Former Compiz Developer: Free Software Desktop Might Enter A Dark Age [editorial]

Ultimately an OS is just platform to run your user software (application, games). It's the software that really matters and their is no debate that Windows is ahead by at least an order of magnitude when it comes to available software. That is fact.

And this is the killer feature of Windows that has very little to do with Windows itself.
 
Couldn't agree more. Most people would be fine with Linux if it ran their "must have" software. Software compatibility is the big reason why it doesn't take off. That, and most consumers never install an OS, so it would need to come with typical PC's.

Software compatibility is the most important reason, but isn't the only one.

After trying a half dozen Linux desktop environments, I never found one I liked. I also hated that many applications sets (especially on configuration side) changed with the DE. Try a new DE and all of sudden, I have a different media player, or different file manager, etc...

Linux on Desktop does feel like a confused mess to me and I have been using it for over 20 years. It would be extremely daunting for the newbie.

There might be 10000 people working on Linux Distributions. But unfortunately they are pulling in a 1000 different directions.
 
After trying a half dozen Linux desktop environments, I never found one I liked. I also hated that many applications sets (especially on configuration side) changed with the DE. Try a new DE and all of sudden, I have a different media player, or different file manager, etc...

Every strength can be a point of weakness as well. Windows' great ecosystem hurts it because like all other desktop software, Windows leads in malware. Linux is very flexible and configurable which is great but then for average people the inundation of all that choice becomes overwhelming. I think that's one reason why Microsoft has never spent much energy on tons of UI customization and features because overall the benefits versus the confusion of 100 different UI layouts offset each other.
 
Software compatibility is the most important reason, but isn't the only one.

After trying a half dozen Linux desktop environments, I never found one I liked. I also hated that many applications sets (especially on configuration side) changed with the DE. Try a new DE and all of sudden, I have a different media player, or different file manager, etc...

Linux on Desktop does feel like a confused mess to me and I have been using it for over 20 years. It would be extremely daunting for the newbie.

There might be 10000 people working on Linux Distributions. But unfortunately they are pulling in a 1000 different directions.


I don't see this as a problem at all. Variety is a good thing. Pick the one you like the most. If you are confused by using different desktop environments, then don't. Just choose one and stick with it.

I feel like Windows 10, and its forced unremovable apps are the problem. Even when a Linux desktop environment comes bundled with different apps, you can always uninstall them and replace them with your favorite. Tweak-ability, variety of options, etc. are one of the big reasons why those who like Linux like Linux. Changing that would remove what is great about it.

I don't even think it's that big of a deal. I've put 6 year old kids and grandma's in front of Linux boxes with different desktop environments on them, and they still very quickly figure out how to pull up the browser and go online, but if it is, then I'd rather Linux just not ever gain mainstream appeal. I like it the way it is, and don't want it to change. (Other than faster gaming performance and greater software compatibility, of course)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
Agreed to an extent, but you have to look at windows 8 and windows 10.

People hated windows 8.. why? Because shit wasn't where it was supposed to be. X had been in the same place since 3.1 and MS fucked it up with 8. Everyone hated it. 10 (and to a lesser extent 8.1) rolls around, puts shit back where it's familiar/intuitive to people, and they love it(ish)

Thats what Linux needs. If someone goes to get a prebuilt system from dell, gateway, emachines whathaveyou, and they choose Linux as the OS, it should be the same on ALL platforms. That will get people to start trying it, that will give a larger userbase to help newbies to the OS without the "What distro... okay.. what desktop environment?.." type issues, and a larger userbase will cause software companies to start allocating more resources to linux.

Right now there is too many hurdles to jump through, and not enough easy to come by support, if they unified a bit, and started pooling resources to make 1 or 2 badass Debian distros, or Ubuntu distros, they could make something that would get some attention.

I mean ffs if you need this.... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/UbuntuFamilyTree1210.svg

Your shit is too confusing.
I don't think those are quite fair comparisons. Yes, some users will complain about change, but they'll accept it over time if it's a GOOD change. Windows 8 wasn't a good change. It was a half-baked effort to merge tablet and desktop interfaces while inadequately doing either. It created problems where there weren't any before.

And claiming everyone loves Windows 10 I think has to do a hell of a lot more with it being the first FREE Windows than anything else. The fact that it's had a slower adoption rate than some past Windows DESPITE being free is rather telling. The biggest complaints about Windows 10 aren't the interface however.

As for Linux, again, I don't think the number of distros is the problem, HOWEVER, there needs to be enough standardization so that if somebody asks "I'm new to Linux and am coming from Windows. What distro should I use?" there should be only one answer for 99% of people. If there are multiple answers to that question, I agree, that's a problem. Although even that might not be such an issue if Linux could just get more raw exposure. So if there was a movement out to pay Dell, Acer, Lenovo, etc. to make Linux a DEFAULT option for new systems (only adding Windows 10 upon request or specifically for gaming systems), that could change the dynamics a lot more.

If you get enough new users and market penetration, the compatibility will come. If you get enough compatibility, more users will come. If you don't aim for either, then this discussion is likely to look pretty similar in another 20 years.
 
Good riddance. Unity 7 is terrible and Ubuntu MATE is far superior. I don't care about your touch screens on your IOT's. Remember when MS tried to make PC's and Tablet and Phones one OS? Disaster.
 
And claiming everyone loves Windows 10 I think has to do a hell of a lot more with it being the first FREE Windows than anything else. The fact that it's had a slower adoption rate than some past Windows DESPITE being free is rather telling. The biggest complaints about Windows 10 aren't the interface however.

Most consumers never upgraded Windows version. New versions of Windows were primarily distributed via new PC sales, and those new sales are simply way off their historical highs which occurred around the time Windows 7's release. Windows 10's popularity certainly isn't at the level of Windows 7, though it seems to have done well with gamers. But 10 will be the next enterprise destination replacing 7. So sure, not where Microsoft would have liked it but also nothing at all like Windows 8.x which was pretty much ignored in the enterprise.

So if there was a movement out to pay Dell, Acer, Lenovo, etc. to make Linux a DEFAULT option for new systems (only adding Windows 10 upon request or specifically for gaming systems), that could change the dynamics a lot more.

And it's not just gaming. A person gets a Linux machine and then finds out it won't run MS Office or whatever and yeah, problem. The thing about this issue is that it gets a lot of play in online forums but to most people, the Windows versus Linux debate is a non-issue. But the machine needs to be compatible with the things they need from it.

If you get enough new users and market penetration, the compatibility will come. If you get enough compatibility, more users will come. If you don't aim for either, then this discussion is likely to look pretty similar in another 20 years.

Of course, the thing that Linux needs on the desktop more than anything is popularity, i.e. LOTS more users. I have my doubts that many pro-Linux desktop users actually want that.
 
I don't see this as a problem at all. Variety is a good thing. Pick the one you like the most. If you are confused by using different desktop environments, then don't. Just choose one and stick with it.

I feel like Windows 10, and its forced unremovable apps are the problem. Even when a Linux desktop environment comes bundled with different apps, you can always uninstall them and replace them with your favorite. Tweak-ability, variety of options, etc. are one of the big reasons why those who like Linux like Linux. Changing that would remove what is great about it.

I don't even think it's that big of a deal. I've put 6 year old kids and grandma's in front of Linux boxes with different desktop environments on them, and they still very quickly figure out how to pull up the browser and go online, but if it is, then I'd rather Linux just not ever gain mainstream appeal. I like it the way it is, and don't want it to change. (Other than faster gaming performance and greater software compatibility, of course)

Variety is a good thing up to a certain point for Joe Average user. Then again that's why Joe Average wouldn't be using something like Arch. They'd be picking up Ubuntu or Mint or Solus or some other easy to install and easy to use distro. Joe Average, because he simply doesn't know any better, wouldn't even consider Linux though except on the recommendation of family or friends. Family and friends would point them to the Solus's or Ubuntu's of the world.

Joe Average also doesn't care if the distro is using gedit or some other text editor. Overall most distros package the same stuff now anyways due to the mainstream software being opensource. What distro doesn't ship VLC for a media player at this point? Who doesn't ship LibreOffice or GIMP? They all do.

That's where Canonical really fucked up. They were becoming the household name for Linux. Gnome 2 was a great interface. Gnome 3 isn't my cup of tea but likewise it is a good interface. Had they stuck with Gnome 3 instead of moving to Unity then Ubuntu would be "the" household name for Linux. Instead they're not because of Unity and all the bad press surrounding it.

And like you said Zarathustra...Shuttleworth is just butthurt over Mir. Mir was a horrible idea from the get go. It wasn't a matter of people hating free software. It was a matter of hating where Ubuntu was going with it. If Canonical had said here's Unity and we're using Wayland and will help develop Wayland I think they would have been lauded instead of hated.

heatlesssun said:
And it's not just gaming. A person gets a Linux machine and then finds out it won't run MS Office or whatever and yeah, problem. The thing about this issue is that it gets a lot of play in online forums but to most people, the Windows versus Linux debate is a non-issue. But the machine needs to be compatible with the things they need from it.

Actually the problem for "most" people isn't that Office won't run. It's that MS has made it appear that Office is the only word processor application out there that's worth anything and for "most" people that is far from the truth. LibreOffice or Google Docs can do more than enough for the average user and they'd never miss Office. That is until they send a file and are told it looks weird on a Windows PC with MS Office. And the reason why that happens is because MS can't follow fucking open standards in their "premiere" office solution. And trust me I know that Libre can't replace MS Office in probably 95% of the business place. Excel alone makes that impossible as Excel is so ridiculously powerful. However, that doesn't mean people need to keep forking over money to MS for something they hardly use much less need.

I can create an ODF file in Libre and open it in WPS Office and open it in Google Docs. No problems. No formatting issues. Open that file up in Office though and holy horseshit...it's all broken. And MS's "open" docx format only opens properly in Office. Sorry that's bullshit and this isn't a Windows vs Linux thing. This is simply MS being arrogant and not wanting to follow the standards for the Open Document Format.

The thing is Joe Average would be more than happy running something like Solus or Mint. It gets them e-mail. It gets them Facebook. It allows them to access the Internet and watch cat videos. It allows them to create documents. The average user doesn't NEED most of the stuff hardcore gamers prattle on about. Sure you will always have people who use some special software that requires Windows but that means they're not Joe Average anymore. They're Joe Above Average and what they do with their computer will be different than Joe Average and that changes things. Since Joe Average is "most" people and Joe Above Average is not then what Joe Above Average does has no bearing on this conversation as I'm talking about "most" people.

Samsung and Google see what Joe Average typically does on his phone. That's why we see Chromebook growth exploding and things like DeX being explored. They're targeting their biggest audience. That audience doesn't need an 8 core i7 CPU with 16 threads and 64GB of RAM and Tri-SLI or special software restricted to Windows.

They need a simple ARM based octo-core with 4GB RAM to visit Facebook and watch cat videos. No matter what anybody says this is the truth and is the state of the industry right now.
 
Extreme advocacy does much more harm than good to the Linux community.

Well in fairness you have been perhaps reading a bit into a lot of the posts in this thread. Yes there are some Linux boosters around here. Still I don't think any of us have been denying what Windows is good at. When people talk about things being a million times better everyone understands they are using a figure of speech.

Yes windows is better in regards to games. No I will not admit it is better for commercial workstation type use... and that isn't because I am a fanatic, its simply isn't my experience. Its easier to maintain Linux workstations, its easier to lock them down, its easier to integrate them... and 95% of the time they are better at running what clients need them to run. Of course their are cases where windows is still the best option for something. I don't run into many of those cases, but I know in some industries specific regulations or requirements do push things the windows way. For instance the medical field, in Canada where I am actually Linux is a popular choice in hospitals and offices... in the US its my understanding windows is dominate due to regulations that few Linux software providers conform to. Anyway not trying to start a new line of argument.

Simply stating that yes many of us advocate for Linux because we honestly believe its the best all around OS. However I have honestly not seen anyone on [H] that are honestly the super hard core neck beard type Linux boosters. lol I have met people that fit that description and they would not admit to windows doing anything well.

Still I don't apologize for my options on MS and Windows. They are a company I rarely agree with that has cornered the gaming PC market with practices that include forcing DX use on specific windows versions, paying off developers and benefiting from the monopoly type practices they have found themselves in court over plenty over the years. As for the more commercial small-medium size business angle... again many of the same practices have made that happen for them. Companies to scared to leave MS office cause that document sent from their Lawyers office might not load up right... or their employees might not be able to find that Internet explorer program. When it comes to larger companies MS has been loosing most of the companies they converted in the 90s... ones big enough that they where using Unix style workstations before MS Windows became the standard IBM OS.

And now you can say see you do sound like a crazy neck beard type... and ya ok I guess there are days when I haven't shaved that perhaps I am. :)
 
IMO the poblem with Linux, and if they want to get taken seriously, is stop with 94534 distros. Join forces and make 1 or 2 super mega badass windows crushing releases.

Funny enough that is sort of what this threads story comes down to. The multiple distros make Linux stronger not weeker. However now that all the major large server type companies like Conc, Red Hat, Suse ect will all be using the same DE.... they will all be a lot more alike. Differences will now come from package manager setups and such.... and most home users won't find all that much difference using them as a standard workstation type OS.
 
Actually the problem for "most" people isn't that Office won't run. It's that MS has made it appear that Office is the only word processor application out there that's worth anything and for "most" people that is far from the truth. LibreOffice or Google Docs can do more than enough for the average user and they'd never miss Office. That is until they send a file and are told it looks weird on a Windows PC with MS Office. And the reason why that happens is because MS can't follow fucking open standards in their "premiere" office solution. And trust me I know that Libre can't replace MS Office in probably 95% of the business place. Excel alone makes that impossible as Excel is so ridiculously powerful. However, that doesn't mean people need to keep forking over money to MS for something they hardly use much less need.

I can create an ODF file in Libre and open it in WPS Office and open it in Google Docs. No problems. No formatting issues. Open that file up in Office though and holy horseshit...it's all broken. And MS's "open" docx format only opens properly in Office. Sorry that's bullshit and this isn't a Windows vs Linux thing. This is simply MS being arrogant and not wanting to follow the standards for the Open Document Format.

The thing is Joe Average would be more than happy running something like Solus or Mint. It gets them e-mail. It gets them Facebook. It allows them to access the Internet and watch cat videos. It allows them to create documents. The average user doesn't NEED most of the stuff hardcore gamers prattle on about. Sure you will always have people who use some special software that requires Windows but that means they're not Joe Average anymore. They're Joe Above Average and what they do with their computer will be different than Joe Average and that changes things. Since Joe Average is "most" people and Joe Above Average is not then what Joe Above Average does has no bearing on this conversation as I'm talking about "most" people.

Samsung and Google see what Joe Average typically does on his phone. That's why we see Chromebook growth exploding and things like DeX being explored. They're targeting their biggest audience. That audience doesn't need an 8 core i7 CPU with 16 threads and 64GB of RAM and Tri-SLI or special software restricted to Windows.

They need a simple ARM based octo-core with 4GB RAM to visit Facebook and watch cat videos. No matter what anybody says this is the truth and is the state of the industry right now.

I agree a lot with what you're saying but if it were that easy to just move away from the Windows ecosystem I think a lot more people would do it.
 
Please tell me you meant to type "that can be used with BSD, Linux..." There's no such thing as "BSD Linux."

Yes grammar error. I spend a lot of time debugging my own code and things like that are exactly why. lol ;)
 
I agree a lot with what you're saying but if it were that easy to just move away from the Windows ecosystem I think a lot more people would do it.

A lot of people are moving away. Yes office is still in a majority postion. Its just a smaller and smaller one each year. Google docs has no doubt been eating into their market share. Libre less so no doubt.... I mean it has a windows build but yes people are more likely to be using docs then Libre.

Vermillions point about open standards and not following them... has helped MS hold on to a good chunk of their current share. It has been MS mo over the years though, accept a standard the extended it. Read an open standard fine... but write it wrong. I don't believe that MS programmers aren't capable of making software that an save to docx properly, its a deceptive and deceitful marketing practice, which makes people hate them. It also makes people like me sometimes sound like we just want to hate MS... but they make it really hard to support the handful of good things they do.
 
A lot of people are moving away.

There isn't really any indication of that. In the desktop market the only story now is Windows 7 vs. Windows 10. Whatever resistance there is to Windows 10, desktop Linux isn't the beneficiary, Windows 7 is for now.
 
There isn't really any indication of that. In the desktop market the only story now is Windows 7 vs. Windows 10. Whatever resistance there is to Windows 10, desktop Linux isn't the beneficiary, Windows 7 is for now.

I thought we where talking about MS office. If I read something wrong sorry. People running windows are still using office less then they where 5-10 years ago. There are plenty of reasons why MS moved office to the cloud but of course one was to compete directly with google docs.
 
I thought we where talking about MS office. If I read something wrong sorry. People running windows are still using office less then they where 5-10 years ago. There are plenty of reasons why MS moved office to the cloud but of course one was to compete directly with google docs.

Well I don't think Office is overall seeing big market loses. Office 365 has done every well even with Google Docs and MS Office clients are pretty strong across the desktop, tablet, phone and web. Office is just a rich platform, it'll take a lot to really challenge it.
 
I don't see this as a problem at all. Variety is a good thing. Pick the one you like the most. If you are confused by using different desktop environments, then don't. Just choose one and stick with it.

If you can't even admit the problem exists, then the chances it will ever improve are near zero. I never said I was confused. I said Linux desktop is a confused mess. There is a difference.

It would be great if there was one go to DE backed by deep pockets and singular vision, that was coherent, elegant, efficient and configurable.

But the closest we got to backing and singular vision was Unity. :(
 
If you can't even admit the problem exists, then the chances it will ever improve are near zero. I never said I was confused. I said Linux desktop is a confused mess. There is a difference.

It would be great if there was one go to DE backed by deep pockets and singular vision, that was coherent, elegant, efficient and configurable.

But the closest we got to backing and singular vision was Unity. :(

You know what is so absolutely gut busting hilarious about this comment? Even backed by amazingly deep pockets and a singular vision, Microsoft still hasn't managed to make a desktop environment which is coherent, elegant, efficient and configurable. To make things even worse, MS has been continually making the UI less coherent, less elegant, less efficient and less configurable over the last few iterations.
 
If you can't even admit the problem exists, then the chances it will ever improve are near zero. I never said I was confused. I said Linux desktop is a confused mess. There is a difference.

It would be great if there was one go to DE backed by deep pockets and singular vision, that was coherent, elegant, efficient and configurable.

But the closest we got to backing and singular vision was Unity. :(

Lots of people disagree that it is a mess.

As for the singular vision... that is exactly what is happening isn't it ?

Unity was the odd DE out... it always was.

Gnome is the standard and has been the singular vision for a long while now. Red Hats RHEL is one of the largest commercial workstation Linux distros around... a lot of smaller and medium sized companies are running Cent its non supported clone. OpenSuse is another big which uses Gnome standard. Oracle is also running Gnome. Canonical was the hold out and Unity was the Split. As far as commercial business class distros go Gnome has been standard for years.

Its a very good thing for commercial Linux that Canonical will join everyone else making Gnome their standard DE.

I have never really understood the whole Linux is a mess argument. Gnome KDE, those have been the 2 major first choice DE choices of every major Linux distro for years now. In so far as commercial Linux goes KDE isn't really a consideration anyway. Things got muddy with Gnome 3, with a bunch of forks of the old 2.0 code as it was a well loved DE. Still all the mates, cinnamon and tons of other gnome 2 forks hardly made it any less clear that all the commercial Linux distros where still running the current Gnome standard.

Perhaps the main issue is advice new Linux users get from the average Linux user who says ohh I love Mate, or XFCE or X or Y or any of the others. Instead of just saying Gnome is the standard extremely well supported Linux DE... but if you want to try out another option and are ok with having to possibly do some tweaking there are some fun options. We should imo make it more clear that people should try a bit harder to Like Gnome if they don't like its default looks or setup. Gnome is super extendable and customizable. Its possible to make it look like windows if you really want you can make it look like MacOS if you prefer or you can make it look like nothing anyone has ever seen if that's what you want. Giving people the standard "try mate" advice isn't likely doing them a favor as a new Linux user. (yes I like mate don't get me wrong)... we should simply be trying to get new users to understand the standard Linux DE before suggesting they do the multi DE log in dance.
 
You know what is so absolutely gut busting hilarious about this comment? Even backed by amazingly deep pockets and a singular vision, Microsoft still hasn't managed to make a desktop environment which is coherent, elegant, efficient and configurable. To make things even worse, MS has been continually making the UI less coherent, less elegant, less efficient and less configurable over the last few iterations.

I would tend to agree. But it's not really a complicated UI for day to day tasks and while maybe not ideal, there's one at a time at least as opposed to a dozen.
 
You know what is so absolutely gut busting hilarious about this comment? Even backed by amazingly deep pockets and a singular vision, Microsoft still hasn't managed to make a desktop environment which is coherent, elegant, efficient and configurable. To make things even worse, MS has been continually making the UI less coherent, less elegant, less efficient and less configurable over the last few iterations.

It's closer than the half dozen DE's I have tried on Linux.

But I will agree they haven't been improving things in Win 8-10 IMO.

Windows 7 seems to be where they peaked.
 
I use my PC daily for every task I can imagine and I have no issues whatsoever. But it's not running Windows, it's running Linux. I have an expensive Windows machine here that I don't use anymore as there's just no reason to do so. [Mindblown!]

PC usage is very personal and is going to vary from person to person, but as someone that didn't just research various operating systems or dabble for half an hour to an hour in a VM and simply give up as Linux was not a Windows clone and actually made the dedicated decision to do my best to adopt Linux, I see no reason why most users couldn't switch to Linux full time without issue.

All this bullshit about 'Linux folk' and their blown out of proportion opinions is just ridiculous.

I believe that Ubuntu switching to Gnome is one of the best things I have heard in a really long time and is going to aid Linux adoption. I also believe that choice of desktop manager is one of the major strengths of Linux and doesn't make usage of the OS any more complicated than it should be whatsoever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
Windows 7 seems to be where they peaked.

Peaked for a number of desktop, keyboard and mouse only users. And as bad as some claim the desktop UI in Windows 10 to be, the much improve DPI handling in 10 makes it useable in desktop scenarios where 7 is iffy. I just played about with using my Windows 7 work laptop connected to my 40" Sammy 4k display. I'll take 10 on the desktop in that situation.

And then there's the hybrid situations, which is something that Unity was trying to address but not to much avail. Windows is used a lot with touch these days. Even as Windows phone has failed, Windows on 2 in 1s, while not taking the world by storm, has done pretty well. This will be one of those situations where I'd get called a Windows 10 shill, but I really do like the ability to use Windows across different kinds of input types and form factors.

I do think the Microsoft got the basics of a hybrid UI fairly well resolved in Windows 10. I know that's up for debate but for most folks I think 10 is just as easy to use with as mouse and keyboard as 7 and just as easy use as a tablet overall as Android. Not perfect but I don't think it's a confusing experience from what I've seen.
 
I do think the Microsoft got the basics of a hybrid UI fairly well resolved in Windows 10. I know that's up for debate but for most folks I think 10 is just as easy to use with as mouse and keyboard as 7 and just as easy use as a tablet overall as Android. Not perfect but I don't think it's a confusing experience from what I've seen.

The choice of touch, desktop or both interface needs to be the decision of the user.
 
And a great many people do, so very good point.

And a great many don't. Windows users in this forum have pointed out very specific reasons why Linux doesn't work for them. At least for me, I constantly look into it. Gaming is certainly a huge problem as well other commercial software availability. Those things are more FAR more important to me than Windows.
 
It's closer than the half dozen DE's I have tried on Linux.

But I will agree they haven't been improving things in Win 8-10 IMO.

Windows 7 seems to be where they peaked.

And if MS had borrowed from the Linux playbook and had two Desktop Environments for 8 and 10, one for desktop usage and another for touchscreen usage, both OSes, and especially 8 would have gone over much better. It's not as if MS can't do it. It's not as if MS doesn't have the resources to do it. MS simply didn't want to do it and thought everyone should do things their way. That's one of the huge reasons Linux with the many desktop environments are better. The vast majority of them have all the basic elements essentially the same. I think it would be quite difficult to "lose your way" in them. Even better is that I can swap between different ones if I want to.
 
News to me? You can disable the settings menu and active tiles from within the OS without resorting to third party hacks?

I use the Windows 10 Start Menu fine with a mouse and keyboard and touch every day. Indeed it's better on high DPI and mixed monitor environments that the 7 Start Menu.
 
And if MS had borrowed from the Linux playbook and had two Desktop Environments for 8 and 10, one for desktop usage and another for touchscreen usage, both OSes, and especially 8 would have gone over much better. It's not as if MS can't do it. It's not as if MS doesn't have the resources to do it. MS simply didn't want to do it and thought everyone should do things their way. That's one of the huge reasons Linux with the many desktop environments are better. The vast majority of them have all the basic elements essentially the same. I think it would be quite difficult to "lose your way" in them. Even better is that I can swap between different ones if I want to.

I don't think the dual UI approach is the obvious solution that some think it is. The way Windows 10 and even 8 worked, it's not either or, it's both. I think it makes more sense to develop a single overall UI that's adaptive and responsive to multiple input types than two different approaches.
 
And a great many don't. Windows users in this forum have pointed out very specific reasons why Linux doesn't work for them. At least for me, I constantly look into it. Gaming is certainly a huge problem as well other commercial software availability. Those things are more FAR more important to me than Windows.

Well naturally, why state the obvious?

The fact remains that [H] users are a minority, you are a minority of a minority and most users could use Linux just fine. You see the problem with 'Windows folk' is they vastly overstate the necessity of Windows when it comes to the bulk of the computing population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
I don't think the dual UI approach is the obvious solution that some think it is. The way Windows 10 and even 8 worked, it's not either or, it's both. I think it makes more sense to develop a single overall UI that's adaptive and responsive to multiple input types than two different approaches.

I think both solutions were bloody horrible. 10 is a small improvement over 8, but it's not what the masses were asking for, not by a long shot.
 
The fact remains that [H] users are a minority, you are a minority of a minority and most users could use Linux just fine. You see the problem with 'Windows folk' is they vastly overstate the necessity of Windows when it comes to the bulk of the computing population.

Anyone that's thought more than two seconds about Linux vs. Windows on the desktop is a minority of a minority of PC users.
 
Anyone that's thought more than two seconds about Linux vs. Windows on the desktop is a minority of a minority of PC users.

No, that's just the bulk of Windows users making misinformed claims regarding the Linux desktop.
 
Well naturally, why state the obvious?

The fact remains that [H] users are a minority, you are a minority of a minority and most users could use Linux just fine. You see the problem with 'Windows folk' is they vastly overstate the necessity of Windows when it comes to the bulk of the computing population.

They come by it naturally enough. MS themselves made the exact same mistake with windows phones. They seemed to think everyone would fall all over themselves to have a phone that looked like their desktop, that did a bunch of "Windows" things. Reality is most people didn't and don't use their phones the way MS assumed.

Heatle isn't wrong when he says people just want their stuff to work.... and Linux does just work. The main reason it hasn't seen mass user adoption is all about OEMs and average Joes computer coming preinstalled with windows. MS keeping OEMS in a headlock has been the one and only reason they still dominate the desktop. As it is only 1-2% of new pcs ship with things like Ubuntu... if it was even 10-20% shipping with a solid business class distro, I do believe the "commercial" software that fols like heatle complain isn't there would follow in very short order.

I know I like to Crystal Ball... I still say at some point Google is going to push into MS user land desktop market with a Google/Linux distro, ChromeOS Pro or some such silly name and put the hurt on MS pretty fast and hard.
 
Anyone that's thought more than two seconds about Linux vs. Windows on the desktop is a minority of a minority of PC users.

The masses don't really ask for anything, they will either accept of reject what they get. The classic Start Menu was fine for its day but it wasn't the ultimate evolution in UIs either. The UI in 10 works well across screen sizes and input types. I think the more general solution is better than two specific ones particularly if the OS is supposed to used on a single device that can span screen types and input methods.
 
No, that's just the bulk of Windows users making misinformed claims regarding the Linux desktop.

How am I misinformed? I know that desktop Linux doesn't support the things I do with my PCs well. If Linux can support what one needs that's a determination to be made by whomever is looking into it.
 
I don't think the dual UI approach is the obvious solution that some think it is. The way Windows 10 and even 8 worked, it's not either or, it's both. I think it makes more sense to develop a single overall UI that's adaptive and responsive to multiple input types than two different approaches.

I think it's a hell of a lot more obvious approach than MS thinks it is. A lot of other people seem to think it would be a much better approach as well considering the backlash against 8's UI and how much MS backed away from it. A single UI for two totally different input methods makes absolutely no sense. The single UI is nothing but compromise topped by compromise on top of a layer of compromise and doesn't do anything well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
Back
Top