3 ms·

This article is sort of frustrating, because the issue they have isn't like something not working, just that there are multiple competing options and they want

This article is sort of frustrating, because the issue they have isn't like something not working, just that there are multiple competing options and they want unity around all things.

themitigating 4y ago
I think having too many options can be frustrating for many people, especially if they aren't experts in the options.
- jbjohns 4y ago
  Well, I think a bigger issue is so many of the options not really mattering at all.
sliken 4y ago
Doesn't seem like there needs to be unity, just that things from the OS are handled in an OS specific way, but things not specific to the OS are handled in an identical way. Seems like container systems like flatpak deliver this. If google chrome flatpak was supported on all OSs then it wouldn't particularly matter to application developers that there were 200 flavors of linux around.
twblalock 4y ago
Yeah but the fragmentation is the problem. One reason Windows and macOS are popular is that people know what they are going to get. If you've used one Windows 11 box, for example, you can get on another Windows 11 box and figure out how to use it. It will have the same user interface and window management as the other: the Start menu, the control panel, the desktop, etc. That's just not the case for Linux. There are several popular desktop environments that are very different from each other in look and feel. For an ordinary user, switching from Gnome to KDE would be quite jarring and it would take them a while to get used to it. For power users and tweakers, that diversity of options is an attractive feature of the Linux desktop. For ordinary users, it is a deterrent.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Therein lies the conundrum: is Linux desktop for power users primarily? Arguably yes. Most people don't know what they want/need, and most people don't want/need x features at the cost of y compromise, if they even understand what the compromise actually means to them as a user. I don't think 99% of people care. Is it for every power user? No, of course not. Can Linux be made very simple for casuals? Yup, absolutely, if all people want to do is browse the web, send some emails, the usual stuff, it's fine. The in-between of "can I use Photoshop?" and the answer being "yes, but" isn't going to fly with most folks. I use it for what it's best at, and use Windows for what it isn't best at, sometimes as a bottle, other times not. But it takes experience to know when to use what, which is what most users don't care to figure out for themselves as it involves trial and error usually. Most folks just want to do their work, and their phone or tablet is the "funsies".
- user00012-ab 4y ago
  The problem is there is no decent software that runs on linux; I'd switch from Mac to linux if I could run Ableton, Adobe_products.* or Affinity_products.* And no, I don't want to hear about the software XYZ that is almost just like any of the above, because they aren't even close. If I just wanted to browse the web, and work in a terminal, then linux is great.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    > If I just wanted to browse the web, and work in a terminal, then linux is great. Or edit video, or make music, or write all the stuff that makes this possible.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    The fragmentation is what scares companies like Adobe away. How many distros would they need to support to make customers happy? At what point does it become a problem of diminishing returns? Windows and macOS are pretty big. How many more customers would Adobe get by adding support for: Ubuntu, Fedora, SUSE, Mint, Arch, Manjaro, MX, Gentoo, Elementary, and so forth? At some point it just gets silly and devolves into Muppet names and other nonsense -- and each one has a smaller amount of users. Plus, real professionals are willing to pay for software. Open source is frankly not relevant for professional image editing, video editing, music production, CAD, etc.

This article is sort of frustrating, because the issue they have isn't like something not working, just that there are multiple competing options and they want unity around all things.

themitigating 4y ago

I think having too many options can be frustrating for many people, especially if they aren't experts in the options.

jbjohns 4y ago
Well, I think a bigger issue is so many of the options not really mattering at all.

sliken 4y ago

Doesn't seem like there needs to be unity, just that things from the OS are handled in an OS specific way, but things not specific to the OS are handled in an identical way. Seems like container systems like flatpak deliver this. If google chrome flatpak was supported on all OSs then it wouldn't particularly matter to application developers that there were 200 flavors of linux around.

twblalock 4y ago

Yeah but the fragmentation is the problem. One reason Windows and macOS are popular is that people know what they are going to get. If you've used one Windows 11 box, for example, you can get on another Windows 11 box and figure out how to use it. It will have the same user interface and window management as the other: the Start menu, the control panel, the desktop, etc. That's just not the case for Linux. There are several popular desktop environments that are very different from each other in look and feel. For an ordinary user, switching from Gnome to KDE would be quite jarring and it would take them a while to get used to it. For power users and tweakers, that diversity of options is an attractive feature of the Linux desktop. For ordinary users, it is a deterrent.

hammyhavoc 4y ago
Therein lies the conundrum: is Linux desktop for power users primarily? Arguably yes. Most people don't know what they want/need, and most people don't want/need x features at the cost of y compromise, if they even understand what the compromise actually means to them as a user. I don't think 99% of people care. Is it for every power user? No, of course not. Can Linux be made very simple for casuals? Yup, absolutely, if all people want to do is browse the web, send some emails, the usual stuff, it's fine. The in-between of "can I use Photoshop?" and the answer being "yes, but" isn't going to fly with most folks. I use it for what it's best at, and use Windows for what it isn't best at, sometimes as a bottle, other times not. But it takes experience to know when to use what, which is what most users don't care to figure out for themselves as it involves trial and error usually. Most folks just want to do their work, and their phone or tablet is the "funsies".
user00012-ab 4y ago
The problem is there is no decent software that runs on linux; I'd switch from Mac to linux if I could run Ableton, Adobe_products.* or Affinity_products.* And no, I don't want to hear about the software XYZ that is almost just like any of the above, because they aren't even close. If I just wanted to browse the web, and work in a terminal, then linux is great.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  > If I just wanted to browse the web, and work in a terminal, then linux is great. Or edit video, or make music, or write all the stuff that makes this possible.
- twblalock 4y ago
  The fragmentation is what scares companies like Adobe away. How many distros would they need to support to make customers happy? At what point does it become a problem of diminishing returns? Windows and macOS are pretty big. How many more customers would Adobe get by adding support for: Ubuntu, Fedora, SUSE, Mint, Arch, Manjaro, MX, Gentoo, Elementary, and so forth? At some point it just gets silly and devolves into Muppet names and other nonsense -- and each one has a smaller amount of users. Plus, real professionals are willing to pay for software. Open source is frankly not relevant for professional image editing, video editing, music production, CAD, etc.