5 ms·

I don't buy it. The premise is that the Linux desktop developers were just just follow these concepts or to follow that strategy, Linux would all of a sudden a

by esarbe 5y ago

I don't buy it. The premise is that the Linux desktop developers were just just follow these concepts or to follow that strategy, Linux would all of a sudden achieve desktop supremacy. There's no such thing as an 'intuitive interface'. It's been claimed that "The only intuitive interface is the nipple", but as many a parent knows, not even the nipple is intuitive enough by itself and every baby needs guidance. Every desktop has idiosyncrasies. Windows' UI sucks in many, many use cases. This hasn't stopped it from continuing to be dominant in the Desktop area. The reason is ... guidance. Everyone can wreck their computer by doing stupid shit and ignoring all the warnings thrown in their face. They will not read it and complain if something breaks. With Windows (and to some degree OS X) this is not so much of a problem. You can just call that one friend that "knows computers" and after some begging and crying, you'll get help. Or you can bring your bricked computer to the next support store and they'll try to fix it. (Almost) every elderly person above a certain age is lost when it comes to computers. Most people alive cannot be trusted to install an application - not on Windows, not on Linux and not even on OS X (well, maybe on OS X nowadays, because you cannot install unsigned software these days) because all that software might be compromised. Every time you let a software on to your system, you can potentially brick it. And then you need a solid understanding of what's going on. For most people, computers are black boxes whose internal state is a mystery that is far too complex to be explored. They have no interest in exploring these mysteries. They have work to do; forms to fill, letters to write. And these people need the aforementioned informal support they can turn to whenever they need to diverge from the well-trodden paths. It doesn't depend on the operating system, but on the surrounding support system. The Linux as a Desktop operating system is simply lacking the market share to boast such an informal support system. That's all.

tomnipotent 5y ago
> There's no such thing as an 'intuitive interface' I can't remember where I read it (maybe Design of Everyday Things?), but something that really stuck with me was "intuitive is just another way of calling something familiar".
- grumpyprole 5y ago
  Exactly, that is why Gnome is not as intuitive as it could be, it does not work at all like Windows or Mac OS. Sway works very differently to Windows and MacOS, but at least brings potential productivity advantages in doing so.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- fuzzfactor 5y ago
  Familiarity can run fairly deep. In an established Windows-based desktop network where each office worker has their own PC & apps optimized for that user's particular workflow, this can be one of the most productive arrangements that can be leveraged to make the difference between a low-productivity bureaucracy and high-productivity, whether it remains paperwork-intensive or works completely paperless. The early adopters of DOS who followed directly to Windows in their offices were most likely to have this bit well established (though it was far from universal), and enjoyed its advantages quite a number of years in advance of the internet appearing on the horizon. Regardless some offices still had one dedicated DOS PC for email purposes and directly logging in to clients' or vendors' private servers by dial-up modem, just like it was before there was any consideration to network certain desktops together much less join them all to a future internet if any. With the arrival of built-in Windows Networking in Windows 98 and the dominance of Ethernet for both office LAN and internet WAN, the clear advantage of having the dedicated office workers and their apps remain fully productive without relying on dial-up or later broadband cannections to outside resources became more & more blurred. Linux was still in its infancy. It has been made to accomodate Windows Networking ever since. Remember email came out in DOS way before the WWW came around, and in that respect webmail is the killer app. It is still considered too challenging for an IT administrator to switch this whole shebang over from Windows to Linux, it's like stepping off into the unknown to some extent or another, and there's too much at stake at one time. But one approach is to backtrack into known successful configurations and see if you can fork differently from there. One of the most viable approaches is to insure the local Windows network has maximum functionality and productivity without requring connection to the web. Somewhat like the old days. Then treat the web as a special case just like it used to be when you had to wisely set aside a whole dial-up session for a potentially unreliable connection. Only now its lots quicker to just reboot to Linux for the occasional web use, then back to Windows for regular office work. Very few offices actually benefit from having all the office machines be online to the WWW all the time. People find Linux much easier if the only thing they have to use it for is email and browsing the internet and other web activities only. Not much training or support burden needed for such limited utilization. They are already using things other than Windows to be online all the time on their own devices now, so it's much more realistic to get them to do the web function exclusively in Linux on their office machines before even trying to migrate the vast remainder of integrated Windows workflows into a hopefully-compatible Linux equivalent. This is just a way of functionally recognizing that Windows has continued to become less suitable for the internet for some time now, and Linux is becoming more suitable for high-productivity office work but was not suitable enough fast enough. They did not meet in the middle where one can completely be substituted for the other, but can be handled separately to some advantage. Everyone would be running full desktop Linux each time they went on the web which is easy to get accustomed to, they could further become familiar with more extensive Linux capabilities at their own pace without fearing a show-stopper which could break the carefully-honed Windows workflow. Those few workers who do need to be on the internet almost all the time would be the ones who need to be able to use Linux for almost everything. Even if Linux was perfected, everyone else can only adopt it at a limited pace so there needs to be clear priorities but this is one possible step toward the light at the end of the tunnel.
slategruen 5y ago
I totally understand your point and I think it's one of the reasons why GNOME's goal to become the "perfectly intuitive desktop" is utterly misguided. However, one thing which separates the interface of Windows from MacOS and Linux is continuous improvement. I'd rather have my desktop adapting to current times rather than stuck in old times and cite "compatibility" as an excuse. Linux desktops and MacOS has an incentive to experiment with their UI and actually improve. If some feature doesn't really click with its users after deployment, developers could just scrap it on the next release. TL;DR Windows is also trying to have an ideal desktop which isn't driven by innovation but by how it was intended to be used in the past.

by esarbe 5y ago

tomnipotent 5y ago

> There's no such thing as an 'intuitive interface' I can't remember where I read it (maybe Design of Everyday Things?), but something that really stuck with me was "intuitive is just another way of calling something familiar".

grumpyprole 5y ago
Exactly, that is why Gnome is not as intuitive as it could be, it does not work at all like Windows or Mac OS. Sway works very differently to Windows and MacOS, but at least brings potential productivity advantages in doing so.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
fuzzfactor 5y ago
Familiarity can run fairly deep. In an established Windows-based desktop network where each office worker has their own PC & apps optimized for that user's particular workflow, this can be one of the most productive arrangements that can be leveraged to make the difference between a low-productivity bureaucracy and high-productivity, whether it remains paperwork-intensive or works completely paperless. The early adopters of DOS who followed directly to Windows in their offices were most likely to have this bit well established (though it was far from universal), and enjoyed its advantages quite a number of years in advance of the internet appearing on the horizon. Regardless some offices still had one dedicated DOS PC for email purposes and directly logging in to clients' or vendors' private servers by dial-up modem, just like it was before there was any consideration to network certain desktops together much less join them all to a future internet if any. With the arrival of built-in Windows Networking in Windows 98 and the dominance of Ethernet for both office LAN and internet WAN, the clear advantage of having the dedicated office workers and their apps remain fully productive without relying on dial-up or later broadband cannections to outside resources became more & more blurred. Linux was still in its infancy. It has been made to accomodate Windows Networking ever since. Remember email came out in DOS way before the WWW came around, and in that respect webmail is the killer app. It is still considered too challenging for an IT administrator to switch this whole shebang over from Windows to Linux, it's like stepping off into the unknown to some extent or another, and there's too much at stake at one time. But one approach is to backtrack into known successful configurations and see if you can fork differently from there. One of the most viable approaches is to insure the local Windows network has maximum functionality and productivity without requring connection to the web. Somewhat like the old days. Then treat the web as a special case just like it used to be when you had to wisely set aside a whole dial-up session for a potentially unreliable connection. Only now its lots quicker to just reboot to Linux for the occasional web use, then back to Windows for regular office work. Very few offices actually benefit from having all the office machines be online to the WWW all the time. People find Linux much easier if the only thing they have to use it for is email and browsing the internet and other web activities only. Not much training or support burden needed for such limited utilization. They are already using things other than Windows to be online all the time on their own devices now, so it's much more realistic to get them to do the web function exclusively in Linux on their office machines before even trying to migrate the vast remainder of integrated Windows workflows into a hopefully-compatible Linux equivalent. This is just a way of functionally recognizing that Windows has continued to become less suitable for the internet for some time now, and Linux is becoming more suitable for high-productivity office work but was not suitable enough fast enough. They did not meet in the middle where one can completely be substituted for the other, but can be handled separately to some advantage. Everyone would be running full desktop Linux each time they went on the web which is easy to get accustomed to, they could further become familiar with more extensive Linux capabilities at their own pace without fearing a show-stopper which could break the carefully-honed Windows workflow. Those few workers who do need to be on the internet almost all the time would be the ones who need to be able to use Linux for almost everything. Even if Linux was perfected, everyone else can only adopt it at a limited pace so there needs to be clear priorities but this is one possible step toward the light at the end of the tunnel.

slategruen 5y ago

I totally understand your point and I think it's one of the reasons why GNOME's goal to become the "perfectly intuitive desktop" is utterly misguided. However, one thing which separates the interface of Windows from MacOS and Linux is continuous improvement. I'd rather have my desktop adapting to current times rather than stuck in old times and cite "compatibility" as an excuse. Linux desktops and MacOS has an incentive to experiment with their UI and actually improve. If some feature doesn't really click with its users after deployment, developers could just scrap it on the next release. TL;DR Windows is also trying to have an ideal desktop which isn't driven by innovation but by how it was intended to be used in the past.