3 ms·

Main reason is the lack of a holistic approach. Every Linux desktop is a loose collection of separate programs that don’t really play together in harmony. There

Main reason is the lack of a holistic approach. Every Linux desktop is a loose collection of separate programs that don’t really play together in harmony. There are no Product Managers behind the distros, it would seem, or if there are, they haven’t been very effective. KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, all of them scream, “we haven’t done user studies.” I suspect this is a function of the distributed ownership. No one is able to manage the full stack because the complexity of doing that would be a full time job and take a team working for months to get it ready.

jrvarela56 6y ago
Another way to look at it: what makes Apple successful is at odds with how the components of the Linux desktop come together/are built. In order to provide for a consistent, interoperable experience across the stack, you need control of its components. Apple's vertical integration (now making chips!) gives it the ability to make changes in order to provide the 'best' experience (best as in, profit; taking into account consumers express their opinion with their $). The Linux desktop optimizes for freedom: you can choose what parts you want. That's not conducive to a consistent experience. One could argue that's not the point. If you want 'the desktop' just buy a Mac. If you want 'the Linux desktop', it's been there for a while now, just go ahead and glue together the parts - that's the point!
- ironmagma 6y ago
  The freedom of choice for individual components is certainly a benefit of the platform, but I would argue that it also doesn't preclude having a default preset of components that form a cohesive vertical experience. In other words, the defaults should work. That most likely means forking select components, which is what Mint did with Cinnamon, to create a micro-ecosystem that is internally consistent, but they just haven't gone far enough yet.

jrvarela56 6y ago

Another way to look at it: what makes Apple successful is at odds with how the components of the Linux desktop come together/are built. In order to provide for a consistent, interoperable experience across the stack, you need control of its components. Apple's vertical integration (now making chips!) gives it the ability to make changes in order to provide the 'best' experience (best as in, profit; taking into account consumers express their opinion with their $). The Linux desktop optimizes for freedom: you can choose what parts you want. That's not conducive to a consistent experience. One could argue that's not the point. If you want 'the desktop' just buy a Mac. If you want 'the Linux desktop', it's been there for a while now, just go ahead and glue together the parts - that's the point!

ironmagma 6y ago
The freedom of choice for individual components is certainly a benefit of the platform, but I would argue that it also doesn't preclude having a default preset of components that form a cohesive vertical experience. In other words, the defaults should work. That most likely means forking select components, which is what Mint did with Cinnamon, to create a micro-ecosystem that is internally consistent, but they just haven't gone far enough yet.