Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

tirania.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 307 posts

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#81

Post by digi_owl »

PaulHoule wrote: post #24

The original sin of the Linux desktop was the kde/gnome split over licensing. Had Linux had one good desktop, like the other operating systems, it could have had a future on the desktop. Instead it has had a number of almost-good desktops that are still fragmented by hate and the desire to thwart interoperability. For instance, the GTK team won't fix certain bugs that affect running in a rootless X server because the…

DEs are one thing, but the biggest issue was a split over programming interfaces. One that has yet to be rectified even with the efforts of Freedesktop (in large part "Hijacked" by Gnome, Icaza's creation in the DE schism).

In the end the problem is likely the same as we are seeing on the web. People loves to code, not write specifications and sticking to them.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#82

Post by ryukafalz »

gravypod wrote: post #75
ryukafalz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I find myself just using terminal applications because gparted's UI is SO different from Wireshark, FireFox, etc. There is no consistancy. There is no standard written. There is nothing. It's just a hodge-podge of "this looks good to me!" Then use GNOME Disks, which (if you're using a distro with GNOME) is probably already included: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Disks And GParted vs. Wireshark? Of course they…

You're missing the point. Look at that top bar. What do those mean? How do I un-gray them? What do I click to start capturing packets? Look at these http://cdn2.tekgoblinmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/Restore-di... https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare... All icons have text. There is a uniform icon for Hard Drive. There is a uniform color scheme. There is a uniform font size. There is a uniform…

>Look at that top bar. What do those mean? How do I un-gray them? What do I click to start capturing packets?

I agree, yes. But notice that my screenshot was on macOS, not desktop Linux.

My point was that there are design guidelines for desktop Linux apps. GNOME has them[0] and KDE has them[1]. And then there are applications that don't follow those guidelines - like Wireshark, one of the ones you referenced - regardless of platform. It's not the platform's fault, it's the app developer's decision to either make their UI conform or not.

0: https://developer.gnome.org/hig/stable/ 1: https://community.kde.org/KDE_Visual_Design_Group/HIG

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#83

Post by tangue »

jstalin wrote: post #16

Office. If Linux desktop had microsoft office, I could use it. Libre office is an unmitigated, ugly pile of shit.

Well this "pile of shit" is the only reliable way I have to auickly open and export csv files from various sources, so I'd like to thank all contributors for this, especially considering that their multi-millions dollars concurrents are unable to read/produce a text file with delimiters.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#84

Post by AnonymousPlanet »

VonGuard wrote: post #6

I think it was the inability for GUI's to stay stable. Gnome went off the rails, Unity completely ruined Ubuntu[1], and KDE always felt very cheap and hard to navigate. My opinion, yes, but I always felt the GUI changes in Linux were extremely gratuitous after Gnome 2. Couple this with the fact that for a decade, the actual GUI was tied very, very heavily to the apps. So you had to use Gedit in Gnome, or whatever the…

Comments like these really make me believe that it is people like you who are killing the Linux desktop.

Of all the window managers and desktop environments I have tried the last years on Linux, Unity, Gnome3, and Cinnamon are the only ones that don't look and behave as if they are from fucking 2003. Those others might be enough for those people who have stopped adapting and like to be left alone under their rock, but for me it's just frustrating having to use Desktops that are basically some half baked variation of Windows XP.

Let me put it this way: if the desktop environments you so eloquently despise wouldn't exist, I would be writing this comment on a Mac and not on Linux.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#85

Post by wink »

AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #84
VonGuard wrote: post #6

I think it was the inability for GUI's to stay stable. Gnome went off the rails, Unity completely ruined Ubuntu[1], and KDE always felt very cheap and hard to navigate. My opinion, yes, but I always felt the GUI changes in Linux were extremely gratuitous after Gnome 2. Couple this with the fact that for a decade, the actual GUI was tied very, very heavily to the apps. So you had to use Gedit in Gnome, or whatever the…

Comments like these really make me believe that it is people like you who are killing the Linux desktop. Of all the window managers and desktop environments I have tried the last years on Linux, Unity, Gnome3, and Cinnamon are the only ones that don't look and behave as if they are from fucking 2003. Those others might be enough for those people who have stopped adapting and like to be left alone under their rock, bu…

I think the problem here is if people were happy with what they had in 2003, why change it? Not everything UI-wise in 7 or later is better than in XP I'd say. And apparently many people agree. Actually I am still using 7 and all the UI stuff that's nixer than XP or even 2000 is just eyecandy and nothing "I would totally never go back". Because I would - if I needed a stable Windows that only came with XP's UI - so be it.

FWIW, I noticed recently that I've been using xmonad for 5 years (+/- 2 weeks) and still 100% happy. It lets me work efficiently and nothing has changed.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#87

Post by vectorpush »

Nothing killed the Linux desktop. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the fact that the masses only have two options: Windows or Mac. People become set in their ways using a particular system either at home or work and there is basically no reason that they will ever be exposed to a Linux desktop, and if they are, they will find it just as impossible to use as any other OS that isn't the one they've used exclusively for 10 years.

Anecdotally, prior to the ubiquity of tablets, I've observed several computer illiterate relatives thrive on Ubuntu systems (gnome 2 and unity) because they needed a PC and I passed on an older machine with a fresh copy of Ubuntu. My uncle who had never used a PC more than 30 minutes at a time before I gave him an Ubuntu laptop half a decade ago barely uses his 2015 MacBook that my aunt bought him for his 62nd birthday because he is so comfortable with his Ubuntu machine.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#88

Post by yellowapple »

udp wrote: post #29
VonGuard wrote: post #6

I think it was the inability for GUI's to stay stable. Gnome went off the rails, Unity completely ruined Ubuntu[1], and KDE always felt very cheap and hard to navigate. My opinion, yes, but I always felt the GUI changes in Linux were extremely gratuitous after Gnome 2. Couple this with the fact that for a decade, the actual GUI was tied very, very heavily to the apps. So you had to use Gedit in Gnome, or whatever the…

> Put Unity Ubuntu on that same machine, and it's unusable garbage. I can't even hit alt-F5 to get to another terminal because Unity slows the whole rig down to an absolute crawl. Like, can't even move the mouse, 5 minutes between keypress and action taking place. Fuck Unity. I blame Unity about 40% for killing the Linux desktop. Have you tried Xubuntu? It fills the gap that Ubuntu used to, and it's my go-to desktop…

To expand on this, Ubuntu MATE is also a viable option if you literally want Ubuntu with the old DE (since MATE is a fork of GNOME2).

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#89

Post by yellowapple »

Asooka wrote: post #61
pjc50 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always felt the GUI changes in Linux were extremely gratuitous after Gnome 2. Yes! Ironically this was what a lot of people hated about Microsoft, and why the XP->Vista and 7->8->10 changes were so unpopular. Everything moves around and works in a different way, imposing a re-learning cost. But the developers like it because they're bored with the old system and think the new one is better.

It's no coincidence. Libre software devs saw what MS and Apple were doing and went "oh no we have to do the same to stay relevant!" Couple that with the rampant egos typical for an OSS project lead and you have today's situation. Of the big 3 (or is it 4 now) DEs, I feel KDE has stayed the most sane and provides the same desktop metaphors. Then again, they mostly bet on the "semantic desktop" direction, which was tha…

I feel like Xfce and LXDE actually do a decent job here, too (respectively). Both have stayed pretty consistent over the last decade from what I've seen.

openSUSE + Xfce is my go-to for installing a desktop system for a new Linux user. While openSUSE moves a couple things around relative to a typical Xfce installation, they tend to feel a bit more natural to Windows XP users (which, amazingly enough, still exist). Users can typically be relatively productive after some basic education to cover the day-to-day usage quirks ("use Writer instead of Word; use Firefox instead of Internet Explorer; etc.").

The only thing I significantly dislike about it for non-technical users is the scary warning that pops up if you drag a menu item to the desktop and try to run it; sure, it's easy to fix (click on "Mark Executable"), but that's still very unusual and unintuitive, and your average user doesn't know or care what "Mark Executable" means (they might know what "Launch Anyway and Don't Ask Me Again" means, though).

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#90

Post by yellowapple »

jankotek wrote: post #11
VonGuard wrote: post #6

I think it was the inability for GUI's to stay stable. Gnome went off the rails, Unity completely ruined Ubuntu[1], and KDE always felt very cheap and hard to navigate. My opinion, yes, but I always felt the GUI changes in Linux were extremely gratuitous after Gnome 2. Couple this with the fact that for a decade, the actual GUI was tied very, very heavily to the apps. So you had to use Gedit in Gnome, or whatever the…

2001 laptop? Even contemporary systems (Win XP) would be slow on that. > Inside, it had plenty of power, an 850MHz Pentium III-M, 256MB of RAM, and 802.11b for wireless networking (if you could find a wireless network, that is). Plus it had 20GB of storage, FireWire and even one USB port.

I've run relatively recent Linux distros on hardware with far tighter constraints (like on my Compaq Presario 1210; may you rest in peace, old friend). Damn Small Linux was king here, but distros like Tiny Core and Puppy are also designed for this exact use case.

256MB RAM is actually pretty generous for Windows XP, as is the Pentium III; neither were unheard of in "Made For Windows XP™" systems.

Post reply on HN