Linked by David Adams on Mon 24th Aug 2009 09:21 UTC
Linux A reader asks: Why is Linux still not as user friendly as the two other main OSes with all the people developing for Linux? Is it because it is mainly developed by geeks? My initial feeling when reading this question was that it was kind of a throwaway, kind of a slam in disguise as a genuine question. But the more I thought about it, the more intrigued I felt. There truly are a large amount of resources being dedicated to the development of Linux and its operating system halo (DEs, drivers, apps, etc). Some of these resources are from large companies (IBM, Red Hat, Novell). Why isn't Linux more user-friendly? Is this an inherent limitation with open source software?
Permalink for comment 380575
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Again, why would a clean slate be a bad thing? A linux-based os meant primarily as a desktop does not need X's feature set. Wouldn't it be nicer to have something smaller, better documented, more sanely designed, and again, something that has less impact on the end user's system resources?

We have a good starting point already (Wayland), and quite a few are enthusiastic about it. Interested parties just need to put their money where their mouth is and start hacking on it, to at least port *some* toolkit to work on it.

I don't think anybody has stated we need to stick with X forever. X just doesn't seem to be broken enough to warrant pouring actual development money on the alternatives.

Edited 2009-08-25 20:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2