Linked by David Adams on Thu 29th Sep 2011 23:47 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Linux Linux is struggling on the desktop because it only has a small number of "great" apps, according to the Gnome co-creator. Miguel de Icaza, co-creator of the Gnome desktop, told tech journalist Tim Anderson at the recent Windows 8 Build conference "When you count how many great desktop apps there are on Linux, you can probably name 10," de Icaza said, according to a post on Anderson's IT Writing blog. "You work really hard, you can probably name 20. We've managed to p*** off developers every step of the way, breaking APIs all the time."
Thread beginning with comment 491284
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: KDE & QT
by manjabes on Fri 30th Sep 2011 05:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KDE & QT"
manjabes
Member since:
2005-08-27

Plus, please remember it's not about how many applications there are -- it's all about the quality.


This. A thousand times this.

Not a 73rd shitty iTunes clone!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: KDE & QT
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Sep 2011 06:03 in reply to "RE[4]: KDE & QT"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Plus, please remember it's not about how many applications there are -- it's all about the quality.
This. A thousand times this. Not a 73rd shitty iTunes clone! "

Agreed. For a given application type, we only need one desktop application for Linux to be better than the alternatives for Windows in order to have a Linux desktop application that is best-of-breed.

The fact that very often there are several Linux desktop applications for any given purpose that are all better than the best application for the same purpose on Windows doesn't really help all that much.

Edited 2011-09-30 06:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: KDE & QT
by manjabes on Fri 30th Sep 2011 06:13 in reply to "RE[5]: KDE & QT"
manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

The fact that very often there are several Linux desktop applications for any given purpose that are all better than the best application for the same purpose on Windows doesn't really help all that much.


I'd very much like to live in your fantasy-land, but I've yet to come across a Linux desktop app that's better than the best Windows counterpart. All I see are several half-hearted clones.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: KDE & QT
by JAlexoid on Fri 30th Sep 2011 14:43 in reply to "RE[4]: KDE & QT"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If it's an iTunes clone, then sh***y is the best they can do.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: KDE & QT - Itunes
by jabbotts on Fri 30th Sep 2011 16:52 in reply to "RE[5]: KDE & QT"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Not all of us like the bloated POS that is Itunes with each update managing to find new ways to add more UI clutter. Oh, has Itunes managed to add custom library naming yet? I'd really like to have my Itunes media library organized on the drive in a more rational way. For example, my music in;

<libarary root>/<album>/<album> <track#> <artist> <tracktitle>.ext

Far as I can tell, Itunes does all it can to mash the actual file structure in the library to avoid things like using an alternative media player/manager to access the same libarary tree.

But damn is Itunes ever good at encrougating it's users to funnel more money back into Apple's profit margin. I guess it does achieve it's primary function better than any media related app on a Linux distro.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: KDE & QT
by DMon on Fri 30th Sep 2011 20:26 in reply to "RE[5]: KDE & QT"
DMon Member since:
2011-09-30

I prefer Rhythmbox to iTunes any day. Plug's that extend the functionality greatly and I can still watch much of my media from it. I only wish it did work on windows for the windows box I have.

Reply Parent Score: 2