Why has Linux never been able to offer a usable desktop experience?
You would think with all those monkeys coding across all those thousands of distros that at least one distro would have hired a few design people to figure things out and create something worth using.
Everything from the file explorer to the app installer is typically broken and works in a hobbled parallel approach to terminal. Very rarely does the GUI stand alone as being usable.
Why? Is it because Linux lacks female/trans/diverse UX people and lets white male cis programmers run the show?
Because it just works. Just not for brainlets, but that's fine.
Zachary Powell
>Apel > made by rainbows and unicorns and ironic beards hipsters > praised as most user-friendly OS
> Linux > rational-minded fedora-wearing people > whole unusable mess
James Hughes
because the people making it are autistic, weak people who finally succumbed to a corporate takeover
Carter Reyes
>white male cis programmers Almost made me take you seriously and give you a genuine reply. Off you go: >>> Jow Forums
Hunter Sanders
>just works >flagship distros invariably broken upon install
Michael Jenkins
If they make a good desktop OS: 1) Nobody will pay them for that. So they create clusterfucks hoping to be hired as consultants. 2) APPLE and MS will go bankrupt, they wont let this happen. This is why KDE and GNOME are being constantly rewritten, forcing freetards to re-learn and adapt. (its a never ending beta-test) 3) Unix principle: everything is made up of tiny programs that only do one thing, and the whole system has to be 'glued' with scripts, supposedly it provides great and powerful system, but ends up as a clusterfuck only usable by nolife losers who enjoy using mainframe OS on their home PC's.
Just don't take the bait, spend your time learning useful things.
That's some true shit. Thanks user. I hope others take your advice.
I run several headless servers but even installed GNOME or KDE environments makes the install feel 'dirty' because they are so irreparably broken, from the taskbar to the network manager.
Leo Thomas
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
Ayden Diaz
>just works No, it's ugly and confusing. A worthless experience.
Levi Rodriguez
just more microcuck shilling :DDD, just the tenth thread guies! also >using gnome ever
Thomas Davis
>APPLE and MS will go bankrupt Why, because linux is free despite not supporting any major software?
Isaiah Gonzalez
Where did I advocate for Microsoft?
Microsoft is suffering, similarly, from an inconsistent GUI. It's running at least 10 parallel styles from different points in its development history.
Mac and Google OS are the only OS that are consistent visually.
Kayden Robinson
Because big money is behind running Linux servers, not Linux in the desktop. Most serious development for Linux and related OSS tooling is done by company employees. How many of the desktop tools you use are currently maintained by volunteers?
Grayson Hughes
>Mac Not really, some shit still looks way off (iOS 6-like) from everything else, like the dashboard.
The question is whether further dumbing down of Linux UI is in the interest of Linux development. Linux is free anyway, so it doesn't need to pander to normies. IMO, a part of Linux user experience is to learn something more than just mindlessly click on icons.
E.g. opening a terminal and simply typing >sudo apt-get install libreoffice is much faster and even more comfortable IMO (with autocomplete) than blindly clicking through windows.
Anyway, how do you install software in windows? You have to obtain the right version and click through some setup wizard. That thing is possible in Linux too, just download the right pre-compiled package. There is no difference.
I think Linux shouldn't be for absolute total normies who are not willing to learn anything new. Normie desktop is on decline anyway. They have touchscreens now.
Ethan Harris
I really don't get it. Why are Linux distros always reduced to the default software they come with? Is Windows unsuited for browsing because it comes with IE/Edge? No. People just download a superior browser and move on. If you complain about the package manager itself, I'd understand it. But just a frontend? Then use a different one that is more to your liking. Same goes for file explorers and DEs.
It's because that requires professional, paid UX designers, which desktop Linux does not have.
Nathan Ortiz
The honest answer is because Linux is a secret club that nerds with nothing better to do use to feel smug about themselves. It's just like any other angsty teenage cry for purpose. Linux does have actual useful applications like for servers- the desktop weirdos are just ricer fags.
