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?
Thread beginning with comment 380213
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Can you dig it
by Soulbender on Mon 24th Aug 2009 09:37 UTC
Member since:

Is this an inherent limitation with open source software?

Nice dig.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Can you dig it
by Morgan on Mon 24th Aug 2009 20:03 in reply to "Can you dig it"
Morgan Member since:

I doubt it was meant as a dig, more of an observation really. By its very nature, open source software is susceptible to meeting the developer's needs as opposed to what works for the masses. I've noticed that in general, projects with the widest audiences (Gnome, KDE, Amarok, Firefox, Thunderbird...) tend to have the most user-friendly interfaces. Less popular or lesser known projects tend to be more esoteric, and sometimes make no sense at all (RipperX, Ardour, JACK, etc).

For the record, that wasn't a dig from me either. Personally I love Linux, and I'm eagerly awaiting the release of Slackware 13. Regardless, I still can't wait for the day Linux has a UI as good as Aqua. From what I've seen lately KDE is on the right track though.

Reply Parent Score: 4