Not everything actually requires a GUI, obviously. But anything that requires configuration, especially for controlling a hardware device, should have a fully functional GUI. I know Linux is all about being in control, and users should not be afraid to use the command line, but if you have to learn another bespoke command syntax and the location and structure of the related configuration files just to get something basic to work then the developer has frankly half arsed it. Developers need to provide GUI’s so that their software can be used by as many people as possible. GUI’s use a common language that everyone understands (is something on or off, what numeric values are allowed, what do the options mean).

Every 12 to 18 months I make an effort to switch to Linux. Right now I’m using Archlinux, and it has been a successful trip so far, except my audio is screwed, I can’t use my capture card at all, I had issues with my dual displays at the start, and the is no easy way to configure my AMD graphics card for over clocking or well anything basic at all.

I’m not looking for a windows clone, I love that I can choose different desktop environments and theme many of them to death. I even like the fact there are so many distros. Choice is a big part of linux, but there is clearly a desire to get more people moving away from Windows and until that path is 95% seamless most people just won’t. Right now I think Linux is 75% to 85% seamless depending on the use case and distro but adding more GUI front ends would, imho, push that well into the 90% zone.

GUI is not a dirty word, it is what makes using a new OS possible for more people.

EDIT: Good conversation all. This is genuinely not intended to be a troll post, I just feel it is good to share experiences especially on the frustations that arise from move between OSes.

  • @Zangoose
    link
    119 months ago

    But most of the comments on this post really aren’t elitist. Most desktop tools are made by volunteers (with the exception of SUSE, Canonical, Red Hat, etc. who mostly deal with running on servers) and those volunteers only have so much time to work on projects. If they don’t have time/knowledge to build GUIs when the terminal is “good enough” for their use cases, why should they?

    If someone else needs the GUI, they can develop a frontend separately (which also gives people the choice of being able to cut down on software they don’t need if they only use the terminal interface)

    Personally, my take on this is that Linux isn’t mainstream for a reason. Windows/macOS still exist and (privacy concerns aside) function well. It would be amazing if Linux could become more beginner friendly, but let’s not try to act like desktop Linux developers who are already giving up their time owe it to us to do even more.

    • StarServal
      link
      fedilink
      29 months ago

      All I’m saying is that people shouldn’t be immediate turned away from Linux whenever they bring up a failing of the platform by the people who live and breathe CLI.

      It would be good for Linux flavors intended for desktop OS use to have some kind of style guide. Developers who are donating their valuable time don’t have to follow it, but it would at least give them all a sort of unified target so they don’t have to constantly reinvent the settings wheel.