6 ms·

What does 'Linux OS' mean? Various Linux desktop distros? If so, have mercy on anyone who will be using Ubuntu Desktop for the first time. I hope they aren't

What does 'Linux OS' mean? Various Linux desktop distros? If so, have mercy on anyone who will be using Ubuntu Desktop for the first time. I hope they aren't afraid of using Terminal, because the internet will shout them down for wanting a GUI solution. Love Ubuntu server, but could never get into linux desktop.

jimmaswell 7y ago
The elitism can be absurd. Sometimes I wonder if it's stockholm syndrome. "You want to configure things with a GUI with discoverability? Not read a dissertation-length man page and edit config files whose syntax changes between versions so you can't even rely on google results? Go back to winbl0ws"
- swiley 7y ago
  Most of the config files are (IMHO) much more discoverable than most GUIs, usually the default config has the default settings commented out along with a block of comments explaining them. A lot of GUI apps I've used have really crappy settings dialogs that don't explain things well and aren't searchable. But it's really the individual app, both can be done nicely or poorly, config files are often easier to implement and copy between machines and app versions (at least that's the feeling I've gotten.) And at least with config files there's something to google. GUIs change even more often (there are even fewer reasons to keep them stable than config file syntax.) Also you're not really supposed to read through the entire man page for an app that you only touch once or twice, you're supposed to just search for what you need and leave. My personal opinion is that GUIs are often less user friendly, they just look friendlier. GUIs make it easier to sell software, not to use it. Free software isn't being sold and that's why it tends to not have a GUI.
- pushpop 7y ago
  I have a theory on why guides in Linux are predominantly text based and it has nothing to do with elitism. I think it’s a mixture of two factors: 1. From the perspective of the writer, it’s much easier to describe instructions via text when publishing those instructions via a predominately text-based medium such as web sites. The alternative is taking screenshots and editing those images to highlight relevant widgets. This is more time consuming and not ever site offers an easy way to upload those images (meaning you’re then sometimes having to manually upload them) nor even embed them into the discussion (eg HN). And on top of that, you still need some text to accompany the images anyway. So you might as well go with a text driven solution. And if you’re having to describe a UI in text, it’s obviously going to be easier to do so with a text based UI than a graphical UI. This is a problem I’ve personally experienced as someone who used to write a lot of documentation for graphical UIs. It can be annoying and remember that a lot of time, people providing guides are those volunteering their time. So naturally people will opt for a lazier approach. 2. The other major factor for why I think CLI instructions are so common even on desktop Linux is because there isn’t a single agreed standard desktop environment. Not even a standard GUI toolkit, let alone DE. Arguments about whether this choice / fragmentation is a net good or bad thing aside; it makes much more sense to offer a guide that is going to be more universal (as the CLI on Linux tends to be - notwithstanding some district-specific file system hierarchies). Where as a guide with images will not only be very specific to using that unique management tool but would also be subject to any changes to the UI of that tool even if the underlying configuration files haven’t changed. So with CLI examples you end up with a guide that is not only more universal but also has greater longevity. The longevity point is something that can frustrate less technically capable Windows users who are left confused each time Microsoft decide to redesign their Control Panel applets (et al) and Linux isn’t any less subject to UI changes in its graphical frontends either. So it does make some sense to provide instructions to configuring things directly in the backend - even if it seems counterintuitive to a desktop user. Ultimately though, I don’t see anyone who uses Linux being rude about those who use GUIs. At worst they might recommend using the CLI if someone has tried configuring something from a GUI and found themselves getting stuck because options aren’t getting applied in a way that was being expected. However there are examples when the reverse is also true. For example on HN a few weeks ago some CLI users moaning about the complexity of kemu was repeatedly (and rightfully) recommended to use a frontend instead.
- patrick5415 7y ago
  Personally, I find config files to be simple and elegant, and gui based configuration to be clunky and cumbersome. For most things anyway.
- type0 7y ago
  I like GUI programs but even on Windows some setups are easier done using command line because I at least could repeat the correct command sequences in the right order.
lytedev 7y ago
I imagine it's easier for an IT department to address issues pretty quickly and remotely.
kikoreis 7y ago
Come on, this is not accurate. My wife, a journalist employed in the local university and my mother, a shop owner, use Ubuntu every day and have never used the terminal. The demographic that has needs more advanced than the basic desktop functionality will indeed use AskUbuntu and the terminal, but we have to recognize ourselves as niche. Most office workers will use a browser and very little else.
- noisy_boy 7y ago
  Would have been so nice if that were the case - Chrome/Firefox work atleast as well on Linux as on Windows if not better. But Outlook has a vice grip on office scene and has no real equivalent on Linux side in terms of feature parity.
- la_barba 7y ago
  Well.. everyone thinks "basic desktop user" to mean different things. The problem is I don't think there is such thing as an average user. Every workplace is domain-specific, and domain specific software is simply a tool to get the job done. Windows/Linux is completely irrelevant and of absolutely zero consequence IMHO. You pick a tool that you know will get the job done, and simply use whatever OS it works on. We use a lot of scientific software at work and a 100% of it requires Windows. Yes, it could easily be re-written to work on Linux or OSX but that is not the case at this moment. If we were an accounting firm, we'd just pick Quicken or Quickbooks or whatever tool people were familiar with and use it. Or if we were an magazine or an architecture firm, or an electrical company, we'd again use whatever tools we need to get the job done. As far as the OS goes, the only thing people care about is whether their tools still work on version N+1. For various reasons, Linux and OSX require much more involvement from the vendor to keep the software running. OSX is very user-friendly, but very hostile to developers who just want to push code out, and not be shackled with supporting the new flavor of the month API that Apple comes out with. Windows requires very little time investment from the vendor to make it work on newer versions. Heck we're using Windows XP software (like.. binaries compiled decades ago) on Windows 10 without issue. Yes, obviously, giant caveat here - I'm not saying windows never has API breaking changes .. I'm only saying the probability is much much lower on Windows than any other platform. (discounting esoteric options that nobody is using) People who are cheer-leading Linux or Windows or w/e, never seem to "get" this. Nobody really cares about the OS.
Nomentatus 7y ago
I've just given up on Linux again. Again. And it's the GUI that makes that decision final. There were also (and I'm still fighting 'em) serious file issues (perhaps related to file name lengths, perhaps not), but these may well have arisen from Windows/Linux interactions or even Windows not getting along with Windows. But flickering and otherwise unusable or unstable GUI features in the distributions finally did me in. Damn. Just plain not ready for prime time. It's not that you couldn't go Linux if you absolutely had to, but the cost is just way too high. (I put the most time in with Ubuntu and ElementaryOS.)
- chmln 7y ago
  What specific issues did you have with the GUI? Not sure if you know but there are a number of other polished DEs apart from Gnome. Sounds like your graphics card doesn't work well with Linux. Is it Nvidia ?
  - Nomentatus 7y ago
    It is, but I'd be shocked if it were involved, I've tried to keep it out of the mix with Linux.
    - chmln 7y ago
      With nvidia, you must absolutely make sure you are using the proprietary drivers if you want a good experience. Some distros (like Pop OS) use these out of the box, but most (like Debian) use open-source nouveau.
- microwavecamera 7y ago
  > And it's the GUI that makes that decision final. Which one? There's a crapton.
  - Nomentatus 7y ago
    Both those mentioned had more than one deal-breaker issues. The jumpiness (at maybe 5 hz) was ElementaryOS IIRC. No doubt the fact that there are a "crap ton" is the underlying evil.
wpietri 7y ago
> Love Ubuntu server, but could never get into linux desktop. It seems fine to me. I'm running it on my laptop right now, and I don't find it significantly more annoying than Windows or MacOS, both of which I've recently used on work machines. I'm sure there are plenty of people for whom that's not true, especially people who need niche commercial software. But a great deal of what people use is on the web these days anyhow, so I think it matters a lot less what OS Chrome is running on top of.

jimmaswell 7y ago

The elitism can be absurd. Sometimes I wonder if it's stockholm syndrome. "You want to configure things with a GUI with discoverability? Not read a dissertation-length man page and edit config files whose syntax changes between versions so you can't even rely on google results? Go back to winbl0ws"

swiley 7y ago
Most of the config files are (IMHO) much more discoverable than most GUIs, usually the default config has the default settings commented out along with a block of comments explaining them. A lot of GUI apps I've used have really crappy settings dialogs that don't explain things well and aren't searchable. But it's really the individual app, both can be done nicely or poorly, config files are often easier to implement and copy between machines and app versions (at least that's the feeling I've gotten.) And at least with config files there's something to google. GUIs change even more often (there are even fewer reasons to keep them stable than config file syntax.) Also you're not really supposed to read through the entire man page for an app that you only touch once or twice, you're supposed to just search for what you need and leave. My personal opinion is that GUIs are often less user friendly, they just look friendlier. GUIs make it easier to sell software, not to use it. Free software isn't being sold and that's why it tends to not have a GUI.
pushpop 7y ago
I have a theory on why guides in Linux are predominantly text based and it has nothing to do with elitism. I think it’s a mixture of two factors: 1. From the perspective of the writer, it’s much easier to describe instructions via text when publishing those instructions via a predominately text-based medium such as web sites. The alternative is taking screenshots and editing those images to highlight relevant widgets. This is more time consuming and not ever site offers an easy way to upload those images (meaning you’re then sometimes having to manually upload them) nor even embed them into the discussion (eg HN). And on top of that, you still need some text to accompany the images anyway. So you might as well go with a text driven solution. And if you’re having to describe a UI in text, it’s obviously going to be easier to do so with a text based UI than a graphical UI. This is a problem I’ve personally experienced as someone who used to write a lot of documentation for graphical UIs. It can be annoying and remember that a lot of time, people providing guides are those volunteering their time. So naturally people will opt for a lazier approach. 2. The other major factor for why I think CLI instructions are so common even on desktop Linux is because there isn’t a single agreed standard desktop environment. Not even a standard GUI toolkit, let alone DE. Arguments about whether this choice / fragmentation is a net good or bad thing aside; it makes much more sense to offer a guide that is going to be more universal (as the CLI on Linux tends to be - notwithstanding some district-specific file system hierarchies). Where as a guide with images will not only be very specific to using that unique management tool but would also be subject to any changes to the UI of that tool even if the underlying configuration files haven’t changed. So with CLI examples you end up with a guide that is not only more universal but also has greater longevity. The longevity point is something that can frustrate less technically capable Windows users who are left confused each time Microsoft decide to redesign their Control Panel applets (et al) and Linux isn’t any less subject to UI changes in its graphical frontends either. So it does make some sense to provide instructions to configuring things directly in the backend - even if it seems counterintuitive to a desktop user. Ultimately though, I don’t see anyone who uses Linux being rude about those who use GUIs. At worst they might recommend using the CLI if someone has tried configuring something from a GUI and found themselves getting stuck because options aren’t getting applied in a way that was being expected. However there are examples when the reverse is also true. For example on HN a few weeks ago some CLI users moaning about the complexity of kemu was repeatedly (and rightfully) recommended to use a frontend instead.
patrick5415 7y ago
Personally, I find config files to be simple and elegant, and gui based configuration to be clunky and cumbersome. For most things anyway.
type0 7y ago
I like GUI programs but even on Windows some setups are easier done using command line because I at least could repeat the correct command sequences in the right order.

lytedev 7y ago

I imagine it's easier for an IT department to address issues pretty quickly and remotely.

kikoreis 7y ago

Come on, this is not accurate. My wife, a journalist employed in the local university and my mother, a shop owner, use Ubuntu every day and have never used the terminal. The demographic that has needs more advanced than the basic desktop functionality will indeed use AskUbuntu and the terminal, but we have to recognize ourselves as niche. Most office workers will use a browser and very little else.

noisy_boy 7y ago
Would have been so nice if that were the case - Chrome/Firefox work atleast as well on Linux as on Windows if not better. But Outlook has a vice grip on office scene and has no real equivalent on Linux side in terms of feature parity.
la_barba 7y ago
Well.. everyone thinks "basic desktop user" to mean different things. The problem is I don't think there is such thing as an average user. Every workplace is domain-specific, and domain specific software is simply a tool to get the job done. Windows/Linux is completely irrelevant and of absolutely zero consequence IMHO. You pick a tool that you know will get the job done, and simply use whatever OS it works on. We use a lot of scientific software at work and a 100% of it requires Windows. Yes, it could easily be re-written to work on Linux or OSX but that is not the case at this moment. If we were an accounting firm, we'd just pick Quicken or Quickbooks or whatever tool people were familiar with and use it. Or if we were an magazine or an architecture firm, or an electrical company, we'd again use whatever tools we need to get the job done. As far as the OS goes, the only thing people care about is whether their tools still work on version N+1. For various reasons, Linux and OSX require much more involvement from the vendor to keep the software running. OSX is very user-friendly, but very hostile to developers who just want to push code out, and not be shackled with supporting the new flavor of the month API that Apple comes out with. Windows requires very little time investment from the vendor to make it work on newer versions. Heck we're using Windows XP software (like.. binaries compiled decades ago) on Windows 10 without issue. Yes, obviously, giant caveat here - I'm not saying windows never has API breaking changes .. I'm only saying the probability is much much lower on Windows than any other platform. (discounting esoteric options that nobody is using) People who are cheer-leading Linux or Windows or w/e, never seem to "get" this. Nobody really cares about the OS.

Nomentatus 7y ago

I've just given up on Linux again. Again. And it's the GUI that makes that decision final. There were also (and I'm still fighting 'em) serious file issues (perhaps related to file name lengths, perhaps not), but these may well have arisen from Windows/Linux interactions or even Windows not getting along with Windows. But flickering and otherwise unusable or unstable GUI features in the distributions finally did me in. Damn. Just plain not ready for prime time. It's not that you couldn't go Linux if you absolutely had to, but the cost is just way too high. (I put the most time in with Ubuntu and ElementaryOS.)

chmln 7y ago
What specific issues did you have with the GUI? Not sure if you know but there are a number of other polished DEs apart from Gnome. Sounds like your graphics card doesn't work well with Linux. Is it Nvidia ?
- Nomentatus 7y ago
  It is, but I'd be shocked if it were involved, I've tried to keep it out of the mix with Linux.
  - chmln 7y ago
    With nvidia, you must absolutely make sure you are using the proprietary drivers if you want a good experience. Some distros (like Pop OS) use these out of the box, but most (like Debian) use open-source nouveau.
microwavecamera 7y ago
> And it's the GUI that makes that decision final. Which one? There's a crapton.
- Nomentatus 7y ago
  Both those mentioned had more than one deal-breaker issues. The jumpiness (at maybe 5 hz) was ElementaryOS IIRC. No doubt the fact that there are a "crap ton" is the underlying evil.

wpietri 7y ago

> Love Ubuntu server, but could never get into linux desktop. It seems fine to me. I'm running it on my laptop right now, and I don't find it significantly more annoying than Windows or MacOS, both of which I've recently used on work machines. I'm sure there are plenty of people for whom that's not true, especially people who need niche commercial software. But a great deal of what people use is on the web these days anyhow, so I think it matters a lot less what OS Chrome is running on top of.