I wish Steam had waited a little longer to release Proton with more games. And the DRM stuff seems hard to solve. Hope they can sort this out. It’s promising nevertheless.
I wish Steam had waited a little longer to release Proton with more games. And the DRM stuff seems hard to solve. Hope they can sort this out. It’s promising nevertheless.
DRM is shit :( And I get your point regarding the mostly out-of-the-box games, and that is awesome for enthusiasts, but I think it would be pretty awesome, marketing wise, to launch with at least...
DRM is shit :(
And I get your point regarding the mostly out-of-the-box games, and that is awesome for enthusiasts, but I think it would be pretty awesome, marketing wise, to launch with at least 300 games already whitelisted... and by that I mean buttery smooth performance with absolutely no configuration required.
They were probably planning to wait until a lot more games were whitelisted. But then there was a leak, and the news broke, and Valve decided to fast-track it. Well, unless they've taken a page...
I really want to see Linux gaming taking off and this is a great first step. The real problem, though, isn't the underlying technology, it's the interface. There is no open source UX that's...
I really want to see Linux gaming taking off and this is a great first step. The real problem, though, isn't the underlying technology, it's the interface. There is no open source UX that's genuinely good (with rare exceptions like firefox). It's not about whether "you can do things" but whether it looks cluttered, whether it's automatically ordered in the right hierarchy for the average user to find stuff quickly, whether the colors frickin' match.
SteamOS is cool but it's just another proprietary system and it's glued to gaming as its central purpose. Linux needs a group, maybe just one person, to spearhead a usability/UX movement. People who care about the exact layout of buttons, about 5 pixel gaps that make everything look unordered, whether things that belong together are grouped, whether that one weird button you barely ever need would better be hidden so it doesn't distract from more important ones, whether font sizes are proportioned appropriately, what the literally first thing is people see when installing the distro, etc, etc. Windows isn't even that good, it's easy to beat in terms of raw functionality (its lead is due to compatibility/availability of software). It could be done. But I see zero awareness of this being an UX issue. "But check out the most recent version of Xbutorox 13, it has better tabs, now!", that's not it. It's about having a genuinely pleasant experience using the system as a non-tech-savvy, non-idealist user.
I tried giving Linux a chance at multiple times in my life and while I want it to happen it never took me more than a hour to realize that UX design is treated as a secondary feature. Even in distros that supposedly do it well. You click something random and the window disappears or you search for the simplest option in the settings and have to wade through pages of confusing menus only to realize you have to type some command into a terminal to do it.
At the moment, Linux still asks gamers to install it just because they can. Maybe to screw Microsoft, at best. That's the only real argument for it. And that's not enough.
Yeah, I've never really had a problem with the big DEs. I'd say that xfce is more usable and intuitive than anything Microsoft's put out in the last decade, and I've never had to crack open the...
Yeah, I've never really had a problem with the big DEs. I'd say that xfce is more usable and intuitive than anything Microsoft's put out in the last decade, and I've never had to crack open the terminal to do anything in it.
(I'm sure GNOME, KDE et al are at a similar or even better usability level, xfce is just what I've got the most experience with.)
I'm sorry but this is the kind of thinking that will keep Linux forever in the "tech enthusiast" corner. Maybe that's good enough but it's something that has to be realized if people have any real...
I'm sorry but this is the kind of thinking that will keep Linux forever in the "tech enthusiast" corner. Maybe that's good enough but it's something that has to be realized if people have any real interest in Linux conquering a corner of the mainstream.
It's not about "features", it's not about "pretty good". Think about network functionality of kernel stability. Did we settle on that being "pretty good"? No. It's vital. This is for stability but if we also want usability, the same level of perfectionism has to be applied to UX design.
If you can't realize that Linux interfaces are user-hostile compared to OSX or, yes, even Windows, that's IMO a delusion.
Yea, I mean... I don't want to come off as anti-Linux, this is very much an attempt at a "tough love" kinda stance. I would love to see it take off as a mainstream operating system (and not in a...
Yea, I mean... I don't want to come off as anti-Linux, this is very much an attempt at a "tough love" kinda stance. I would love to see it take off as a mainstream operating system (and not in a version held hostile by Google). It just frustrates me that, whenever I bring up the UX aspect of how people usually experience Linux, I'm met with defensive replies that point out how it's "better than ever" or "good enough and you can do anything if you read the manual". This is IMO really the core issue in terms of what could actually be changed. It's nothing compared to software compatibility (which is probably 90% of the reason people don't use Linux but something Linux can't change by itself). But it's something that could be changed for the better yet I see no understanding of it in the Linux community in general. UI is seen as "one branch of development", one that typically comes last and it's about "drawing buttons and stuff on screen", not about human beings being human and accounting for that in design.
It's IMO a much larger aspect of why open/free software doesn't take off. I also tried to use Gimp and LibreOffice for a while and had to stop because the inconsistent and poorly arranged interface was making it pure torture compared to professional alternatives, despite all the raw features I need being available (and despite Microsoft Office still being awful). People put insane hours into programming the core of all this software and then, at the point where people actually experience it, actually interact with it, it's all "yea, this is good enough, just slap that button somewhere down there."
No one said that. Every DE has issues. You have to realize that the people who spend time on linux forums mostly have used linux as their main OS for years, and know their DE very well. Things...
whenever I bring up the UX aspect of how people usually experience Linux, I'm met with defensive replies that point out how it's "better than ever" or "good enough and you can do anything if you read the manual".
No one said that. Every DE has issues. You have to realize that the people who spend time on linux forums mostly have used linux as their main OS for years, and know their DE very well. Things that may seem like issues to you, because you're used to OSX or Windows may not actually be issues for people who are used to Gnome or KDE or XFCE. In the same way that OSX isn't flawed because it doesn't have a start menu, those DEs aren't flawed just because they're not like Windows or OSX's DEs.
That said, there are problems with all DEs, and all the major ones do have UX as one of their main priorities. UX is after all one of the main focuses of a DE in general. If you have specific complaints, you should bring them up to the maintainers of those projects; they all like hearing honest, detailed feedback.
That's interesting. I've used Linux as my main desktop for years and recently had to use a MacBook for work. I found it awkward and different. Mainly because I didn't know the keyboard shortcuts...
That's interesting. I've used Linux as my main desktop for years and recently had to use a MacBook for work. I found it awkward and different. Mainly because I didn't know the keyboard shortcuts and there was no preinstalled command line package manager.
Linux isn't a monolith. You're talking about it like it's a monolith. There are multiple desktop environments, you more than likely just chose Ubuntu and thought that the UI was standard in it....
Linux isn't a monolith. You're talking about it like it's a monolith. There are multiple desktop environments, you more than likely just chose Ubuntu and thought that the UI was standard in it. Try KDE Neon.
I heard this so often. I'm not. I'm talking about all the different distros and desktop environments and everything. Having 200 awful options isn't any better than having one good one. Whenever I...
You're talking about it like it's a monolith.
I heard this so often. I'm not. I'm talking about all the different distros and desktop environments and everything. Having 200 awful options isn't any better than having one good one. Whenever I ask people to point me to the one that supposedly fixes this all, it's just as awful.
This video isn't about UI and it isn't even advocating for people to switch to Linux. It's just talking about a feature that makes it easier to run Windows-only games on the system. Beyond that,...
This video isn't about UI and it isn't even advocating for people to switch to Linux. It's just talking about a feature that makes it easier to run Windows-only games on the system.
Beyond that, UX on Linux is not nearly as bad as you are making it sound. I switched my grandmother to Linux about ten years ago and the amount of times she completely stopped asking me to help her with her computer because she could figure it out all by herself.
(Ironically, after that computer had a catastrophic breakdown recentlu, she switched to an Android tablet without consulting me, which she constantly asks me for help with).
The overall Linux UX is not a problem for newbies, it's only a problem for power users who are not willing to learn to use new software. It's the same reason why people hated Windows 8 so much; it was simply too different from what they were used to. That's why I don't recommend Linux to anyone who is invested in proprietary software unless they are interested in computer science.
Finally, UX is a major concern to most Linux applications. When you say that UX is not important to Linux developers, it's a huge insult to the thousands of people who have invested in any linux application in both effort and actual money.
Have you never used GNOME? GNOME is downright anal about their UI, as is the group behind elementary OS, and Solus has a huge focus on some of the usability aspects beyond the UI which makes it...
Have you never used GNOME? GNOME is downright anal about their UI, as is the group behind elementary OS, and Solus has a huge focus on some of the usability aspects beyond the UI which makes it fit really well with the GNOME desktop IMO.
It pays attention to the UX. Maybe it's not your cup of tea and maybe the devs are a little anal about their vision so you feel the need to crap all over it but for your average user who doesn't...
It pays attention to the UX. Maybe it's not your cup of tea and maybe the devs are a little anal about their vision so you feel the need to crap all over it but for your average user who doesn't care about the drama, it just works. Same goes for Solus and eOS.
You said The 3 examples I gave fit the bill. Attention is given to detail in them. Maybe you're not a fan of their design choices personally but it's disingenuous to say nobody on Linux cares...
You said
There is no open source UX that's genuinely good (with rare exceptions like firefox). It's not about whether "you can do things" but whether it looks cluttered, whether it's automatically ordered in the right hierarchy for the average user to find stuff quickly, whether the colors frickin' match.
The 3 examples I gave fit the bill. Attention is given to detail in them. Maybe you're not a fan of their design choices personally but it's disingenuous to say nobody on Linux cares about UI experience. It's something that plagues FOSS, but there are examples of people doing more than slapping buttons together and calling it a UI.
Oh, come on now. I am not a huge fan of MS or Windows and have slowly been migrating to Linux full-time, but Linux gaming still does kinda suck. Only being able to play 5% of my Steam library...
Oh, come on now. I am not a huge fan of MS or Windows and have slowly been migrating to Linux full-time, but Linux gaming still does kinda suck. Only being able to play 5% of my Steam library sucks. Driver support still sucks (especially for Nvidia cards). Multi-monitor and multi-GPU support sucks. Even mouse support is a PITA with many scroll wheels being unusably slow without obscure cfg tweaks. Etc.
Not all of that is Linux's fault, but IMO you cannot seriously make the claim it doesn't suck, especially compared to the Windows environment. It's getting better and will likely continue to, especially now that Valve is involved.... but it's far from perfect and hardly comparable yet.
I'm clearly in the minority of gamers since I don't play mainstream games (or clearly many indie ones either) and Linux works for me, therefor it doesn't suck for gaming and anyone who claims it does is hilarious.
I did not say it was impossible! There is an implicit "for the majority of people" at the end of "sucks" when people say things like that; They are (and I was) speaking in generalities. Nobody is...
I did not say it was impossible! There is an implicit "for the majority of people" at the end of "sucks" when people say things like that; They are (and I was) speaking in generalities. Nobody is saying "it sucks for everyone" or "it can't not suck for some people" ... but it absolutely does for the majority of people.
I wish Steam had waited a little longer to release Proton with more games. And the DRM stuff seems hard to solve. Hope they can sort this out. It’s promising nevertheless.
DRM is shit :(
And I get your point regarding the mostly out-of-the-box games, and that is awesome for enthusiasts, but I think it would be pretty awesome, marketing wise, to launch with at least 300 games already whitelisted... and by that I mean buttery smooth performance with absolutely no configuration required.
You make a good point, actual testing will certainly speed things up.
They were probably planning to wait until a lot more games were whitelisted. But then there was a leak, and the news broke, and Valve decided to fast-track it.
Well, unless they've taken a page out of Apple's playbook, and the leak was intentional.
I really want to see Linux gaming taking off and this is a great first step. The real problem, though, isn't the underlying technology, it's the interface. There is no open source UX that's genuinely good (with rare exceptions like firefox). It's not about whether "you can do things" but whether it looks cluttered, whether it's automatically ordered in the right hierarchy for the average user to find stuff quickly, whether the colors frickin' match.
SteamOS is cool but it's just another proprietary system and it's glued to gaming as its central purpose. Linux needs a group, maybe just one person, to spearhead a usability/UX movement. People who care about the exact layout of buttons, about 5 pixel gaps that make everything look unordered, whether things that belong together are grouped, whether that one weird button you barely ever need would better be hidden so it doesn't distract from more important ones, whether font sizes are proportioned appropriately, what the literally first thing is people see when installing the distro, etc, etc. Windows isn't even that good, it's easy to beat in terms of raw functionality (its lead is due to compatibility/availability of software). It could be done. But I see zero awareness of this being an UX issue. "But check out the most recent version of Xbutorox 13, it has better tabs, now!", that's not it. It's about having a genuinely pleasant experience using the system as a non-tech-savvy, non-idealist user.
I tried giving Linux a chance at multiple times in my life and while I want it to happen it never took me more than a hour to realize that UX design is treated as a secondary feature. Even in distros that supposedly do it well. You click something random and the window disappears or you search for the simplest option in the settings and have to wade through pages of confusing menus only to realize you have to type some command into a terminal to do it.
At the moment, Linux still asks gamers to install it just because they can. Maybe to screw Microsoft, at best. That's the only real argument for it. And that's not enough.
Yeah, I've never really had a problem with the big DEs. I'd say that xfce is more usable and intuitive than anything Microsoft's put out in the last decade, and I've never had to crack open the terminal to do anything in it.
(I'm sure GNOME, KDE et al are at a similar or even better usability level, xfce is just what I've got the most experience with.)
I'm sorry but this is the kind of thinking that will keep Linux forever in the "tech enthusiast" corner. Maybe that's good enough but it's something that has to be realized if people have any real interest in Linux conquering a corner of the mainstream.
It's not about "features", it's not about "pretty good". Think about network functionality of kernel stability. Did we settle on that being "pretty good"? No. It's vital. This is for stability but if we also want usability, the same level of perfectionism has to be applied to UX design.
If you can't realize that Linux interfaces are user-hostile compared to OSX or, yes, even Windows, that's IMO a delusion.
Yea, I mean... I don't want to come off as anti-Linux, this is very much an attempt at a "tough love" kinda stance. I would love to see it take off as a mainstream operating system (and not in a version held hostile by Google). It just frustrates me that, whenever I bring up the UX aspect of how people usually experience Linux, I'm met with defensive replies that point out how it's "better than ever" or "good enough and you can do anything if you read the manual". This is IMO really the core issue in terms of what could actually be changed. It's nothing compared to software compatibility (which is probably 90% of the reason people don't use Linux but something Linux can't change by itself). But it's something that could be changed for the better yet I see no understanding of it in the Linux community in general. UI is seen as "one branch of development", one that typically comes last and it's about "drawing buttons and stuff on screen", not about human beings being human and accounting for that in design.
It's IMO a much larger aspect of why open/free software doesn't take off. I also tried to use Gimp and LibreOffice for a while and had to stop because the inconsistent and poorly arranged interface was making it pure torture compared to professional alternatives, despite all the raw features I need being available (and despite Microsoft Office still being awful). People put insane hours into programming the core of all this software and then, at the point where people actually experience it, actually interact with it, it's all "yea, this is good enough, just slap that button somewhere down there."
No one said that. Every DE has issues. You have to realize that the people who spend time on linux forums mostly have used linux as their main OS for years, and know their DE very well. Things that may seem like issues to you, because you're used to OSX or Windows may not actually be issues for people who are used to Gnome or KDE or XFCE. In the same way that OSX isn't flawed because it doesn't have a start menu, those DEs aren't flawed just because they're not like Windows or OSX's DEs.
That said, there are problems with all DEs, and all the major ones do have UX as one of their main priorities. UX is after all one of the main focuses of a DE in general. If you have specific complaints, you should bring them up to the maintainers of those projects; they all like hearing honest, detailed feedback.
That's interesting. I've used Linux as my main desktop for years and recently had to use a MacBook for work. I found it awkward and different. Mainly because I didn't know the keyboard shortcuts and there was no preinstalled command line package manager.
Linux isn't a monolith. You're talking about it like it's a monolith. There are multiple desktop environments, you more than likely just chose Ubuntu and thought that the UI was standard in it. Try KDE Neon.
I heard this so often. I'm not. I'm talking about all the different distros and desktop environments and everything. Having 200 awful options isn't any better than having one good one. Whenever I ask people to point me to the one that supposedly fixes this all, it's just as awful.
I can't say they "fix it all", but if you've tried so many options I'm curious what you don't like about Gnome 3, KDE, etc.
I think he just wants to complain.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think you've tried "all the different distros and desktop environments."
This video isn't about UI and it isn't even advocating for people to switch to Linux. It's just talking about a feature that makes it easier to run Windows-only games on the system.
Beyond that, UX on Linux is not nearly as bad as you are making it sound. I switched my grandmother to Linux about ten years ago and the amount of times she completely stopped asking me to help her with her computer because she could figure it out all by herself.
(Ironically, after that computer had a catastrophic breakdown recentlu, she switched to an Android tablet without consulting me, which she constantly asks me for help with).
The overall Linux UX is not a problem for newbies, it's only a problem for power users who are not willing to learn to use new software. It's the same reason why people hated Windows 8 so much; it was simply too different from what they were used to. That's why I don't recommend Linux to anyone who is invested in proprietary software unless they are interested in computer science.
Finally, UX is a major concern to most Linux applications. When you say that UX is not important to Linux developers, it's a huge insult to the thousands of people who have invested in any linux application in both effort and actual money.
Have you never used GNOME? GNOME is downright anal about their UI, as is the group behind elementary OS, and Solus has a huge focus on some of the usability aspects beyond the UI which makes it fit really well with the GNOME desktop IMO.
Yes, I have used GNOME. It's awful.
It pays attention to the UX. Maybe it's not your cup of tea and maybe the devs are a little anal about their vision so you feel the need to crap all over it but for your average user who doesn't care about the drama, it just works. Same goes for Solus and eOS.
"Pays attention" is telling phrasing. It's not enough, it's barely the minimum.
You gonna pick at every word choice I make?
Don’t take it personally, I just recognize the wording from any defence of the state of Linux usability issues I encounter.
You said
The 3 examples I gave fit the bill. Attention is given to detail in them. Maybe you're not a fan of their design choices personally but it's disingenuous to say nobody on Linux cares about UI experience. It's something that plagues FOSS, but there are examples of people doing more than slapping buttons together and calling it a UI.
I find unsettling that a guy called Linus doesn't talk about Linux all the time. I know it's irrational, please don't judge me.
Whenever someone mentions a Linus I have to do a quick double check of my surroundings to make sure I've got the right one in my head.
Yep... this is the nice one :P
Oh, come on now. I am not a huge fan of MS or Windows and have slowly been migrating to Linux full-time, but Linux gaming still does kinda suck. Only being able to play 5% of my Steam library sucks. Driver support still sucks (especially for Nvidia cards). Multi-monitor and multi-GPU support sucks. Even mouse support is a PITA with many scroll wheels being unusably slow without obscure cfg tweaks. Etc.
Not all of that is Linux's fault, but IMO you cannot seriously make the claim it doesn't suck, especially compared to the Windows environment. It's getting better and will likely continue to, especially now that Valve is involved.... but it's far from perfect and hardly comparable yet.
I did not say it was impossible! There is an implicit "for the majority of people" at the end of "sucks" when people say things like that; They are (and I was) speaking in generalities. Nobody is saying "it sucks for everyone" or "it can't not suck for some people" ... but it absolutely does for the majority of people.
No worries and fair enough... but I suspect that most people, Linus included, are generally speaking in generalities.
50% of my library runs on linux, probably closer to 75% if you include wine. Not enough to make me switch, but definitely not as bad as 5%.