Improving the Linux Desktop
Linked by David Adams on Fri 18th Jun 2010 19:17 UTC
Linux Linux Magazine has a profile of Daniel Fore and the Elementary project. Elementary is a Linux distro that's committed to a clean and simple user experience, but it's more than a distro - it's actually a multi-pronged effort to make improvements to the user experience for a whole ecosystem of components, including icons, a GTK theme, Midori improvements, Nautilus, and even Firefox. The work that elementary is doing isn't limited to their own distro, and some of their work is available in current, and perhaps future, Ubuntu releases. The results are really striking, and I think it's probably the handsomest Linux UI I've ever seen.
E-mail Print r 8   · Read More · 212 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/i3l
Thread beginning with comment 430705
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

I've gone over this a 1000 times here so don't waste too much energy with the status quo defenders.

Program management in Linux is an insult to software engineering. I'm glad that I'm not the only person that can see this.

Have a nice day sir.

Reply Parent Score: 3

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Yes, I'm seeing what you mean! lol

Reply Parent Score: 1

cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

Oh please ...

repeating it over and over does not make it true. Everything in a single package is a huge waste of resources:

Disk resources because you have libraries several times on your disk (and this is actually relevant if you use an SSD for example).

RAM, I'd rather use my RAM for useful things instead of keeping multiple copies of the same library in it.
Bandwidth, if a library that is part of a lot of packages needs a security upgrade, you suddenly have to download all these packages. Now let these packages be things like Photoshop and suddenly you look at multiple GB downloads. I'm not even talking about the fact that you have to wait for a new version of every one of the packages.

CPU, every app needs to check for updates, great use of resources!

Time, looking for software at places all over the internet is definitely not a better use of my time than looking in one central location.

I can't believe you actually touting all-inclusive packages as the better engineering solution.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Oh please ...

repeating it over and over does not make it true. Everything in a single package is a huge waste of resources:


Don't just criticize, what's your solution because the current ways are utterly broken and is a relevant portion of why Linux does not have wider adoption.

Disk resources because you have libraries several times on your disk (and this is actually relevant if you use an SSD for example).


..and the satisfactory alternative here is to a) force the user to wait 6 months and re-install their OS over again for the newer libraries and apps or b) resort to an unstable rolling-release distro?

No, the size of modern hard drives is not an excuse for the currently shoddy app upgrade methodology used by various distros. If you're running some sort of resource deprived device then chances are you need a stripped down distro rather than a desktop one.

RAM, I'd rather use my RAM for useful things instead of keeping multiple copies of the same library in it.


Actually, if the apps you are running use the same library revisions as the core OS, they wouldn't need to load their own. However, if the app requires a newer version, it already has it within and it doesn't effect the rest of the OS.

Not to mention the fact that you could continue to run the apps as they were delivered with the OS and not worry about upgrading (since you can't normally anyway) until you upgrade the whole OS. Choice... how great is that. I'll gladly take app bundles in trade for a few extra MB's of drive space or memory allocation.

Bandwidth, if a library that is part of a lot of packages needs a security upgrade, you suddenly have to download all these packages. Now let these packages be things like Photoshop and suddenly you look at multiple GB downloads. I'm not even talking about the fact that you have to wait for a new version of every one of the packages.


So what if you have to wait? Chances are the app in question has newer versions of the library in question compared to the core OS anyway, else it's using the OS libraries and not loading it's own. Also, Photoshop updates are not multiple GB to download on OS X now, why would they be on Linux? ...or maybe that highlights another issue with Linux where you have to download the entire application over and over again every time you upgrade, instead of just the parts that have changed.

CPU, every app needs to check for updates, great use of resources!


Are you running a 386 with 16MB of RAM and a 9600 baud modem or something? All these arguments you're bringing up were barely relevant to resource starved systems of 10 years ago let alone today.

Time, looking for software at places all over the internet is definitely not a better use of my time than looking in one central location.


I don't see what that has to do with anything talked about. Mac users don't need to do that. The app checks for them. They don't even need to load a package manager to check, don't have to configure 3rd party repositories, don't have to go through repo hell to solve random dependencies if they're trying to upgrade to newer apps than their current release officially supports, etc...

I can't believe you actually touting all-inclusive packages as the better engineering solution.


Its certainly better than Linux is currently offering in its attempt to be a modern desktop OS. Your excuses seem to be tied to systems with a performance level I threw out years ago.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Read more of this thread... >
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


CPU, every app needs to check for updates, great use of resources!


Library interdependencies are not required to have a central update system. See: iPhone.


Time, looking for software at places all over the internet is definitely not a better use of my time than looking in one central location.

Library interdependencies are not needed for this feature either.


I can't believe you actually touting all-inclusive packages as the better engineering solution.


They are and they wouldn't have to be all-inclusive. You could provide some stable system libraries for programs to share and then keep everything else separate.

Reply Parent Score: 2