4 ms·

I am all for a great linux desktop experience but I don't think getting very popular can happen without making a lot of changes that erode the very reason we mi

by _8j50 3y ago

I am all for a great linux desktop experience but I don't think getting very popular can happen without making a lot of changes that erode the very reason we migrated to a Linux desktop. I speculate that many of the most controversial changes in GNU/Linux were rooted in chasing after this goal.

NovaDudely 3y ago
I think it was the developer of Krita who said, it cannot just be open source/Libre - the software has to actually be good. There is a lot of truth to that. FLOSS stuff is good at bringing in the folks that see the point of view of Richard Stallman but that will only go so far... well like 1% of user share far. I feel there is a moderate middle path when it is possible to get Linux desktop to a state that many can use it but without compromising on the flexibility it can provide. Distro's like Linux Mint are so close nowadays, in a way it is very boring. But boring is what you want. It doesn't just tumble over for like... reasons, but it also it really easy to use if very predictable.
- _8j50 3y ago
  Listening to existing instead of potential users (market share chasing), not screwing over users and unix design philosophy are what are important to me. What you said can be acheived while sticking to those. If I want windows or macos I can use those.
kodah 3y ago
I've been using systemd for a while, which I'm surmising is what you're referring to when you say controversial, and it's frankly not a diminished experience for someone that wants a consistently working desktop. The amount of things I used to have to hack into my OS were substantial, these days they're nearly nil and applications have common interfaces to plug into. I'm not sure what, if anything, I materially gave up other than that all of those components have a contracted API now so all future components will need to adhere to that API.
- _8j50 3y ago
  Systemd is a big one, a diminished experience is not the issue, deviance from core unix principles and chasing market share instead of pleasing existing users was the big problem i observed. For example, OpenRC had comparable boot times as did systemd and it was modern and stuck to the "do one thing" principle. Systemd was chosen because lennart and corporate/rhel people who have influence and a financial interest in expanding market share pushed it. Just like how things are done at apple and microsoft.

by _8j50 3y ago

NovaDudely 3y ago

I think it was the developer of Krita who said, it cannot just be open source/Libre - the software has to actually be good. There is a lot of truth to that. FLOSS stuff is good at bringing in the folks that see the point of view of Richard Stallman but that will only go so far... well like 1% of user share far. I feel there is a moderate middle path when it is possible to get Linux desktop to a state that many can use it but without compromising on the flexibility it can provide. Distro's like Linux Mint are so close nowadays, in a way it is very boring. But boring is what you want. It doesn't just tumble over for like... reasons, but it also it really easy to use if very predictable.

_8j50 3y ago
Listening to existing instead of potential users (market share chasing), not screwing over users and unix design philosophy are what are important to me. What you said can be acheived while sticking to those. If I want windows or macos I can use those.

kodah 3y ago

I've been using systemd for a while, which I'm surmising is what you're referring to when you say controversial, and it's frankly not a diminished experience for someone that wants a consistently working desktop. The amount of things I used to have to hack into my OS were substantial, these days they're nearly nil and applications have common interfaces to plug into. I'm not sure what, if anything, I materially gave up other than that all of those components have a contracted API now so all future components will need to adhere to that API.

_8j50 3y ago
Systemd is a big one, a diminished experience is not the issue, deviance from core unix principles and chasing market share instead of pleasing existing users was the big problem i observed. For example, OpenRC had comparable boot times as did systemd and it was modern and stuck to the "do one thing" principle. Systemd was chosen because lennart and corporate/rhel people who have influence and a financial interest in expanding market share pushed it. Just like how things are done at apple and microsoft.