3 ms·

Wouldn't it be ironic if Windows 10 was the final straw that pushed Linux to the desktop?

by dmfdmf 11y ago

brianwawok 11y ago
It doesn't help Linux it helps Apple.
mwcampbell 11y ago
This could have been ReactOS's moment to shine, if that project were further along. Desktop Linux isn't a platform that most commercial application developers target, whereas ReactOS at least aspires to be binary-compatible with Windows.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
That would never happen. The Linux desktop for the normal user is simply not going to happen with the current incumbents. If it does happen it'll be a new competitor because the current ones are not user friendly at all. You can learn and figure many things out but once you run into any type of problem you have to go to terminal. Windows and Mac OS X do not rely on terminals so much. It's part of their better user experience.
- corndoge 11y ago
  Arguing that Windows and OSX have a "better" user experience is like arguing that cars with automatic transitions yield a "better" driving experience than cars with manual transmissions. In each case, the better interface is determined not by objective analysis but by the user's priorities. Edit: I assumed it went without mention that it is possible to do objective comparison of functional aspects of the system, but seeing as that's not what the parent was discussing, that's not what I responded to.
  - Abraln 11y ago
    While a "better driver experience"is difficult to quantify, if you mean ease-of-use an automatic transmission is objectively better. Sure, you can argue that having a stick shift provides a subjectively more enjoyable experience, but an automatic transmission is less susceptible to errors and requires less attention from the driver.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - anonbanker 11y ago
      you've given great examples as to why Windows does not compare favorably to an automatic transmission. thank you.
  - javert 11y ago
    "Objective" just means "factual." There can still be an objective analysis, it's just that different things are better for different people, so the analysis has to be done on a per-person basis. What is objectively the best UI for me is perhaps different from what is objectively the best UI for you, but it's still a factual (objective) issue.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    > Arguing that Windows and OSX have a "better" user experience is like arguing that cars with automatic transitions yield a "better" driving experience than cars with manual transmissions. In each case, the better interface is determined not by objective analysis but by the user's priorities. I disagree. I believe you're saying that a more terminal focused interface is deemed better by some people's priorities and therefore could be said to give a good user experience whereas someone who doesn't value or want to touch the terminal would think Mac and Windows have better user experiences. But that's such a tiny variable in the overall user experience that I don't buy it though with my comment I wasn't specific enough and it did kinda sound like I was only calling out terminal vs terminal. I think Linux has a lot of room to improve as far as usability goes; I just don't think that the comment I originally replied to is in anyway accurate in that any mistakes from Microsoft could open the door for Linux.
JoachimS 11y ago
In the form of Android.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Windows 10 was the final straw that pushed Linux to the desktop?

by dmfdmf 11y ago

Wouldn't it be ironic if Windows 10 was the final straw that pushed Linux to the desktop?

brianwawok 11y ago

It doesn't help Linux it helps Apple.

mwcampbell 11y ago

This could have been ReactOS's moment to shine, if that project were further along. Desktop Linux isn't a platform that most commercial application developers target, whereas ReactOS at least aspires to be binary-compatible with Windows.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

That would never happen. The Linux desktop for the normal user is simply not going to happen with the current incumbents. If it does happen it'll be a new competitor because the current ones are not user friendly at all. You can learn and figure many things out but once you run into any type of problem you have to go to terminal. Windows and Mac OS X do not rely on terminals so much. It's part of their better user experience.

corndoge 11y ago
Arguing that Windows and OSX have a "better" user experience is like arguing that cars with automatic transitions yield a "better" driving experience than cars with manual transmissions. In each case, the better interface is determined not by objective analysis but by the user's priorities. Edit: I assumed it went without mention that it is possible to do objective comparison of functional aspects of the system, but seeing as that's not what the parent was discussing, that's not what I responded to.
- Abraln 11y ago
  While a "better driver experience"is difficult to quantify, if you mean ease-of-use an automatic transmission is objectively better. Sure, you can argue that having a stick shift provides a subjectively more enjoyable experience, but an automatic transmission is less susceptible to errors and requires less attention from the driver.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    you've given great examples as to why Windows does not compare favorably to an automatic transmission. thank you.
- javert 11y ago
  "Objective" just means "factual." There can still be an objective analysis, it's just that different things are better for different people, so the analysis has to be done on a per-person basis. What is objectively the best UI for me is perhaps different from what is objectively the best UI for you, but it's still a factual (objective) issue.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > Arguing that Windows and OSX have a "better" user experience is like arguing that cars with automatic transitions yield a "better" driving experience than cars with manual transmissions. In each case, the better interface is determined not by objective analysis but by the user's priorities. I disagree. I believe you're saying that a more terminal focused interface is deemed better by some people's priorities and therefore could be said to give a good user experience whereas someone who doesn't value or want to touch the terminal would think Mac and Windows have better user experiences. But that's such a tiny variable in the overall user experience that I don't buy it though with my comment I wasn't specific enough and it did kinda sound like I was only calling out terminal vs terminal. I think Linux has a lot of room to improve as far as usability goes; I just don't think that the comment I originally replied to is in anyway accurate in that any mistakes from Microsoft could open the door for Linux.

JoachimS 11y ago

In the form of Android.