46 posts in this topic

Posted

The CLI is very powerful, Microsoft knows this hence creating powershell.  The difference is in Windows it's optional. In Linux, at some stage, you're being forced to use it to resolve an issue.

Linux I think has come a long way since Ubuntu hit the scene.  As much as people say it's bloated you have to admire what it's done for the OS's popularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Try doing ssh on a headless server without the terminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's hard to explain but I think the problem with Linux is that it feels like Linux. The UI screams "I'm in Linux" ... I know all the other OS's scream their own name, but for some reason the feeling of Linux is just meh.

 

I think it is the lack of polish and consistency. I mean, inconsistencies have been present in Windows for a very long time, but still... you don't see things like 'This option changes how Ubuntu starts up' when you're using Debian or some other distribution.

 

In my view the main problem is that things are built to support many different architectures, GUIs, distributions, libraries, and so on... and in the end you get something that tries to do too many things, doesn't really do a good job, and feels like something a few students have done in their spare time. Note here, I am talking about the user-facing aspects of the distributions, and this is in no way a post to bash Linux.

 

Just like how everyone is using Linux as the kernel, so should, in my view, everybody get together and work on making a UI with a consistent look and feel, get that to a stable version, and then branch out by adding features / making modifications like transparent-like UI, old-style UI, whatever UI.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just like how everyone is using Linux as the kernel, so should, in my view, everybody get together and work on making a UI with a consistent look and feel, get that to a stable version, and then branch out by adding features / making modifications like transparent-like UI, old-style UI, whatever UI.

 

Don't they already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Don't they already?

 

Don't have much experience with diving deep into the architecture. But what would that common system be, the window manager? Because it certainly feels like there are a bunch of window managers, GUIs, visual styles, themes, and that they don't connect together to feel like one cohesive thing.

 

In any case, I find Windows and OSX to be more consistent. Linux distributions on the other hand feel like their parts have been hacked together to work, with the sense that if you touch them, the whole thing will fall apart. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the code is actually a lot better than OSX or Windows and works correctly, but it certainly doesn't feel like that. That is what I have from my limited use.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just like how everyone is using Linux as the kernel, so should, in my view, everybody get together and work on making a UI with a consistent look and feel, get that to a stable version, and then branch out by adding features / making modifications like transparent-like UI, old-style UI, whatever UI.

If I understand you correctly, you would want all distributions to switch to one UI? Or do mean the developers of the various UIs should all switch to work on just one?

I don't see either option happening. The former would further diminish the differences between distros and the latter just makes no sense. People have different ideas and desires as to what they want from the UI.

Don't have much experience with diving deep into the architecture. But what would that common system be, the window manager? Because it certainly feels like there are a bunch of window managers, GUIs, visual styles, themes, and that they don't connect together to feel like one cohesive thing.

If you use a complete DE (such as Gnome or KDE) things should feel a lot more cohesive.

As for themes, they can feel less cohesive since the window decoration can be changed independently of the UI widgets. Furthermore applications can be developed with different widget toolkits (GTK2, GTK3, Qt, etc). Unfortunately there is not much you can do other than choose your applications carefully.

In any case, I find Windows and OSX to be more consistent. Linux distributions on the other hand feel like their parts have been hacked together to work, with the sense that if you touch them, the whole thing will fall apart. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the code is actually a lot better than OSX or Windows and works correctly, but it certainly doesn't feel like that. That is what I have from my limited use.

Well Linux distributions by their nature are much more modular and customizable than Windows or OSX. They let you switch out almost any individual component/package for another. In a way, distros are nothing more than a particular combination of these packages.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Or do mean the developers of the various UIs should all switch to work on just one?

As for themes, they can feel less cohesive since the window decoration can be changed independently of the UI widgets. Furthermore applications can be developed with different widget toolkits (GTK2, GTK3, Qt, etc). Unfortunately there is not much you can do other than choose your applications carefully.

 

Either the first one, done by all UI devs working together to create a common set / base of the UI, and then their own teams to separately extend that. Or the second group to determine a standard behaviour and base look for UI controls. Like for example, when developing for Windows, you already know that your app will look the same across distributions, regardless of the modifications that they have done, because it targets the base UI / control set. Meaning, if a user has used a mod to change the look of the button controls across Windows, then your app will be changed as well = consistency. My English is not that good so I apologise if I am not clear.

 

Relative to Linux, if you develop an app using an X dev toolkit, that app to be automatically modified and fit the GUI of the user (whether that would be Gnome, KDE, or something else). Like, when you add a button to your app, you just target the base UI, and that button to afterwards automatically scale / change to a Gnome-like button or a KDE-like button. Thus your app is usable and looks just like a native (UI-wise) app on whatever GUI / distribution combination.

 

I guess this is adding an additional level of abstraction which may not be good and may be too complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i_was_here - I think you pointed on something which sums up why I dont like linux in its all its current flavors.  Its the fact they dont have a killer-app feature.  The fact there has to be 20 different options for every single piece shows lack of a lack of cohesiveness IMO.  Options are great, but I think the reason there are so many options is because there isnt a single great one out there -- there isnt one out there that is good enough to satisfy a large enough % of users.

 

Simplicity will always win over complexity when it comes to users, which are what ALL of this is supposed to be for. 

Dont get me wrong, I understand the greatness of PowerShell - I understand the need for a CLI for developers, sysadmins, etc. -- I am speaking on behalf of end users, thats all.

 

I cant wait till Linux comes out with that distro that the community says, "damn thats nice !" -- until then, there will be 50 distros, and each of them will have 3 GUIs, and blah blah blah -- at least, thats how I see it.

 

Maybe Im hoping for the magic unicorn....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

@T3X4S- You know why they can't have that, right? They have one Windows, there's 10,000 Linux distros. Their "killer-app" may work on one distro, why not on another. The reason we have multiple choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Maybe Im hoping for the magic unicorn....

You cannot be all things to all people.

Being that Linux is open-source, the moment a skilled enough person is dissatisfied with the currently available options (either applications or distros), he or she may decide to fork an existing project or create a new one. After some time you will eventually find yourself with 20 options again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The problem is.. some people (myself included) feel like windows is starting to lock-down a lot more.  They are removing some customization and focusing on touch-centric devices.  Yes windows 7 is great, windows 8.. is getting better... but for some many linux DE's (for me it's cinnamon) have the old xp/7 combined feel.  Menus, hidden options, small text labels, etc.  No big screen filling boxes, no need for full screen or everything to be big enough for touch.

 

For me I use windows over linux.. however if the original vision for windows 8 (touch) continues to be pushed to the point where the desktop is no longer.. then I will have to either use an older/unsecure version of windows.. or I could move to linux which has plenty of choice and user control.

So because you don't like the direction Windows is going other operating systems should start shifting their appearance to legacy Windows versions? :/ Okay then... Let Linux be Linux and OS X be OS X please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And before anyone says "I never/rarely use terminal for anything" - stop kidding yourself

I have a question: What do you use the terminal for that you cant do using the GUI?

Right now off the top of my head....I cant give you a decent example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So because you don't like the direction Windows is going other operating systems should start shifting their appearance to legacy Windows versions? :/ Okay then... Let Linux be Linux and OS X be OS X please.

 

No, I didn't say that.  I said.. because I don't like the direction Windows is going.. I may switch to using linux which allows me to have the interface I want.  At least read what I wrote before misquoting what I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Good to see they've brought menus back, I wonder if these changes will be backported to arch or the AUR...

 

And as for the terminal argument... I don't get it, if you want a wholly GUI only based experience, go and get windows. If you want very flashy GUI interface and possibly using CLI very rarely, get mac, if on the other hand you want an OS that makes extensive use of a terminal - get linux. I use the terminal all the time, and I like it like that, the majority of my linux hosts are CLI only.

I've never understood the argument for making linux complete GUI-orientated - there's plenty of choices on the market if you want a pure GUI environment, stop trying to dumb down my (and other peoples) linux interface because it isn't suited to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No, I didn't say that.  I said.. because I don't like the direction Windows is going.. I may switch to using linux which allows me to have the interface I want.  At least read what I wrote before misquoting what I say.

I was asking for clarification, hence the question mark. What you're saying has little to do with 68k said though. He first proposed in another thread that OS X adopt Windows-style window management and now suggests Ubuntu to use Ribbon system-wide. You're more in line with the ability to adapting Linux to your needs. I'm against other operating systems adopting features for the sake of being more Windows-like, I don't have an issue with the end-user applying whatever extensions to their own installation to be more Windows-like. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And as for the terminal argument... I don't get it, if you want a wholly GUI only based experience, go and get windows. If you want very flashy GUI interface and possibly using CLI very rarely, get mac, if on the other hand you want an OS that makes extensive use of a terminal - get linux. I use the terminal all the time, and I like it like that, the majority of my linux hosts are CLI only.

I've never understood the argument for making linux complete GUI-orientated - there's plenty of choices on the market if you want a pure GUI environment, stop trying to dumb down my (and other peoples) linux interface because it isn't suited to you.

Why should people not use Linux just because they want a GUI? If you don't like a particular interface then don't use it, and if you do like it then go for it. The beauty of Linux is that it provides choices for people. It's not a one size fits all type of OS; you can make it how you want it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why should people not use Linux just because they want a GUI? If you don't like a particular interface then don't use it, and if you do like it then go for it. The beauty of Linux is that it provides choices for people. It's not a one size fits all type of OS; you can make it how you want it to be.

I've got no problem with people making it into what they want it to be, was mainly posting about the pretty daft opinion of this;

 

Exactly, I want the polish & wizards, and finish in an OS.  I dont want it to look like something one person did in his garage one summer.

A terminal ???  really ?  Is this the 80s ?

 

Technology is supposed to make things easier - how is going back to having to use terminal making things easier ?

 

And before anyone says "I never/rarely use terminal for anything" - stop kidding yourself

With that being said, I do like some things of Linux.... its just not ready for prime time.  I eagerly wait till it is - will be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've got no problem with people making it into what they want it to be, was mainly posting about the pretty daft opinion of this;

 

I guess Im just not as smart as you so I want things to be simpler.  I guess its because things should be easier, isnt that what tech is all about ?

But I guess you just think that its because me and others like me are just simple-minded ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have a question: What do you use the terminal for that you cant do using the GUI?

Right now off the top of my head....I cant give you a decent example.

I guess its whenever I have attempted to try it, everything I look for like: installing VMWare tools, drivers, any time I try to get something to work that isnt working (hardware related) - whats the solution ?  some code @ terminal.

 

Anytime I go to a support forum looking for an answer to an issue, the answer I always get is :  "Pfft all you have to do is stop down into terminal and type "sudo make install blah blah -n \; df -r /l-stopmeifthisiswrong"

Never has there been a "download this file"

 

I think I just dont want to learn another OS, but the geek side of me thinks I should know linux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I guess Im just not as smart as you so I want things to be simpler.  I guess its because things should be easier, isnt that what tech is all about ?

But I guess you just think that its because me and others like me are just simple-minded ?

I never mentioned simple minded, you're saying linux should be completely GUI based and I said if you want something completely GUI based (of which linux is NOT and WILL NOT be) then go and stick with windows or mac, it was not designed to be a GUI orientated system hence why there's a big kickup with regards to X11 and wayland and how they work etc.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.