4 ms·

> The open source community is still struggling to try to provide a compelling desktop experience without this burden. What exactly is a "compelling desktop ex

> The open source community is still struggling to try to provide a compelling desktop experience without this burden. What exactly is a "compelling desktop experience?" It seems to me that when people say this they really mean "win the popularity contest against Microsoft." I'm not sure that's at all a worthwhile or laudable goal. > Is it easy? ...No. It's incredibly easy. It just depends on what distribution you use. For example, on Gentoo, this is not at all a problem. > When the new thing also seems to suck, This is a hint that you got something wrong. Remember when desktops used to be configurable? I guess letting the user control their own environment stopped being "compelling" when Microsoft decided so. Do we have to follow suit?

jchw 2y ago
> What exactly is a "compelling desktop experience?" It seems to me that when people say this they really mean "win the popularity contest against Microsoft." I'm not sure that's at all a worthwhile or laudable goal. I don't care about Microsoft or Apple. I don't like Windows and I don't like macOS. I care about my desktop. The one that I am typing in. I really, really hope I don't actually have to explain all of the problems with the Linux desktop experience right now, I don't have the energy. I've helped a lot of people try to make Linux work for them and it's a soul-crushing experience every time because I often have to explain that there is in fact, no great options for them right now because shit is simply broken. The X11 and Wayland situation is a perfect example: "Oh no problem. You can just choose between your windows scaling properly and your high refresh rate monitor working, and being able to actually use screensharing during meetings." Sure it's getting better, but we've got a lot of work to go, there's no sugarcoating it. > It's incredibly easy. It just depends on what distribution you use. For example, on Gentoo, this is not at all a problem. Look, if the person has to be proficient enough to be able to install and operate Gentoo as their primary desktop operating system, I'm pretty sure they do not need my help when it comes to doing virtually anything with Linux. It's also pretty easy to run old versions of software on NixOS but I'd argue this is basically cheating. What's hard to do is take any of the most popular distros and run something from 1999. (I'm pretty sure that's actually generally hard to do on Gentoo as well, but whatever.) That's what I'm really talking about. > This is a hint that you got something wrong. Remember when desktops used to be configurable? I guess letting the user control their own environment stopped being "compelling" when Microsoft decided so. Do we have to follow suit? What exactly about modern KDE isn't configurable enough? I use both KDE and SwayWM as daily driver desktop setups and never felt hindered much by the available configuration options. If anything, KDE offers so much customization that it's probably sometimes detrimental. Configuration options come at a cost, and that's exactly why modern software has less of it. We want higher quality software, but it's hard to make software more robust when you have trillions of code paths and most of them are almost completely unused. This stuff adds up. In a similar vein, I hate to see Linux lose support for old hardware, but if something's been broken in mainline for five years straight, I'm pretty sure they have every reason to assume it's not being used by anyone. What I'm really talking about with "the new thing also sucks" is more reflecting on the growing pains of things like Wayland and PulseAudio (and a bit with Pipewire though less so.) I am of course not saying that the same thing doesn't happen with desktop environments, personally I don't like GNOME 3, but also in the same vein, it'd be hard to argue GNOME 3 has been getting worse this whole time, it offers much more customization and is a lot more robust than it was when it first launched.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > I don't care about Microsoft or Apple. Yet you seem to: > I've helped a lot of people try to make Linux work for them Okay, do you care about _your_ desktop, or having as many people use Linux as a desktop as possible? Have you considered that these two facts may actually be at odds with each other? > We want higher quality software We're getting further and further away from your desktop. > Configuration options come at a cost, and that's exactly why modern software has less of it. Wait.. so software got less expensive to develop.. and yet we're concerned about configuration options.. so they're being _reduced_ from what they _historically_ were? > but it's hard to make software more robust This is just an exercise in goal post moving at this point.
  - jchw 2y ago
    > Okay, do you care about _your_ desktop, or having as many people use Linux as a desktop as possible? Have you considered that these two facts may actually be at odds with each other? How does trying to help people use Linux have anything to do with Windows or macOS? I don't tell people to use Linux, I tell people not to use Linux, because it sucks. When people do it anyways, they frequently come to me for help because I have more Linux desktop experience than is humanly justifiable. > We're getting further and further away from your desktop. My desktop has software on it. > Wait.. so software got less expensive to develop.. and yet we're concerned about configuration options.. so they're being _reduced_ from what they _historically_ were? In what way did software get less expensive to develop? > This is just an exercise in goal post moving at this point. The goal posts are in your head. I'm not playing some kind of game. You are.

jchw 2y ago

> What exactly is a "compelling desktop experience?" It seems to me that when people say this they really mean "win the popularity contest against Microsoft." I'm not sure that's at all a worthwhile or laudable goal. I don't care about Microsoft or Apple. I don't like Windows and I don't like macOS. I care about my desktop. The one that I am typing in. I really, really hope I don't actually have to explain all of the problems with the Linux desktop experience right now, I don't have the energy. I've helped a lot of people try to make Linux work for them and it's a soul-crushing experience every time because I often have to explain that there is in fact, no great options for them right now because shit is simply broken. The X11 and Wayland situation is a perfect example: "Oh no problem. You can just choose between your windows scaling properly and your high refresh rate monitor working, and being able to actually use screensharing during meetings." Sure it's getting better, but we've got a lot of work to go, there's no sugarcoating it. > It's incredibly easy. It just depends on what distribution you use. For example, on Gentoo, this is not at all a problem. Look, if the person has to be proficient enough to be able to install and operate Gentoo as their primary desktop operating system, I'm pretty sure they do not need my help when it comes to doing virtually anything with Linux. It's also pretty easy to run old versions of software on NixOS but I'd argue this is basically cheating. What's hard to do is take any of the most popular distros and run something from 1999. (I'm pretty sure that's actually generally hard to do on Gentoo as well, but whatever.) That's what I'm really talking about. > This is a hint that you got something wrong. Remember when desktops used to be configurable? I guess letting the user control their own environment stopped being "compelling" when Microsoft decided so. Do we have to follow suit? What exactly about modern KDE isn't configurable enough? I use both KDE and SwayWM as daily driver desktop setups and never felt hindered much by the available configuration options. If anything, KDE offers so much customization that it's probably sometimes detrimental. Configuration options come at a cost, and that's exactly why modern software has less of it. We want higher quality software, but it's hard to make software more robust when you have trillions of code paths and most of them are almost completely unused. This stuff adds up. In a similar vein, I hate to see Linux lose support for old hardware, but if something's been broken in mainline for five years straight, I'm pretty sure they have every reason to assume it's not being used by anyone. What I'm really talking about with "the new thing also sucks" is more reflecting on the growing pains of things like Wayland and PulseAudio (and a bit with Pipewire though less so.) I am of course not saying that the same thing doesn't happen with desktop environments, personally I don't like GNOME 3, but also in the same vein, it'd be hard to argue GNOME 3 has been getting worse this whole time, it offers much more customization and is a lot more robust than it was when it first launched.

akira2501 2y ago
> I don't care about Microsoft or Apple. Yet you seem to: > I've helped a lot of people try to make Linux work for them Okay, do you care about _your_ desktop, or having as many people use Linux as a desktop as possible? Have you considered that these two facts may actually be at odds with each other? > We want higher quality software We're getting further and further away from your desktop. > Configuration options come at a cost, and that's exactly why modern software has less of it. Wait.. so software got less expensive to develop.. and yet we're concerned about configuration options.. so they're being _reduced_ from what they _historically_ were? > but it's hard to make software more robust This is just an exercise in goal post moving at this point.
- jchw 2y ago
  > Okay, do you care about _your_ desktop, or having as many people use Linux as a desktop as possible? Have you considered that these two facts may actually be at odds with each other? How does trying to help people use Linux have anything to do with Windows or macOS? I don't tell people to use Linux, I tell people not to use Linux, because it sucks. When people do it anyways, they frequently come to me for help because I have more Linux desktop experience than is humanly justifiable. > We're getting further and further away from your desktop. My desktop has software on it. > Wait.. so software got less expensive to develop.. and yet we're concerned about configuration options.. so they're being _reduced_ from what they _historically_ were? In what way did software get less expensive to develop? > This is just an exercise in goal post moving at this point. The goal posts are in your head. I'm not playing some kind of game. You are.