[johndoe4589]

Let's not mince words. Ubuntu and linux OS'es in general are TRASH as far as user experience is concerned.

Lately I even tried elementaryOS, and it's worse than Ubuntu. They keep saying how it's not a copy of OS X, and it evidently isn't as far as user experience is concerned, but on top of that they're obviously inspired by a design that's now completely outdated. At least Ubuntu is looking ahead and thinking of touch interfaces.

Ubuntu is genuinely the only somewhat passable option for people who don't know, nor should know, what process thread is, or even how many cores are in their CPU. Ubuntu has a somewhat consistent UI but still suffers from all kind of major bloopers. I mean, what the fuck. It's 2017, and it still doesn't save the last window size & position in most apps. It drives me mad. Some do, some don't, so it ends up worse than not supporting it at all.

I got fed up with Windows and Ubuntu so I bought a five year old Mac Mini. Sierra looks amazing, and it runs silky smooth. I don't AAA game and this will most likely serve me very well for web development. Came with a big SSD drive too.

It's kinda sad nobody can compete with Apple. But if anybody will I don't think it's the "free software" world.

[chrisper]

Maybe it is the attitude that makes it "TRASH." It seems you have only tried Unity and elementaryOS? Right now I use Cinnamon, which is similar enough to Windows to not be "TRASH" imho.

Also here is a Linux joke for you:

If you don't like certain things, just fork it and do your own thing.

[omg_ketchup]

Cinnamon is good. Until you try to install a modern nvidia driver. At least, that was the case 6 months ago.

Dual monitors should be plug & play. I shouldn't have to add a new repository to apt-get, I shouldn't have to choose between 15 Nouveau drivers and 15 potentially system-breaking nvidia drivers. It should "just work".

Dual monitors, and just display output in general... this is 2017, this is very basic, expected functionality. It doesn't matter how complicated it is to implement - the user doesn't give a shit, they just want two monitors.

[wtetzner]

> It doesn't matter how complicated it is to implement - the user doesn't give a shit, they just want two monitors.

Evidently it does matter how complicated it is to implement, or it would just work by now.

[willtim]

I suggest you choose your distribution and software more wisely. Yes, this is the big disadvantage of freedom and choice.

[willtim]

Free software offers a spectrum of quality and innovation; and you've picked the worst of it.

I use a desktop (i3), package manager (nix), editor (Emacs), programming language (GHC Haskell), file system (ZFS), bidirectional sync (unison) and security​ (gnupg) that are collectively far more innovative, powerful and stable than anything Apple have ever produced.

Of course, if you are specifically looking for consumer tech, ease of use and support, then open source probably isn't for you.

[nemothekid]

>Of course, if you are specifically looking for consumer tech, ease of use and support, then open source probably isn't for you.

If you can look past your smugness a bit, why? Why is it that if I want "ease of use", open source isn't for me? Do you not see the problem here? I can't see how you can argue your favorite projects are more "innovative & stable than anything Apple have ever produced", but in the same breath say that open source isn't for someone who wants ease of use. What exactly does "stable" mean to you?

[willtim]

Ubuntu are trying for ease-of-use and it's a noble goal. But if you are going to judge them only on ease-of-use, then it is difficult for them to compete with the resources of Apple, who are the richest company on the planet.

My point was that there are quality open-source projects out there, after you appeared to assert otherwise. But ease-of-use is not something developers/startups seem to be interested in spending time on.

If you want me to qualify stable, then let's compare Apple's bidirectional iCloud sync to Unison, or Time Machine to ZFS snapshots.

[72deluxe]

I used to enjoy tinkering with computers and spending all my time on Linux trying to get things working. I didn't edit any code, just spent days getting ndiswrapper working, reconfiguring my desktop after an upgrade, refinding my partitions after LLVM upgrade decided to forget them, adjust myself to the steady removal of configurability in GNOME, adjust to the deprecation of things I used every day (Konqueror has gone! Use Dolphin! It didn't do half of what Konqueror did), faff around with bust graphics and failed sleep/resume, adjust to the "new" way of window management that decided that 30+ years of windowing paradigm was "distracting" and stopped the use-case tests of someone's mum who had never used a computer before finding it easier to use etc. etc. etc.

I eventually got fed up of all of this and went to OSX with Windows alongside after 15 years of Linux use, and that's from RedHat 5.0 and 6.2 days. No not RHEL, RedHat.

The "ease of use" argument is sad, and precisely what some forget when developing software - it's there to be easily used, else nobody will use it. The computer is there to work for YOU, not YOU work for it (ie, spend hours fighting with it).

You only have to look at Windows 8 to see that "ease of use" was abandoned on the Start menu and see what a mess that was.

[willtim]

Linux doesn't have to be that inconvenient. You can now buy machines preinstalled with Ubuntu LTS. If you want to keep upgrading to the latest and greatest, yes it can be a rough ride.

[72deluxe]

That's a very good point to make. The "buy a machine with Linux on it" option didn't exist yesteryear when I was using it.

Very thoughtful point.

[JetSetWilly]

> Why is it that if I want "ease of use", open source isn't for me? Do you not see the problem here?

Why is that a problem? You're not entitled to anything, easy to use or otherwise.

[TheAdamAndChe]

Don't listen to him, there are open source UIs that are easy to use. Gnome, KDE, and XFCE all behave pretty darn well and are pretty stable.

i3wm, the window manager the post above is talking about, is incredibly complicated, but provides efficiency and a sense of accomplishment when learned. That reward from learning something complicated is where the smugness of most open source enthusiasts comes from. Don't look too much into it.

[willtim]

Any perceived smugness on my part was a response to baiting from the parent such as "It's kinda sad nobody can compete with Apple".

Open-source can compete on many fronts and offers many other advantages (i.e. freedom), but on a pure ease-of-use assessment, I do not agree with you that Gnome or KDE could sway the parent, if Ubuntu completely failed to do so.

[juandazapata]

"Linux is free, only if you don't value your own time" - Some guy that I don't remember

[thomastjeffery]

"free" isn't about cost. "Free" is about liberty.

When you use a proprietary OS, you rely entirely on its creators to create a system that does what you want. When something in Windows or OS X is not what you want (or is broken), you can't do anything about it. When something in a free OS is not what you want, you always have the option to use something else.

[abc_lisper]

Free is about transparency. Not snooping on my files, do machine learning mumbo jumbo on my habits, surreptitiously nudge in the direction they want is huge part of it.

Free is a promise, a promise that I do what I say. If the software doesn't, it is for all the world to see my deficiencies.

Free is also about not being an asshole. It is about accepting the fact that, just because the users use my software, I don't get to control their lives.

[thomastjeffery]

Free is all of those things. Transparency has recently become much more important than it was originally.

[wtetzner]

> When something in a free OS is not what you want, you always have the option to use something else.

Or to modify it yourself, or even hire someone to change it to your liking.