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 380342
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

Can we stop with the "X windows user friendliness" language? X is no more user friendly than GDI is user friendly. Your graphics layer contributes not very much to the overall user experience and zero to friendliness.

OS X isn't a friendlier system because it does not use X. Not using X allowed them to take certain eye candy shortcuts and (arguably) provided a way to quicker way to get a smooth (and thus pleasing) graphical experience. None of this affects applications to any significant degree.

If friendliness is the subject, X does not enter the picture. End of story.

Replies about mode switching, flicker, crash recovery and such can go to hell and die. Just because X doesn't handle these things well right now doesn't mean it can't and wont in the future. These things also contribute little to the user experience and are typically not what users complain (or care) about.

Reply Parent Score: 2