows is far and away the OS of choice for consumers and businesses. Why? Because anybody whose uses Windows at home knows how to use it at work. Repeat after me. The Linux user interface blows because itâ(TM)s not consistent.
Amen to that. In Windows CTRL-C and CTRL-P does Copy and Paste in everything. In Linux CTRL-C and CTRL-P does Copy and Paste in the desktop but switch to say CLI and you have to remember to use CTRL-SHIFT-C and CTRL-SHIFT-P and despite plenty of complaints about that over the years they still refuse to change it. Its little inconsistencies like that which get really annoying after a while.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Your problem is that you're switching to CLI and expecting the same interface. I'm more of a Ctrl-Insert to copy and Shift-Insert kind of guy, and that works most of the time in both Windows and Linux.
Also it's trivial to configure XTerm or whatever terminal you like to use whatever key combination you want for cut and paste. Not that the end user should have to have to do this themselves.
Standardized interfaces are overrated. As a lefty even everyday tools like scissors and chainsaws made bad design choices for user experience.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
> Anyone remember Ubuntu circa 2008?
It was awesome. And remained awesome until - I think - October 2010. That is when Gnome 3 and Unity came out. Then Ubuntu completely barfed all over itself with systemd.
What a massive disappointment. I used to anxiously await the upgrade, because Ubuntu just got better and better.