Linux was always a disaster in terms of user experience and isn't improving.
Curious: what have you tried? People who use "Linux" as a catch-all in terms of UX usually have only tried a single distribution with a single desktop environment.
I feel like people still have in mind what Linux desktop was 15 / 20 years ago. It improved a lot in the past years, battery life improved on laptops, Ubuntu that was already very stable and feature complete also got a lot of things with previous releases and I've personally been running Arch on my main computers now for 5+ years and haven't got any major issues while upgrading.
This list is quite comprehensive, but also quite boring. It's just a list of bugs and things that are suboptimal on Linux. You could write one about any operating system. Some of the items like 'such-and-such needs to be configured using a text file' are also not even real problems.
What do you mean by 'there goes your install'? There are multiple ways you could run bleeding-edge software before it's packaged for Arch. See for example every 'xxx-git' package in the AUR. Or Flatpak.
People who have used ubuntu might want to just once try arch linux.
I had an ubuntu machine that took a while to boot even with an SSD. Later I installed arch linux on the same machine and boom! it would be to the desktop in seconds. It was night and day.
Debian is just as quick, and does not have the problematic "rolling" updates of Arch. (It does have the "testing" and "unstable" channels which are roughly comparable, but the Debian folks won't tell you to use them in production.)
Debian - or Devuan if you don't want systemd - can be made as spartan as you want. It boots in those mentioned few seconds on my 15yo T42p (Pentium M@1.8GHz, 2GB). Use Sid/Unstable if you want more up-to-date software with the accompanying larger flow of updates.
Moreover, I've been running Linux for decades now, both in my personal laptop and at work, and Ubuntu has been (mostly) frictionless for me. I'm not an average user, of course, but for most users a friendly distro would work just as well as Windows (browsing the internet, using whatsapp web, watching movies). In some cases I've had a better user experience with Ubuntu than with Windows or OS X, namely seamlessly installing a wireless HP laser printer.
I only tried Ubuntu, a few month ago. For the day or two spent with it:
- multi-language support requires a lot of work to get to the same point as macos.
In particular I use third party shortcut mappers to get language switching on left and right command keys (mimicking the JIS keyboards, but with an english international layout). That looks like something I’d have to give up on code myself.
- printer support is not at the same level.
Using a xerox printer, some options that appear by default on macos where not there on ubuntu. I’m sure there must be drivers somewhere, or I could hunt down more settings. But then my work office two other printers. It would be a PITA to hunt down drivers every time I want to use another printer.
- Hi DPI support is still flagged as experimental, and there’s a bunch of hoops to jump through to get a good setting in multi-monitor mode. Sure it’s doable, but still arcane.
- sleep/wake was weird. It would work most of the time, but randomly kept awake after closing the lid, or not waking up when opening. Not critical, but still not good (I’d ahte to have the battery depleted while traveling)
Overall if I had no choice that would be a fine environment. But as it is now, with all its quirks, I feel macos is still a smoother environment.
Fair enough. I'm not a Mac OS X user so I don't know how it would compare. I can only compare it with my past experience with Windows, and I think it's superior (for me) to Windows circa 7 -- I stopped using Windows entirely at that point, so I wouldn't know how later versions of Windows fare.
Portability is also a fair issue to raise, but it's simply not a problem for me. When I say Linux "on the desktop", I literally mean it: to me a laptop is simply a slightly more portable desktop computer. I sometimes take my work laptop to/from the office, and the battery lasts long enough for that. I'm not worried about longer trips, since I don't use laptops for that. Again, if you do care about this (which is completely fair), I'm aware many Linux distros still have issues with battery life. You certainly can't compete with a Macbook Pro, that's for sure!
I do note that my experience with printers is opposite to yours. Like I said, when trying to connect to an HP wireless printer, Ubuntu autodetected and self-downloaded the necessary drivers; however, it took a lot of patience to get it to work with a Macbook Pro. Today, that I have it configured for my Ubuntu laptop and my wife's Macbook Pro, the Mac will sometimes fail to print (the print job simply stuck in limbo) while my laptop prints reliably. Who knows?
And like I said in another comment, I game (or used to, anyway) a lot with Ubuntu, and many games are even AAA (though they tend to arrive later than on Windows).
So I really have a hard time believing Linux is not "ready for the desktop". It is, and has been for many years now.
edit: one last thing. You mentioned HDPi modes, multimonitor, multilanguage... none of those are for average users. My mom would be comfortable browsing the net, reading mail and watching movies on Ubuntu. She doesn't even know what HDPi is, nor does she want external monitors. (Spoiler: she still uses Windows because she can't learn anything else at this point... I've thought of tricking her by themeing Ubuntu to look like Windows, but that would just be mean).
Without HiDPI support lots of applications become useless when you use a HiDPI display. Even Steam does not respect HiDPI settings in Gnome 3 even when setting custom environment variables.
It's probably a case of "I don't miss what I don't use" then. I'm a power user, I cut my teeth with MS-DOS and I've been using Linux for work and gaming for more than a decade (and less intensive usage before that) and I really never noticed anything about HiDPI. That has to mean something :)
For the printers, you are right in that it’s far from being a solved problem on macos. I had an EPSON all in one before, and it was also a pain to get everything working. If I remember correctly the generic driver could print, but we didn’t get “advanced” options without going through the EPSON pkg installer and all the garbage coming with it. I’d totally imagine the linux driver being done cleaner than that.
For the record I’ve worked with a decent number of devs using linux workstations, so I totally vouch for your use case. I’d just temper the niche nature of multi-language support; that’s an everyday need for basically all Asia. Granted my use of shortcuts is niche (I wouldn’t need them if I had enough keys), but looking at maintenance projects annual reports there seem to be a sizeable amount of quality of life fixes still on the way.
With Linux you have to pay for proper support. HP is by far the best company in terms of supporting Linux printers. It isn't the Linux ecosystem's fault that other printer companies do not care.
Interesting. I regularly use RHEL (server/CLI only) but have not tried desktop Linux in a while.
I get a fair bit of weekly exposure to Windows 10 and well, it's not like heaps of fun, UX wise.
I'm reluctant to drop Apple mainly because I'm so 'tied up' with the rest of the ecosystem, iphone, Apple Music, iCloud etc.. They are not irreplaceable (for sure) but it always feels like moving away will cost way too much effort and be a pain...
Well played, Apple.
> I'm reluctant to drop Apple mainly because I'm so 'tied up' with the rest of the ecosystem, iphone, Apple Music, iCloud etc.. They are not irreplaceable (for sure) but it always feels like moving away will cost way too much effort and be a pain... Well played, Apple.
It's really hard for me to use non i3wm supporting OSes now, even though I have to use Windows from work, and have used Macs for the better part of the last 2 decades personally and in college.
I use Linux everyday, and it's a UX disaster. I have tried Gnome, Xfce, Cinnamon, KDE, I like none of them. The only DE that I somewhat liked (Unity) was discontinued.
Linux sucks, but I use it becuase it sucks less than windows, for programming at least.
> Curious: what have you tried? People who use "Linux" as a catch-all in terms of UX usually have only tried a single distribution with a single desktop environment.
Yup. You've just described a disaster. How many permutations of <hundreds of distros> x <dozens of DMs> must a user try before finding a good UX?
Mac is a BSD. OpenBSD exists. FreeBSD exists. NetBSD exists.
Because there are at least four BSDs, Mac therefore isn't good.
Do you see how ridiculous applying that logic to any operating system is?
Linux isn't a disaster. It's a kernel. There are Linux distributions with great user interfaces and great UX, developed by people who are great at it. There are also distributions that aren't.
It sort of depends on what really fascinates you, right? I'll avoid naming some of the most popular ones, because it's likely that you've already tried them. If you haven't, I'd really recommend giving them a try. Many people seem to really love them.
In terms of defaults:
I've heard really good things about Solus, and its use of AppArmor seems really cool. Never touched its package manager, so I won't recommend it, but it might be worth checking out. Its desktop environment is really snappy and has an interesting design philosophy.
Elementary is really cool as a boutique distribution; I don't personally feel any urge to use it seriously (I dislike apt as a package manager), but I always keep its live environment on a flash drive, because it works without any setup on basically anything I throw it at, painlessly, and without error. It's got a cool indie app store full of curated Elementary-centric free software, and overall just feels great. Using it, you'll probably notice a few areas that it clones Mac on, and a few that feel delightfully different.
Clear Linux (Intel's desktop distribution) is pretty popular right now because of how simple it is & how Intel seems to be going to great lengths to optimize it and make it a serious contender, but I don't like its desktop environment (vanilla GNOME 3 as far as I'm aware) all that much.
ChromiumOS is probably the best-designed desktop operating system on the planet right now technically, and I say that as a person who really hates Google. UI-wise it's so-so, but UX-wise it's really something special.
But more interesting are desktop environments in general, since they can be used with any variant of Linux you feel the urge to use. There's an exception there, though, in that Elementary's DE and Deepin's DE tend to not work so well or nicely on platforms that aren't Elementary or Deepin.
There are modern environments:
Plasma has hands-down the best UX of any sort of desktop operating system assuming you've got an Android smartphone; you say you're coming from Apple's environment, so imagine the interop between your Mac and your iPhone, but going both ways instead of just Mac -> iPhone. Texting, handling calls, taking advantage of the computing resources of connected devices, using your phone as an extra trackpad, notifications, unlocking your PC, painless file-sharing, pretty much anything you'd like. There are a bunch of distributions that ship with Plasma by default.
Solus's Budgie is kind of neat in that it takes the main benefit of GNOME 3 (ecosystem) with far fewer downsides.
There are also retro environments, if those are your thing. There's a pretty much perfect NeXTSTEP clone (including the programming environment, not just the UI), amiwm is still pretty interesting, there are clones of basically every UNIX UI under the sun, so on.
I'm not the best person to answer your question, because for the most part I don't go out of my way to use new desktop environments and distributions, and nothing above is my first choice. (In terms of window management, I usually stick with 9wm & E just because I have ridiculous ADHD and 9wm forces me to focus while E allows me to tile painlessly if I ever need it. I use three distributions overall, none of which are very popular at the moment, pretty much solely because I'm really picky with package managers & design philosophies.) That's a "me" issue rather than a Linux issue, though.
This is excellent and indeed largely novel information, thank you.
It sounds like the finding right combination of DE and package management solution plays a big role here. I don't remember much of my experience with Gentoo's package manager in the early 2000's other than finding it generally did its job (if a bit slowly)... Experience with package managers on Mac (brew, macports) hasn't been great so I'm eager to play around with modern ones on Linux. Same goes for the DE actually: stock, out-of-the-box, macOS is essentially unusable for me until I get my customization (scroll, trackpad, KeyboardMaestro) done exactly right, I can't imagine this not being better on Linux, if anything for the ability to switch among the various DE's.
I'm starting to contemplate this (fully untested) strategy: trying out a few distros and installing the one I like best on VMWare Fusion and then try to use it as much as possible, falling back to macOS if I get stuck or I'm short on time but gradually replacing Mac-specific stuff as I find suitable replacements.. TextMate, the masterpiece of Allan Odgaard (author of the article being discussed here) probably going to be the toughest one. If I'm successful, I should eventually be able to let Linux 'out of the box' and run it on real hardware..
PS: amiwm! This is going to be a must. I do miss the Amiga, a fair bit..
pacman (wonderful interface; so-so technically; dislike the distro that uses it because of technical choices)
InstallPackage (GoboLinux is kind of cheating, because InstallPackage isn't a "real" package manager, but that's kind of the point)
I love TextMate, too! Something you might find nice is how easy it is to run Mac in a VM on Linux; there are scripts that manage the entire thing for you, and it's pretty painless (and so fast; I was surprised). Useful if you have a few packages you can't find replacements for.
You mention Apple Music elsewhere, which you might be interested to know has an Android client and a web client, and you can probably get a native client on Linux, though I'm not immediately aware of one.
> I love TextMate, too! Something you might find nice is how easy it is to run Mac in a VM on Linux; there are scripts that manage the entire thing for you, and it's pretty painless (and so fast; I was surprised).
That would be excellent! I like the idea of swapping host and guest with this VM strategy, sort of evolutionary platform switching.
Thank you for writing this overview of interesting Linux distributions, their UX and package managers, such good info.
The last few years I've run Linux VMs on a Macbook, but I'm transitioning to a Linux desktop probably running a macOS VM, which you mentioned in another comment - didn't know there was a practical solution.
It sounds like distros like Elementary and PopOS might suit me as a gentle transition from Macs.
> Do you see how ridiculous applying that logic to any operating system is?
Somehow, when you ask a person about PC or a Mac, the answer is: Windows or MacOS, and then the discussion is about their quirks, or advantages, or deficiencies.
You ask about Linux, and this is what you get:
> Linux isn't a disaster. It's a kernel. There are Linux distributions with great user interfaces and great UX
So, once again: which one of the hundreds of permutations of <distro> x <DM> has a great UX?
Ask a person about UNIX, they'll list Mac, Solaris, whatever. All UNIX distributions! I listed a bunch elsewhere in this subthread. Feel free to check them out, but for some reason I'm beginning to suspect that you're probably not going to.
Ubuntu pretty much works out of the box for a lot of "regular" users (I'm excluding gaming, which also works but is not as easy).
I'm sure there are other user-friendly distros that similarly let average users browse the internet, write documents, listen to music and watch movies painlessly.
I'd say gaming on Ubuntu LTS (if not Linux in general) is quite easy provided you stay in the safe haven of games that natively support the OS, which to be fair is a pretty solid selection of games these days albeit one which is pretty much a strict subset of the games on Windows. As soon as you go outside that area and start messing with Wine or whatever all bets are off, though.
Agreed! I play a lot of games on Linux, bought via Steam or GOG, occasionally with help of WINE but mostly without. I excluded gaming because if one thing is likely to cause more problems than on Windows, it's games. But yes, I use Ubuntu even for gaming.
The fact I can install Steam and play an AAA like Mad Max or Shadow of Mordor mostly seamlessly makes me wonder why people still claim Linux on the desktop is a no-go.
>The fact I can install Steam and play an AAA like Mad Max or Shadow of Mordor mostly seamlessly makes me wonder why people still claim Linux on the desktop is a no-go.
Because they and few others are exceptions? Can you play the latest CoD? GTA V? Assasin's Creed maybe?
I think you're missing the point. I'm not arguing that Linux is the best platform if your use case is primarily gaming. Nothing beats Windows -- or a console! -- if gaming is the most important thing to you.
> GTA V?
I honestly don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if I could using WINE. A huge library of Windows AAA games work on WINE.
> Assasin's Creed
I don't know, but Mad Max and Shadow of Mordor are pretty much the same kind of game as Assassin's Creed, following the same kind of gameplay and using the same kind and complexity of 3D graphics/engine.
In any case, these are not exceptions. I forgot to mention the XCOM remake, Alien: Isolation (this is interesting because it has tons of graphics effects, including chroma aberration -- it looks awesome on Linux), SOMA, Victor Vran, Warhammer 40K Dawn of War II, L4D2, and many others. There are tons of Linux games on GOG and Steam, many of them AAA games. If you count indie games or 2D platformers there are literally thousands of them, but I guess that's not what you're after.
My point is that you can't run most AAA games actually, and many of those you can - will give you enough problems (like frame drop or some graphical features unavailable).
And I really don't understand what's the point of being able to run some games. I want to play the games I'm interested in, not the ones that 'are playable'.
>I don't know, but Mad Max and Shadow of Mordor are pretty much the same kind of game as Assassin's Creed, following the same kind of gameplay and using the same kind and complexity of 3D graphics/engine.
No sure what's your point here. You can't replace one with another just because they have similar mechanics.
Steam\GoG has many games that run on linux and macos (by the way), but most of them are indie platformers or things like that. People don't play random games just to kill some time (well, some do), they play TITLES.
> I forgot to mention
more exceptions. They will stop being exceptions when you will be able to run 80% of titles without any issues and not sooner than that.
Gaming is not important to be, I'm a PS4 guy ever since macos switch, just pointing out that games are still has little to do with linux unless we are talking about rare AAA titles and indie scene
My point is that Linux is a valid gaming platform with many AAA titles and tons of indie games, not that it's the best or ideal gaming platform. Of course Windows is better for gaming.
> And I really don't understand what's the point of being able to run some games. I want to play the games I'm interested in, not the ones that 'are playable'.
With this definition neither Windows nor the PS4 are valid gaming platforms, since not every game can be played on them.
> They will stop being exceptions when you will be able to run 80% of titles without any issues and not sooner than that.
So now it's 80% when before it was "a few exceptions"? Sorry, I'm uninterested in discussing your arbitrary definitions with you. Nice try moving the goalpost.
PS: re: "without any issues", back when I used Windows for gaming, there was always some issue. The graphics card, drivers, config issues. I guess Windows is not a gaming platform either then?
Hardly. The existence of a distro I don't like doesn't degrade my experience using a distro I do like. You may as well be upset at an ice cream shop for having dozens of flavors when you only like strawberry. Choose the one you like and ignore the ones you don't. It's not rocket science, even children can figure that out.
If an icecream shop only has one flavor, I might get lucky and discover it's the flavor I like. But more likely, I'll just be screwed and have to settle for something I don't like. Only an icecream shop with variety can hope to give the most amount of people an optimal experience.
Unless the ice cream shop provides you with hundreds of flavours, 90% of which are nearly indistinguishable from each other. And hardly anyone on this planet can answer a straight question of "Which flavour is good".
Curious: what have you tried? People who use "Linux" as a catch-all in terms of UX usually have only tried a single distribution with a single desktop environment.