3 ms·

If you've got a bare-bones, basics, simple desktop-environment then embrace that and tell us! If you're calling it 'modern' when it everyone can see in two sec

If you've got a bare-bones, basics, simple desktop-environment then embrace that and tell us! If you're calling it 'modern' when it everyone can see in two seconds that it isn't then you're just setting up both yourself and us for disappointment. Don't blame the reaction - blame the preventable mistakes that caused the reaction.

Gigachad 5y ago
I’m not calling CDE modern. I’m saying that the Linux user base has terrible preferences when it comes to software which hold back actually modern and good software like Gnome/Wayland/systemd.
- badsectoracula 5y ago
  > actually modern and good software like Gnome/Wayland/systemd. Well, many people disagree that those are modern and good software - and while you could claim that those are "terrible preferences" the exact same can be claimed about your preferences. The point of Free Software is to allow for everyone to be in control of their own terrible choices :-P
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    Everyone is entitled to use what they want, but this goes way beyond choosing something different. FOSS devs are receiving real insults and threats constantly for simply developing something. In the end the Linux desktop is being severely held back and it takes over a decade to implement improvements like wayland which are critical for Linux to keep up with Windows and MacOS.
    - badsectoracula 5y ago
      > this goes way beyond choosing something different. FOSS devs are receiving real insults and threats constantly for simply developing something. As long as people become emotional about these things, they will react in emotional ways - which works both ways. I don't know if you realized it but here: > In the end the Linux desktop is being severely held back and it takes over a decade to implement improvements like wayland which are critical for Linux to keep up with Windows and MacOS. ...you are basically accusing others for holding Linux back (ie. not letting it "keep up" with Windows and MacOS) because they do not see wayland (or gnome or whatever preferences you have) as an improvement. People, especially if they feel powerless to do much, can react to this as an attack. And i do not think you are making this easier by trying to pull out an emotional card like "FOSS devs are receiving real insults and threats constantly for simply developing something" - this thing can work wonders if you are among people who agree with you but also backfire badly if you are not.
    - GekkePrutser 5y ago
      I think the lack of development of Wayland is more due to its corporate sponsors. Nvidia has been really slow to embrace it which hindered adoption. RedHat is putting a lot of effort in but desktop is not their main game so it doesn't have priority. And Ubuntu has been trying to play the "Not Invented Here" game for a long time and trying to get their own intellectual property on the map which didn't really have any discerning feature from Wayland other than being their own. But it did fragment the attention it received. But this is mainly a corporate game, not one played by independent developers. Remember, also X11 itself was a corporate invention. It came from DEC, MIT and IBM. I don't think it's fair to blame the users for its lack of progress. But I still think choice is good. I don't want to be forced to use Gnome, I don't agree with their UI ideas (in particular the opinionated software paradigm). Having multiple desktop options is a great thing to have, and it lead to new ideas like tiling WMs such as i3. Personally I use KDE. I don't think "Linux on the Desktop" should ever be a mainstream thing anyway. It would suffer from the drawbacks of the other options, such as too much corporate control. For something like Wayland it doesn't matter as it's just in the background doing its thing. But for a desktop environment it matters a lot. If Linux had only one option it would be just one of the other not-ideal options around. Just like ChromeOS has become, for that matter. Also, it's not really realistic to expect all Linux users to 'get with the program' and use the biggest option available to strengthen Linux as a whole. Most of them use it because they want something different. Not because they want to promote Linux.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  What I don't like about Gnome is the lack of options. It's all so barebones, things have to work just one way and if you don't like it you have to resort to a load of plugins that often don't work right with the latest versions and/or cause issues when working together. I don't understand why lack of choice is meant to be 'modern'. It's not an iPad I just use for facebook. It's a computer. Apple has put the opinionated software paradigm on the map but it's not the be-all-end-all. Especially for desktops. For screen-constrained mobiles it works a lot better. Systemd I don't like because it's so heavy. I really like lightweight systems. I use FreeBSD for that reason though I have other reasons too. And Alpine when I need Linux. Alpine is working on an init system based on s6 that will be more lightweight and I will give that a chance. I'm not against progress. I just like having options. And Wayland, I don't mind it too much but I do miss the network transparency badly.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Every boolean option you add to a system doubles the possible configurations of the system, and the possible interactions and bugs. Add just ten new flag options and you've increased the configuration state by 2*10 or 1024 times. That's why options are a bad thing.
    - GekkePrutser 5y ago
      For developers maybe but not for users :) And these are the ones you're developing for. And look at other systems accomplishing this very well. Like KDE which has a ton of options and they don't suffer this problem.
      - Gigachad 5y ago
        KDE suffers a quality problem that Gnome does not. I had countless bugs and random issues last time I tried KDE but I have pretty much never had an issue with the core Gnome desktop experience (the bundled programs are another matter). At first the lack of options on gnome bothered me but then I just accepted the default config and found that it isn't actually important to be able to tweak every single bit of layout and the default config gnome ships is actually really good.
- yyyk 5y ago
  One of the problems of open source is top down imposition by distros. Perhaps software should be developed with a certain regard to the preferences of the userbase? I suspect software not liked by its users is not going to be very successful in the marketplace. Aside: Gnome is far worse than KDE. systemd is an improvement on what was there previously, albeit not the only choice. I have enough experience with X to know how difficult it was to work with, a lot there needed to go. However, Wayland is too minimal, we're going to have lots of unnecessary differences between Gnome-wayland, KDE-wayland, and wlroots-wayland thanks to wayland's bad focus. Speaking of this, want to look at stuff that held back Linux? Maybe have some words for people who prioritized irrelevant features over basic support for remote work.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
GhettoComputers 5y ago
What’s your definition of modern? I don’t agree with it being modern looking unless a GUI is sufficient to make it so. LXQt was pretty, do you consider it modern?

Gigachad 5y ago

I’m not calling CDE modern. I’m saying that the Linux user base has terrible preferences when it comes to software which hold back actually modern and good software like Gnome/Wayland/systemd.

badsectoracula 5y ago
> actually modern and good software like Gnome/Wayland/systemd. Well, many people disagree that those are modern and good software - and while you could claim that those are "terrible preferences" the exact same can be claimed about your preferences. The point of Free Software is to allow for everyone to be in control of their own terrible choices :-P
- Gigachad 5y ago
  Everyone is entitled to use what they want, but this goes way beyond choosing something different. FOSS devs are receiving real insults and threats constantly for simply developing something. In the end the Linux desktop is being severely held back and it takes over a decade to implement improvements like wayland which are critical for Linux to keep up with Windows and MacOS.
  - badsectoracula 5y ago
    > this goes way beyond choosing something different. FOSS devs are receiving real insults and threats constantly for simply developing something. As long as people become emotional about these things, they will react in emotional ways - which works both ways. I don't know if you realized it but here: > In the end the Linux desktop is being severely held back and it takes over a decade to implement improvements like wayland which are critical for Linux to keep up with Windows and MacOS. ...you are basically accusing others for holding Linux back (ie. not letting it "keep up" with Windows and MacOS) because they do not see wayland (or gnome or whatever preferences you have) as an improvement. People, especially if they feel powerless to do much, can react to this as an attack. And i do not think you are making this easier by trying to pull out an emotional card like "FOSS devs are receiving real insults and threats constantly for simply developing something" - this thing can work wonders if you are among people who agree with you but also backfire badly if you are not.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    I think the lack of development of Wayland is more due to its corporate sponsors. Nvidia has been really slow to embrace it which hindered adoption. RedHat is putting a lot of effort in but desktop is not their main game so it doesn't have priority. And Ubuntu has been trying to play the "Not Invented Here" game for a long time and trying to get their own intellectual property on the map which didn't really have any discerning feature from Wayland other than being their own. But it did fragment the attention it received. But this is mainly a corporate game, not one played by independent developers. Remember, also X11 itself was a corporate invention. It came from DEC, MIT and IBM. I don't think it's fair to blame the users for its lack of progress. But I still think choice is good. I don't want to be forced to use Gnome, I don't agree with their UI ideas (in particular the opinionated software paradigm). Having multiple desktop options is a great thing to have, and it lead to new ideas like tiling WMs such as i3. Personally I use KDE. I don't think "Linux on the Desktop" should ever be a mainstream thing anyway. It would suffer from the drawbacks of the other options, such as too much corporate control. For something like Wayland it doesn't matter as it's just in the background doing its thing. But for a desktop environment it matters a lot. If Linux had only one option it would be just one of the other not-ideal options around. Just like ChromeOS has become, for that matter. Also, it's not really realistic to expect all Linux users to 'get with the program' and use the biggest option available to strengthen Linux as a whole. Most of them use it because they want something different. Not because they want to promote Linux.
GekkePrutser 5y ago
What I don't like about Gnome is the lack of options. It's all so barebones, things have to work just one way and if you don't like it you have to resort to a load of plugins that often don't work right with the latest versions and/or cause issues when working together. I don't understand why lack of choice is meant to be 'modern'. It's not an iPad I just use for facebook. It's a computer. Apple has put the opinionated software paradigm on the map but it's not the be-all-end-all. Especially for desktops. For screen-constrained mobiles it works a lot better. Systemd I don't like because it's so heavy. I really like lightweight systems. I use FreeBSD for that reason though I have other reasons too. And Alpine when I need Linux. Alpine is working on an init system based on s6 that will be more lightweight and I will give that a chance. I'm not against progress. I just like having options. And Wayland, I don't mind it too much but I do miss the network transparency badly.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Every boolean option you add to a system doubles the possible configurations of the system, and the possible interactions and bugs. Add just ten new flag options and you've increased the configuration state by 2*10 or 1024 times. That's why options are a bad thing.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    For developers maybe but not for users :) And these are the ones you're developing for. And look at other systems accomplishing this very well. Like KDE which has a ton of options and they don't suffer this problem.
    - Gigachad 5y ago
      KDE suffers a quality problem that Gnome does not. I had countless bugs and random issues last time I tried KDE but I have pretty much never had an issue with the core Gnome desktop experience (the bundled programs are another matter). At first the lack of options on gnome bothered me but then I just accepted the default config and found that it isn't actually important to be able to tweak every single bit of layout and the default config gnome ships is actually really good.
yyyk 5y ago
One of the problems of open source is top down imposition by distros. Perhaps software should be developed with a certain regard to the preferences of the userbase? I suspect software not liked by its users is not going to be very successful in the marketplace. Aside: Gnome is far worse than KDE. systemd is an improvement on what was there previously, albeit not the only choice. I have enough experience with X to know how difficult it was to work with, a lot there needed to go. However, Wayland is too minimal, we're going to have lots of unnecessary differences between Gnome-wayland, KDE-wayland, and wlroots-wayland thanks to wayland's bad focus. Speaking of this, want to look at stuff that held back Linux? Maybe have some words for people who prioritized irrelevant features over basic support for remote work.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

GhettoComputers 5y ago

What’s your definition of modern? I don’t agree with it being modern looking unless a GUI is sufficient to make it so. LXQt was pretty, do you consider it modern?