Interesting blog post by a Sway developer about Desktop Linux

[f33dm3bits]

I came across this and found it an interesting read beacuse the Linux Desktop topic has been discussed a lot lately with the Linus and Luke doing the switch to Linux challenge.

What desktop Linux needs to succeed in the mainstream

drewdevault.com

 

[Condobloke]

It’s very easy to find bad advice for Linux, and very hard to find good advice for Linux.

Amen.

Linux is not accessible to the average user today, and I didn’t need to watch these videos to understand that. I do not think that it is reasonable today to expect a non-expert user to successfully install and use Linux for their daily needs without a “Linux friend” holding their hand every step of the way.
In a nutshell, that is what we do everyday at Linux.org

Good article, @f33dm3bits.

 

[JoeBlack]

Its a good article. Agree with all of it pretty much. Especially the toxicity and elitism.

I feel like most of the things its suggesting Linux can do to be more user friendly has been implemented to some degree by some. However, I know that all these efforts doesn't culminate in the "normie", "gen X grandma", "non-techie", "non-win/mac hater"'s positive user experience where they're excited to use it and tell all their normie friends to use it too and become widely adopted.

TRUE STORY...
My wife who is a true Mac using normie had her Mac actually DIE... So I came to the rescue and found the most stable distros (Mint, then PopOS) and modified it to look exactly like her mac, wallpaper and all. RESULT... VERY BAD... she's scarred by the experience. What was it? Should I have not Mac-Themed it so it doesn't set her up to believe that it's like a Mac? Should I have gone with Zorin? Deepin? Feren? (Though Deepin is much better than than before.). Sometimes it was just the app that failed (Libre Office). Either crashed... or didn't do small things like... save on desktkop on a particular distro/setting, or had a workflow slightly different to what she was used to. I say "You can just save it in the home folder." and she responds with "I don't want to!" - I'd resolve the issue by hunting for another office suite that could... but it'd have other weaknesses. Eventually after months, her brother in law gave her his old mac to which she ran back to in flash. Linux adoption failed. I tried really hard to get her to adopt Linux. Trouble shoot everything for her. How much less success would a lone normie have?

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:
I had no idea what distro to go for... That choice alone was daunting yet fun. I've tried 20 or so distros before settling. A true normie would google Linux OS.... and the first hit would need to be LinuxOS.com And that distro should be THE ONE linux distro for all normies. Normies don't like (too many) choices. Do they care that it's technically Gnu/Linux and Linux is actually just the kernal? F*** no. Techies love choice. Normies hate choice.


IDEAS TO MAKE LINUX BETTER:

HIGHEST STANDARDS OF UI/UX: The Linux community needs a unified "head of UI/UX" with a Steve Jobs level of perfectionism and smarts.

UNIFICATION: It's currently very segmented. You have a multiple projects that deal with DE's only. Some that deal with hardware. And just one that deals with the kernal. Debian seems to value polish over arbitrary buggy releases.

NORMIE OS, WITH DEV UNLOCK: "This is for advanced users only. By unlocking this feature, you will have unlimited options and choices at the expense of a stability and proper UI/UX Design."
The Linux OS for everyone would need to look like a Normie OS... but with a "Dev" unlock button, that gives the techies the ease of access to tweak, hack, tinker with it, and all the super powerful options that normies don't care about. A Normie Linux OS should be ultra-stable and limit choices. Zorin, Deepin, PopOS kind of do this already, but I wish there was a simple Dev Unlock (Like a built in Gnome Tweaks) that allows unlimited freedom & choice and tinkering.

BUG/CRASH FREE / MORE TELEMETRY: It's a given. I suppose it just needs good crash reporting and some telemetry (which I know many in the linux community have privacy concerns). Understanding how the users are using the OS. Gaining proper insight whilst respecting individual privacy.

HONEST NORMIE TESTING: UX design requires a lot of honest testing with normies. LOTS of normie testing. (Linux OS's in general are a great example of decent UI, and horrible UX.) I see a youtuber accusing LTT of trolling because he didn't "Just google it" when Linus came to a problem when he used apt-get on an arch-based distro instead of pacman. How the F is a newbie meant to know there are multiple distro bases that use different commands even though they're supposedly all Linux? UX ruined right there.
"The curse of knowledge: when we are given knowledge, it is impossible to imagine what it's like to lack that knowledge." - Chip Heath"

QUALITY STABLE APPS - GUIDELINES:
The App developers need to work just as hard as the OS/DE developers. An OS is only as good as it's software. So even if Linux OS is the best in the world, it would fail if all its software sucks. Does every app need to be critiqued and managed by the one Steve.J-like central overlord? Who gives proper feedback? Or have a set of stringent UI/UX guidelines to be met?
A lot of third party MacOS Apps strangely feel like they were designed and developed by the Apple team.

FUNDING & RESOURCES: do the top Linux projects need to unite their resources instead of scattering? Does it require a more unified commercial model? (as the article suggest)

ARM CPU: (A more forward thinking point) Let's not forget that Mac is leading the industry into ARM cpu's for faster and lower energy required for all devices. The LinuxOS and all its apps would need to accommodate RISC computing. Debian/Raspbian are doing ok here.

PERFECTLY REPLICATE THEIR PREVIOUS OS UX:
The Linux OS would need to accommodate where they've come from to start with. Win/Mac. Just 4 options: Win, Mac, Linux, Dev? (Some distros have already done this like Zorin, KDE Neon, etc. But I'm suggesting perfect UI and workflow replication (not sure of legalities there). Just enough to be legal. (LinuxFX does this already for windows)
A normie making money in their business is mostly likely running Windows. For them to jump onto Linux OS, they'd need to have everything they were using, running perfectly on Linux OS as a baseline. (If Wine was perfect? For Windows & Mac?)
And then ease them into the system one step at a time. The OS could do this with guided tour, suggest that settings could be better?

SOLID REASON TO CHANGE OS:
I think MacOS is much better than Windows, and yet Windows is still #1 for all its flaws. Why? Is it the gaming market? Office normie/IT Industry legacy? I think even if Linux OS manages to actually be "The best OS ever", it won't guarantee mass adoption for other reasons.
People need additional incentive, does it adds value to his/her business? Is it cheaper to run? Faster? Better? More user friendly? Most Linux champions would say "SECURITY! STABILITY!" Security can be so intangible and not salient enough for normies. Stability? Apps actually do crash. But at least the OS is stable. But they remember that the apps crash, because they just spent an hour or so, lost their work, they blame the Linux App first, and feel like all Linux Apps suck, and that Linux sucks.

BE SHREWD AS SNAKES BUT INNOCENT AS DOVES: Sadly. I heard Windows became so widely adopted because of business shrewdness rather than technical merit. (It can't be because of technical merit... seriously). - Maybe the Linux community needs a good shrewd business head who's got that cut-throat, killer instinct, with a heart of gold. (Is that asking for too much?)

A LEADER? Does Linux need another Linus.T/Richard.S(even Steve.J) type leader that can bring this all to fruition? Someone who has another particular set of skills and strengths that complements Linux's current strengths.

How else could this vision of +80% LinuxOS desktop market share actually happen? What would it take?

 

[Tolkem]

Interesting indeed. I do agree for the most part, however, I also believe Linux distros have got better and more accessible to the masses; Anyone who has used a computer and installed an OS, can "easily" install most distros, with a few notably exceptions like Arch or Gentoo, and even then, we have Manjaro and Endeavour.

A user-friendly Linux desktop system should not crash.

No OS should crash, but they do.

Don’t flame the noobs.

Absolutely right. More often than not I see posts where people reply in a rude way, sometimes a very rude way, and that shouldn't happen. It's happened to me a couple of times, for absolutely no reason. I'm just like, "damn! If I knew the answer to this, I wouldn't be asking for help!" I don't reply to posts I don't think I can't offer anything. I think this is just a very stupid way of driving people away from Linux. I won't mention the forum, but it kept me away from using that distro for a very long time, because people there always wanted to try everyone who wasn't an "expert" like an ignorant fool, now I use that distro, but I try not to use their forum.

Linux is not accessible to the average user today

Hmmm ... I consider myself "an average user", meaning I'm no programmer or coder or whatever "a non-average user" is supposed to be. Does that mean I've been using Linux for the last 10 years or so when I should be using some other OS aimed at "average users"? What's an "average user" anyway? Is he talking about Windows' users trying to make the switch?

 

[TheProf]

Good article indeed and echos a lot of the thoughts I had. I actually did the same mistake Linus did when he removed his entire DE, so I guess it can happen to other folks.

But ultimately, it is all about user experience, and the points that were mentioned in the article are spot on. The question is, which distro is going to pull this off? Are there even distros out there can truly be used out of the box without the need to have some understanding of Linux, as in being intuitive?

 

[JoeBlack]

Hmmm ... I consider myself "an average user", meaning I'm no programmer or coder or whatever "a non-average user" is supposed to be. Does that mean I've been using Linux for the last 10 years or so when I should be using some other OS aimed at "average users"? What's an "average user" anyway? Is he talking about Windows' users trying to make the switch?

I think the average user of mac, windows, linux are actually different from eachother.

Remember those "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC ads?" A wildly biased and generalistic caricature with some truth.

I'm guessing linux users that have stuck with linux long term *generally* tend to have a higher "troubleshooting tenacity", "willingness to try, hope that there's better", "love of freedom and choice hence being more particular.", "bit more security/privacy conscious" or "more hate for win/mac than troubleshooting) by the sheer fact that a new linux has to figure out which distro to use. Learn what a distro is, and that a DE is different from an OS. They'd have to read up on what distro is, the main branches of linux, just to figure out which is the right one for them. And read up which of the 100s/1000s of distro is right for them and try them out.

Marketing statistics show that if a product has an increasing number of options/flavours, it lowers the chances that the consumer buys. And that just groceries. The Linux community however seem to love its freedom and choices and thinks everyone loves the same thing.

 

[wizardfromoz]

...and yet Windows is still #1 for all its flaws. Why?

"The 4 Partition Rule" which is integral to a BIOS/MBR system provided a huge impediment to easy adoption of Linux on a PC.

Deals were struck with computer manufacturers and incentives offered to both that industry and the resellers, to have Windows pre-installed, and taking up a minimum of some part of 2 partitions, frequently 3, and occasionally (often with the recovery software of the manufacturer), 4 partitions.

This left no room for Linux to be installed, which under BIOS/MBR needed 1 Primary partition, and 1 Extended partition under which Logical partitions for a number of Linux Distros could be established.

Although UEFI was established in 2007, it did not start to gain widespread use before 2010. GPT was developed to go hand in hand with it, in breaking the old limitations of 4 Primary partitions, and maximum 2 TB for one partition size.

Linux was then able to become more widely exposed to users, and events such as the early 2014 EOL (End Of Life) for Windows XP were beneficial to our numbers, and those future EOLs will also help us. Continued involvement by firms such as Valve will benefit the Gamers, and more PC manufacturers will continue to start providing PCs with Linux of one flavour or another preinstalled.

Of course I could raise the question

Does the Linux Community want to succeed in the mainstream?

We have probably anywhere between 50 million and 100 million users, that is a sizable market for some firm or firms.

Bigger is not necessarily better.

Cheers

Wizard

 

[JoeBlack]

Does the Linux Community want to succeed in the mainstream?

I keep getting a sense that it does, but perhaps not realising what that entails.

I hear about this 2% Linux Market share, and how all these Linux Youtubers and Linux users with stats, or comments sections hoping to make it to 3%, and even debates and number fudging to make Linux seem bigger... or this "year of the Linux" term being tossed around. Talk about which distro look the nicest, and which distro to give to noobs, encouraging people to adopt Linux.

Otherwise, it's just an OS made by devs for devs and those willing to give it a try.

Even if Linux went mainstream with Linux OS Mainstream Edition with 80%+ DE Marketshare there'll always be the Linux OS Underground Dev Edition with 2% DE Marketshare.

If this was reality, does it mean the giant-mega-tech-corps have bought a seat at the Linux table. I heard that Windows has some folder in the Linux directory now or something? Or that windows is interested in Linux for some reason. Would mainstream Desktop Linux be something like Android (but for mobile devices)? Would it mean that Windows will eventually be a Linux!?!?!?! (Like how Samsung Android is a Linux?)... Imagine Windows becoming a Linux Distro...

What is Window's game plan with Linux anyway? (WSL Windows Subsystem for Linux)

 

[f33dm3bits]

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:
I had no idea what distro to go for... That choice alone was daunting yet fun. I've tried 20 or so distros before settling. A true normie would google Linux OS.... and the first hit would need to be LinuxOS.com And that distro should be THE ONE linux distro for all normies. Normies don't like (too many) choices. Do they care that it's technically Gnu/Linux and Linux is actually just the kernal? F*** no. Techies love choice. Normies hate choice.

I agree with the points mentioned in the article, however when I started there were plenty of distributions as well. I just started on my own instincts I chose Ubuntu because someone had recommended it to me and I had done some searching around and from what I saw is that with Ubuntu I was going to have an easier time getting into Linux. After that I tried Debian, Mint, CentOS and Fedora. I can't remember what else I tried, the only one I remember I also tried was BackTrack. In short I think I stuck to trying the most popular rpm and deb based at the time to give me an understanding of both.

Lastly I think people have a hard time making choices when it comes to Linux distributions is because with Windows you have no other choice unless a person decides to try MacOS. Maybe there should be a better way of explaining the basics of a Linux distribution such as the differences between distributions, Desktop Environments and package managers etc. If people understand those differences and how all package mangers are similar then people would have a less hard time. Because currently new to Linux users think if they want a different Desktop Environment they have to switch distribution and that if they switch distribution that they have to learn a whole new package management system which is far from true.

 

[JoeBlack]

Maybe there should be a better way of explaining the basics of a Linux distribution such as the differences between distributions

You mean like...

INSTEAD OF: "Here's 25 to choose from... now go forth!"

 

[f33dm3bits]

linux.org isn't a website focused on teaching Linux but helping people with questions and problems.
A good example for helping teach Linux concepts would be linuxjourney.com.

 

[JoeBlack]

linux.org isn't a website focused on teach Linux but helping people with questions and problems.
A good example for helping teach Linux concepts would be linuxjourney.com.

Awesome website thanks!

 

[Linuxembourg]

I appreciate the author of the article knows way more about the community than me, but I have to disagree with the idea that desktop linux is difficult at least for me. Given the majority of desktop users are using Ubuntu and Mint, I'd doubt they are having a difficult time either.

I think Linux doesn't know what the average desktop user is, as is sort of illustrated by the LTT videos and the reaction to them as if they are average people switching over. They are far from average users imo, not even close. I would not consider myself an 'average' user either.

The average desktop user (imo) maybe has a preference over which browser to use. They don't need to get steam working, if they have a fancy graphics card they will barely use it, they wont need to do anything really other than open a browser in general. The average user has never used photoshop never mind gimp.

Other than having it pre-installed on machines, there isn't really much that you could do to the beginner friendly distros to make them more user-friendly. I would set them up like Win7/MacOS rather than how a lot of them come out the box (looking like WinXP) when something like Lubuntu could look far nicer, but other than that I can't really think of anything else.

 

[kc1di]

I do not think that it is reasonable today to expect a non-expert user to successfully install and use Linux for their daily needs without a “Linux friend” holding their hand every step of the way.

Enjoyed reading the article. And agree with much of what he says. The above quote is one of the reasons I have come to Linux .org to try and help others navigate the sometimes complex issues they face when trying to use Linux. I'm not so worried about linux becoming mainstream as I do not think that will ever happen apart for Hardware vendors buying into it and putting it on machines sold in big box stores. But Just want to help those who choose the linux route find their way around.

 

[Brickwizard]

The above quote is one of the reasons I have come to Linux .org to try and help others

similar here, I have been guesting for several years to search out answers to my problems, when we went into lock-down and I became stuck indoors in need of something to do, I joined up to try and help out, ...now I am caught hook , line , and sinker,

Before I joined linux.org I was asked by the microsoft site to become a microsoft mentor [I have not used windows since XP and I had given them a right slagging off on their site for the poor support compaired to Linux ] so that came as a surprise and one of which I am glad I declined, and yes I still get involved fixing microsoft boxes as several of my friends who's windows are so dirty they cant see any alternative but thats as far as it goes for me its GNU all the way

 

[charlie.corder]

Greetings everyone,
I might as well put my two cents worth in on this topic.
Looking at the history of Linux it appears to me that it never was intended to cater to the masses.
Starting with Unix, which Linux began with, it was strictly in the realm of those interested in computers and how they worked, etc.
My take on this is that Linux has plenty of good things going for it without getting deeply involved in commercialization.
Linux has continually gotten more user-friendly with each passing year.
I don't believe it is necessary to go for 'market share' to be successful. I think Linux, or GNU-Linux, is very successful in what it does. Where else can you get so many choices in how to use a computer? Microsoft? Apple? Hardly.
More thoughts from an Old Geezer.
Tango Charlie

 

[captain-sensible]

but for #Microsoft to get worried and Linux to get to another level, will be the day that Linux OS with Desktop gets regular income. "Simply Memphis" which one of the contributors had a spin off called Antix was such a Distro that attempted that .

Elementary has a policy of charging for some apps . What I have empirically observed is that people really clever with some particular skill may be "wanting " in other areas. So the " benevolent dictator for life " i.e developer for Slackware got to the point of his roof leaking ; he states he's a nerd . His Archilles heel is not acknowledging the fact and bringing in those that could help with financial issues. i mean it doesn't bode well that a single maintainer for a distro gets distracted because he can't afford to repair his roof. A fact confirmed by "Alien Bob" .


I will give you another example. I've written, and am using a CMS system written on top of CodeIgniter4 .The maintainer of Codeigniter has a blog , called learn CodeIgniter. What php framework do you think he would be using for his blog CI4 or Wordpress ? yep the guy is clueless in leadership and business , he is effectively saying Wordpress . not Ci4 is best for blogs and is using Worpdress as his web.

 

[JoeBlack]

I don't believe it is necessary to go for 'market share' to be successful. I think Linux, or GNU-Linux, is very successful in what it does. Where else can you get so many choices in how to use a computer? Microsoft? Apple? Hardly.

I agree that an OS doesn't need maximum market share to be a good OS. And I agree that there's a lot of freedom in using Linux that doesn't come with Mac/Win. However, I think marketshare has other valuable benefits such as:

1. COMPATIBILITY: There's a piece of software I'm using on Mac that I really wish was on Linux. I actually don't have the freedom run that software on Linux because it doesn't exist. The devs don't want to put their resources in an OS with so little market share which they wouldn't be able to recoup the cost of development. If Linux OS had theoretically 100% marketshare, it means that all software developers can just focus on making it for Linux, rather than Win/Mac. So it would actually INCREASE FREEDOM of choice of software. Sometimes I have to find the "alternative equivalent" apps, which is sometimes better, and sometimes worse.
2. COMMUNITY SUPPORT: The bigger share an OS has, the bigger the community. Which also means more tech and creative support. This may entail more funding towards making a more solid, bug free, more aesthetically pleasing OS. Having more people around that know Linux helping their friends trouble shoot things. Sharing knowledge.
3. TECH SUPPORT: Hardware manufacturers would just write drivers for Linux instead of Win/Mac. Manufacturers have to to decide if they want support Linux, the OS with 2% market share or focus on the other 98%.
4. SOFTWARE SUPPORT: Most game developers make games for Windows simply because it has the largest market share. (granted Steam is making all games compatible on any OS, which is great). There wouldn't be a need for compatibility layers like Wine, or Crossover, or SteamPlay if everything was Native to Linux. Linux software doesn't have to be all FOSS. There's really good Proprietary software out there that are no on Linux.

I'm not so worried about linux becoming mainstream as I do not think that will ever happen

Actually, Linux has become mainstream in the form of Android Samsung Mobile Phones. The only way Linux would become mainstream as a Desktop is if Windows decided to use the Linux Kernal and make a Windows Linux Distro, and do what Samsung did. (I don't know if that's a good or bad thing yet)