The existence of this survey is evidence that Linux on the desktop is flawed. There should be one answer. Instead, Linux desktop users are using Linux on the desktop because they can’t be satisfied by Windows or OSX. So then they try Linux on the desktop, and aren’t satisfied with GNOME, so they then need to fork and create another desktop manager. This new desktop manager doesn’t suit someone, so instead of working to improve it, they work on another desktop manager. Linux on the desktop is a sign of someone who doesn’t recognize that a solution is good enough and accept it. It’s a pathology and says more about the people who are using it than the actual technology.
I mainly use GNU/Linux by principle. It just so happens to be the best operating system too, but that is mostly a nice coincidence ;-)
My point is, you cannot draw any conclusion on Linux users because they use it for different reasons and I certainly didn't start using it because I was not satisfied with Windows: I was mostly curious I guess, and liked the little games that came with Mandrake 9 (I was a child).
Most Linux users don't make their own desktop anyway. And you cannot blame people who write their own desktop manager for fun and let express their creativity in their free time, or to implement their vision, or to fit their need. They possibly wouldn't have contributed to any existing solution anyway.
What's more, you don't seem to have done much research before this heavy, misguided critic. Speaking for the two big desktops, first we had KDE. But the FSF was disatisfied with the fact that Qt was non-free. They started three projects:
- a free reimplementation of Qt.
- lobbying for Qt to be freed.
- an alternative, free desktop: GNOME.
The second and third projects succeeded so the first was dropped. But by the time the second project succeded, the third was already well advanced. That is why we have Gnome besides KDE. For ideological reasons, not because someone was not satisfied by KDE and decided to create GNOME instead of contributing to KDE.
The reality is more complicated than what you say.
I am sorry that you were annoyed by colleagues using Linux but your perception of them is not an accurate representation of the world. And I can see that KDE (or Gnome indeed) is a good solution, thank you very much.
I get the free software principle issue. But that’s like people who won’t use Uber/Lyft and still use Taxis because Taxis have the legal right to sell transportation and Uber/Lyft are/were operating against the law (if not the letter, at least the spirit). I applaud those people, but it’s a sign of their inflexibility.
I also get the people who can’t afford a legal software lic for Windows and instead of pirating, they use Linux. Also, upstanding humans who I applaud, but they’re inflexible in their ethics. Good? Bad? Certainly different.
I’m just pointing out that using Linux on the desktop is impractical, driven by reasons that aren’t objectively “better”, and the people attracted to it are doing it for reasons which reflect more on their personality (inflexible) than the underlying technology, and the reason for the fracture in Linux desktop managers is due to the users personality traits.
And for the record, I’m right on the borderline of using Linux on the desktop, but each time I start down that path, I question - why am I really doing this?
What is wrong in making choices after ethical reasons? I want to know, because this is what drives me.
Being flexible on principles is acting against your (core) values, and making compromises is not always even the most pragmatic thing to do. Not saying you should never make compromises. First, nobody is perfect. Second, everybody has their own thresholds and this is fine.
You say that you are borderline of using Linux on the desktop. Surely you have a motivation behind that? You need to answer the question you raise at the end of your comment before switching. Switching OSes can be a bit disruptive and it takes time to adapt. It takes will. You should not change for the sake of changing. Here are hints though:
- you think that free software is the way forward. People should control their digital life.
- you think that open source is the way forward. It's just a way more efficient way to build software, frees us from perpetually reinventing the wheel by building "common goods" and enables meaningful and powerful collective work, even across companies.
- you like Unix. You think that it is a nice way to organise and design an operating system.
- you like package managers on Linux. apt install stuff, or click stuff in the store, and boom, it is installed. No bullshit, everything is free, no demo versions.
- no tracking, no ads, no hidden shenanigans, no need to have a Microsoft or Apple account to have updates.
- you like having the right and the possibility to modify or study any piece of software you use.
- you like a fast boot and virus free environment.
- you like being close to your development environment.
- you find KDE/GNOME beautiful.
- you like the customization the ecosystem enables.
- you are curious and like to explore new stuff.
- ...?
To each their own. What's more, I find Linux practical, but not everybody does and there are downsides to use Linux instead of a more mainstream OS (app support, help, ...) :-)
Honestly, I don't blame you for asking this as I also ask myself the same question every-time I use a Linux distro. Even as a software developer, I just want to get my work done which I can do on my Macbook or my PC which has Ubuntu dual-booting with Windows just fine. I try to ignore those miscellaneous "Ubuntu app has crashed" problems I get every now and then but then again, I only use Linux to test some software I wrote which has been ported to the platform.
I don't really bother with editing those dotfiles or sudoing my way into customising the whole GUI via a config file deep in the system folder. Sure, it is a free and open-source operating system which is great, but if touching a setting results it in resetting the whole OS, then back to Windows it is for me.
I have a macbook (purchased this summer) as well as a dell inspiron running linux (for the past couple years). Coming from Windows, Linux felt like a relief from many headaches. No bloat (I can't overstate this), no weird UI that couldn't decide whether the device was a tablet or laptop or desktop, programs opening right after I'd click on them, customization, etc.
There will be cases where the trade-offs involved for a specific user mean Linux isn't really a viable option. For some, there are different trade-offs that make Linux an attractive choice.
-------
Personal note: Even OS X seems bloated at times to me, and I don't mean the pre-installed packages. I mean things like the number of options for some menu bar selections. Also, for pdf viewing out of the box viewers for many Linux distros win hands down compared to Adobe (if you are simply looking to read pdfs). In 'utility' programs like Adobe, you might have 200+ things you can choose to do. With a Linux viewer you get like 5-10.
Gaming and lack of Office are the primary downsides. Steam mitigates the first to a non-trivial degree. If Google would just improve the robustness of Docs and Sheets a bit more, then some of the of more robust and beginner-friendly distros would (I bet) get some more traction.
I like coding on my Mac, and the experience of using OS X to be best described as "solid". I miss spending most of my time on Linux though.
That seems a bit... arrogant. I mean, I'm Windows all the way, but surely there's a wide variety of people in the world. We don't have just two or three kinds of auto, for example.
Sure. Why wouldn't they? In my experience, all three desktop OSes get usage if you let techy people pick freely and there isn't requirements forcing otherwise (e.g. for a job requiring Adobe software using Linux is probably not a good idea)
The problematic nature of the Linux desktop is due to the inability to have a standardised and integrated desktop experience but instead its community goes for an ecosystem of having alternatives of alternative subsystems competing with themselves rather than improving upon each other. I don't want to spend hours googling and customising different settings all for it to suddenly break and then reseting the whole OS to fix it.
There is only one version of macOS and Windows to test against but thousands of Linux distros that behave differently with many DEs, Window Managers, audio subsystems, packaging formats and the list goes on. As a software developer I can imagine that it is harder to test a GUI app on several Linux distros than it is on macOS and Windows since tracking down the fault of the issue may involve switch/upgrading either GNOME, KDE, GTK, Wayland, X11, libDRM or even Linux itself. This is just too much work.
There should be one answer.
The closest answer to having a 'consistent Linux desktop' is ChromeOS.
I use the desktop environment I use for reasons that predate macOS/Mac OS X and are largely divorced from Microsoft Windows. I used to use the standard UNIX desktop environment, but then when I switched to Linux (since most UNIX software is closed) I had to find something similar. I tried fvwm/fvwm2+themes at first then found XFCE3 which had really similar goals to the standard UNIX desktop environment at the time. So I stuck with it as it became XFCE4.
So, there is an explanation about why Linux desktop users use different desktop environments that is completely unaccounted for by your macOS/Windows-centric theory. It also helps explain why there might always be more than one option.
Also, for what it's worth, the Common Desktop Environment was never that popular with Linux users but did become open source relatively recently.
I find linux much more user friendly than Windows n slightly moreso than osx. >90% of the computers i interact with are linux so i use a linux desktop. I also use a imac. And i have a nanopi n a Windows pc at home(DirectX!).
Maybe we value choice? On Windows and MacOS you have no choice on desktop environment. Where choice is available sometimes people want radically different things from each other.
> instead of working to improve it, they work on another desktop manager
If only it was that simple. Turns out nobody wants your improvements and can't even understand and be convinced they are improvements, unless you follow their vision and policies and try to change your use cases to adopt to that and work on their idea of improvements. And then there are corporations, like Red Hat, that want to control linux desktop and are spreading this bullshit how linux desktop is bad because there is choice and not a single desktop environment they control.
> Linux on the desktop is a sign of someone who doesn’t recognize that a solution is good enough and accept it.
It's the other way around. You really have to be able to recognize and accept good enough to switch to linux desktop, because this is what you will always be after when using it.
Comments
The existence of this survey is evidence that Linux on the desktop is flawed. There should be one answer. Instead, Linux desktop users are using Linux on the desktop because they can’t be satisfied by Windows or OSX. So then they try Linux on the desktop, and aren’t satisfied with GNOME, so they then need to fork and create another desktop manager. This new desktop manager doesn’t suit someone, so instead of working to improve it, they work on another desktop manager. Linux on the desktop is a sign of someone who doesn’t recognize that a solution is good enough and accept it. It’s a pathology and says more about the people who are using it than the actual technology.
I mainly use GNU/Linux by principle. It just so happens to be the best operating system too, but that is mostly a nice coincidence ;-)
My point is, you cannot draw any conclusion on Linux users because they use it for different reasons and I certainly didn't start using it because I was not satisfied with Windows: I was mostly curious I guess, and liked the little games that came with Mandrake 9 (I was a child).
Most Linux users don't make their own desktop anyway. And you cannot blame people who write their own desktop manager for fun and let express their creativity in their free time, or to implement their vision, or to fit their need. They possibly wouldn't have contributed to any existing solution anyway.
What's more, you don't seem to have done much research before this heavy, misguided critic. Speaking for the two big desktops, first we had KDE. But the FSF was disatisfied with the fact that Qt was non-free. They started three projects:
- a free reimplementation of Qt.
- lobbying for Qt to be freed.
- an alternative, free desktop: GNOME.
The second and third projects succeeded so the first was dropped. But by the time the second project succeded, the third was already well advanced. That is why we have Gnome besides KDE. For ideological reasons, not because someone was not satisfied by KDE and decided to create GNOME instead of contributing to KDE.
The reality is more complicated than what you say.
I am sorry that you were annoyed by colleagues using Linux but your perception of them is not an accurate representation of the world. And I can see that KDE (or Gnome indeed) is a good solution, thank you very much.
I get the free software principle issue. But that’s like people who won’t use Uber/Lyft and still use Taxis because Taxis have the legal right to sell transportation and Uber/Lyft are/were operating against the law (if not the letter, at least the spirit). I applaud those people, but it’s a sign of their inflexibility.
I also get the people who can’t afford a legal software lic for Windows and instead of pirating, they use Linux. Also, upstanding humans who I applaud, but they’re inflexible in their ethics. Good? Bad? Certainly different.
I’m just pointing out that using Linux on the desktop is impractical, driven by reasons that aren’t objectively “better”, and the people attracted to it are doing it for reasons which reflect more on their personality (inflexible) than the underlying technology, and the reason for the fracture in Linux desktop managers is due to the users personality traits.
And for the record, I’m right on the borderline of using Linux on the desktop, but each time I start down that path, I question - why am I really doing this?
What is wrong in making choices after ethical reasons? I want to know, because this is what drives me.
Being flexible on principles is acting against your (core) values, and making compromises is not always even the most pragmatic thing to do. Not saying you should never make compromises. First, nobody is perfect. Second, everybody has their own thresholds and this is fine.
You say that you are borderline of using Linux on the desktop. Surely you have a motivation behind that? You need to answer the question you raise at the end of your comment before switching. Switching OSes can be a bit disruptive and it takes time to adapt. It takes will. You should not change for the sake of changing. Here are hints though:
- you think that free software is the way forward. People should control their digital life.
- you think that open source is the way forward. It's just a way more efficient way to build software, frees us from perpetually reinventing the wheel by building "common goods" and enables meaningful and powerful collective work, even across companies.
- you like Unix. You think that it is a nice way to organise and design an operating system.
- you like package managers on Linux. apt install stuff, or click stuff in the store, and boom, it is installed. No bullshit, everything is free, no demo versions.
- no tracking, no ads, no hidden shenanigans, no need to have a Microsoft or Apple account to have updates.
- you like having the right and the possibility to modify or study any piece of software you use.
- you like a fast boot and virus free environment.
- you like being close to your development environment.
- you find KDE/GNOME beautiful.
- you like the customization the ecosystem enables.
- you are curious and like to explore new stuff.
- ...?
To each their own. What's more, I find Linux practical, but not everybody does and there are downsides to use Linux instead of a more mainstream OS (app support, help, ...) :-)
Honestly, I don't blame you for asking this as I also ask myself the same question every-time I use a Linux distro. Even as a software developer, I just want to get my work done which I can do on my Macbook or my PC which has Ubuntu dual-booting with Windows just fine. I try to ignore those miscellaneous "Ubuntu app has crashed" problems I get every now and then but then again, I only use Linux to test some software I wrote which has been ported to the platform.
I don't really bother with editing those dotfiles or sudoing my way into customising the whole GUI via a config file deep in the system folder. Sure, it is a free and open-source operating system which is great, but if touching a setting results it in resetting the whole OS, then back to Windows it is for me.
I have a macbook (purchased this summer) as well as a dell inspiron running linux (for the past couple years). Coming from Windows, Linux felt like a relief from many headaches. No bloat (I can't overstate this), no weird UI that couldn't decide whether the device was a tablet or laptop or desktop, programs opening right after I'd click on them, customization, etc.
There will be cases where the trade-offs involved for a specific user mean Linux isn't really a viable option. For some, there are different trade-offs that make Linux an attractive choice.
-------
Personal note: Even OS X seems bloated at times to me, and I don't mean the pre-installed packages. I mean things like the number of options for some menu bar selections. Also, for pdf viewing out of the box viewers for many Linux distros win hands down compared to Adobe (if you are simply looking to read pdfs). In 'utility' programs like Adobe, you might have 200+ things you can choose to do. With a Linux viewer you get like 5-10.
Gaming and lack of Office are the primary downsides. Steam mitigates the first to a non-trivial degree. If Google would just improve the robustness of Docs and Sheets a bit more, then some of the of more robust and beginner-friendly distros would (I bet) get some more traction.
I like coding on my Mac, and the experience of using OS X to be best described as "solid". I miss spending most of my time on Linux though.
Try disabling apport in /etc/default/apport
Or with the command: sudo systemctl disable apport
Yes, it sucks having to do that.
It's really not. It might not be the best choice for what you want or are doing, but it's not generally "impractical".
That seems a bit... arrogant. I mean, I'm Windows all the way, but surely there's a wide variety of people in the world. We don't have just two or three kinds of auto, for example.
Have you worked with people who willingly (not forced by their employer) use Linux on the desktop as their primary desktop?
Sure. Why wouldn't they? In my experience, all three desktop OSes get usage if you let techy people pick freely and there isn't requirements forcing otherwise (e.g. for a job requiring Adobe software using Linux is probably not a good idea)
I have. And I have friends I made while studying mathematics that wouldn't go near Windows and Mac, but are just fine with Linux.
This is spot on.
The problematic nature of the Linux desktop is due to the inability to have a standardised and integrated desktop experience but instead its community goes for an ecosystem of having alternatives of alternative subsystems competing with themselves rather than improving upon each other. I don't want to spend hours googling and customising different settings all for it to suddenly break and then reseting the whole OS to fix it.
There is only one version of macOS and Windows to test against but thousands of Linux distros that behave differently with many DEs, Window Managers, audio subsystems, packaging formats and the list goes on. As a software developer I can imagine that it is harder to test a GUI app on several Linux distros than it is on macOS and Windows since tracking down the fault of the issue may involve switch/upgrading either GNOME, KDE, GTK, Wayland, X11, libDRM or even Linux itself. This is just too much work.
The closest answer to having a 'consistent Linux desktop' is ChromeOS.
You mean one that spies on you? Don't you think that defies what Linux et al. is all about?
Besides, The main function of the Linux world is developing computational solutions, not bring people desktops for money.
Linux is used to make money much different than that, ask the users of supercomputers, or people that develop communication systems.
I use the desktop environment I use for reasons that predate macOS/Mac OS X and are largely divorced from Microsoft Windows. I used to use the standard UNIX desktop environment, but then when I switched to Linux (since most UNIX software is closed) I had to find something similar. I tried fvwm/fvwm2+themes at first then found XFCE3 which had really similar goals to the standard UNIX desktop environment at the time. So I stuck with it as it became XFCE4.
So, there is an explanation about why Linux desktop users use different desktop environments that is completely unaccounted for by your macOS/Windows-centric theory. It also helps explain why there might always be more than one option.
Also, for what it's worth, the Common Desktop Environment was never that popular with Linux users but did become open source relatively recently.
I find linux much more user friendly than Windows n slightly moreso than osx. >90% of the computers i interact with are linux so i use a linux desktop. I also use a imac. And i have a nanopi n a Windows pc at home(DirectX!).
I really dont care what desktop.
Maybe we value choice? On Windows and MacOS you have no choice on desktop environment. Where choice is available sometimes people want radically different things from each other.
> instead of working to improve it, they work on another desktop manager
If only it was that simple. Turns out nobody wants your improvements and can't even understand and be convinced they are improvements, unless you follow their vision and policies and try to change your use cases to adopt to that and work on their idea of improvements. And then there are corporations, like Red Hat, that want to control linux desktop and are spreading this bullshit how linux desktop is bad because there is choice and not a single desktop environment they control.
> Linux on the desktop is a sign of someone who doesn’t recognize that a solution is good enough and accept it.
It's the other way around. You really have to be able to recognize and accept good enough to switch to linux desktop, because this is what you will always be after when using it.