3 ms·

I think I get what you're saying. Wouldn't a computer enthusiast be happy and comfortable with desktop Linux though? It's still hackable as you like and you ca

by eudora 8y ago

I think I get what you're saying. Wouldn't a computer enthusiast be happy and comfortable with desktop Linux though? It's still hackable as you like and you can install a more.... I mean a less simplified desktop environment. (I assume by "targeting the mainstream" you mean simplification of the UI, mostly) I don't like any OS that oversimplifies, such as by removing advanced options (why not put them on another screen?) But I am a strong supporter of proper usability, including in Linux - just that things should be intuitive and simple at first glance, and aesthetically pleasing. As in I don't want the Linux UIs of ~2000 to return.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I think you're confusing "simple" and "easy". I'm a personal computing enthusiast and have been ever since I was hacking away on an old (even at the time) IBM XT in my bedroom as a school kid. I can use Linux Desktop just fine, I manage Linux servers as part of my day job, hell, I was once president of a LUG. Frankly I think the Linux Desktop is even worse for people like me than it is for the "mainstream" user, because the way Linux is duct-taped together from disparately developed components makes it difficult to reason about how it works, and modifying it in any meaningful way can often mean hours buried in documentation that may or may not be up to date (or correct, or even applying to your distro), or possibly even writing some C. I could go on for hours about how Linux Desktop's "design" philosophy is in direct opposition to simplicity. It isn't about removing advanced options, or making things aesthetically pleasing, it's about having a system that functions in obvious ways, with few surprises and as little magic as possible, where the abstractions are shallow and consistent. Linux Desktop, though, is a hodgepodge at best and at worst a paper-thin wrapper attempting to hide a Rube Goldberg machine made of garbage.
- eudora 8y ago
  Interesting take. I agree about consistency and intuitiveness.

by eudora 8y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

I think you're confusing "simple" and "easy". I'm a personal computing enthusiast and have been ever since I was hacking away on an old (even at the time) IBM XT in my bedroom as a school kid. I can use Linux Desktop just fine, I manage Linux servers as part of my day job, hell, I was once president of a LUG. Frankly I think the Linux Desktop is even worse for people like me than it is for the "mainstream" user, because the way Linux is duct-taped together from disparately developed components makes it difficult to reason about how it works, and modifying it in any meaningful way can often mean hours buried in documentation that may or may not be up to date (or correct, or even applying to your distro), or possibly even writing some C. I could go on for hours about how Linux Desktop's "design" philosophy is in direct opposition to simplicity. It isn't about removing advanced options, or making things aesthetically pleasing, it's about having a system that functions in obvious ways, with few surprises and as little magic as possible, where the abstractions are shallow and consistent. Linux Desktop, though, is a hodgepodge at best and at worst a paper-thin wrapper attempting to hide a Rube Goldberg machine made of garbage.

eudora 8y ago
Interesting take. I agree about consistency and intuitiveness.