Desktops shouldn't be simple. They should work reliably and predictably like every good procduct. Everyone wants something simple until they want to do something that's not supported because it's not a simple use case. So unless you are a very simple person who always only does very simple things and lead a uniquely simple life (i envy you), a simple desktop is not for you.
There are two categories of things that should be simple in a desktop:
1. Common tasks. These should be simple because you do them a lot. Browsing the file system, launching applications, using a password manager, sharing data over networks, and making backups - these are all tasks that should be common and should be simple for anyone to do.
2. Important tasks. These should be simple because they are necessary, even if they're not common. Installing software, connecting to new networks, adjusting displays, enabling full-disk encryption, running system updates - these should be simple so that anyone can do them when needed, with as little difficulty or friction as possible. (Admin privileges may come in to play for some of these, of course.)
If any of these tasks are not simple, there are a lot of users who simply won't do them. And that's bad for all of us.
No. Simple means being willing to make hard choices and say “no” when something’s inclusion doesn’t warrant the cognitive overhead it adds. Or effectively designing so that complexity is only exposed if you really need it.
Yeah maybe, but for desktop OSes it usually means "we don't want to do the work to implement that obviously useful feature". Consider for example MacOS removing the mouse acceleration setting. What a brave choice.
> designing so that complexity is only exposed if you really need it.
Yeah this is the right way to do things. But again, often stuff is just ripped out rather than sensibly managed. Another example: most of the useful WiFi settings in Linux are not accessible in Gnome by default. You have to install the third party `nm-connection-editor` tool. Why? All that stuff should be accessible from Settings.
> Consider for example MacOS removing the mouse acceleration setting. What a brave choice.
I haven’t used a Mac with a mouse in ages. I feel the trackpad interface is so much better (and consistent between laptop and desktop) that I think a move away from mice is a deliberate choice by Apple.
For gaming, absolutely. But macOS and Apple devices aren't tailored towards that, and their mice are oddballs anyway: one button, and heavily tailored towards gestures. They're a mouse and touchpad in one. I quit using it when I got RSI. Now I use a vertical mouse (by Logitech). Now that is one of a kind (but it does not do gestures well).
Not just for gaming. Mice are better for everything.
> Now I use a vertical mouse (by Logitech).
Ugh I tried that when I had RSI. Absolutely awful. The fundamental flaw is that you click sideways which always moves the pointer a little unless you strain to avoid it, which kind of defeats the point.
Get a better chair and desk. That solved the RSI for me - no weird ergonomic input devices made any difference.
For me, a couple of years ago a vertical mouse almost instantly solved my RSI which I only once had severe before in 40+ years of computer usage (that was due to physical work, though they attempted to gaslight me into being a heavy computer user). Using a mouse, trackpad or trackpad meant trouble. Slowly, it healed, and I can once again use a trackpad. But nowadays I do not use normal mice anymore for any prolonged tasks. Only my vertical one. I had a different one before the Logitech one. Some cheap ass brand. It worked well for a couple of months of heavy usage and then it had hardware malfunctioning. I went with the Logitech and years later still goes strong, with a couple of weeks of battery life.
You're wrong regarding mice being always superior. Mice have their place, and I am not the only person who has benefited from vertical mice (there is a learning curve, btw). Mice have a severe drawback: they need more physical, flat, clean space than the other pointer solutions. Try a mouse with a cyberdeck and tell me how that worked out. I've done pentesting tasks with a small laptop the size of two mice. I would not be able to do that outside on the go with a mouse. I also had situations where back in the days I had no space for a mouse, so I used my trackpoint.
The DEs it uses are GNOME and KDE, which are as far from "simple" in that sense as one can get on Linux-based systems: the two largest (and perhaps most widely criticized for being buggy and bloated) DEs. While the use of uncommon (non-GNU) userland sounds like a stream of unusual issues to debug, adding up to a strange combination.
Though probably not counting the DEs as an important part of the system (and maybe they have other DEs or WMs in the repositories), one may argue that the non-GNU userland is simpler in a sense. But then again, it is presented here as a simplified desktop, while GNOME-based and KDE-based systems are on the images it provides. And it lists GNOME as its primary DE [1].
> one may argue that the non-GNU userland is simpler in a sense.
This seems to be the main argument of the article. Along with some stuff about systemD.
> In service of that goal, the project is based on BSD tools. Chimera's frequently asked questions page explains that unlike other projects that use those tools for licensing reasons, project picked BSD tools for their smaller code size and reduced complexity.
> But then again, it is presented here as a simplified desktop, while GNOME-based and KDE-based systems are on the images it provides.
Yeah, when I read the title here, I thought it would be about a simplified desktop environment. But they seem to just be using the standard stuff. So, I don’t think this is what they meant to say.
Take Systemd for example. Chimera Linux was to implement the same functionality and be full featured. It wants to do this with a simpler, more modular, more understandable, and more maintainable design.
>They should work reliably and predictably like every good procduct.
So you're saying they should be simple?
>unless you are a very simple person who always only does very simple things and lead a uniquely simple life
Considering the massive popularity of MacOS and iOS which all mandate the same reliable and predictable user experience on every Apple device, most people are "very simple" persons who "do very simple things and lead a uniquely simple life".
The power user paradigm of old that expose all the knobs and dials and levers there are to pleasure us simply does not appeal to the commons.
For iOS there’s absolutely an argument that it’s not capable enough, but as a regular user of all three major desktop OSes I find such complaints about macOS overblown. While there’s small kernels of truth here and there much of it comes down to macOS being built around a different set of conventions than the desktop environment they’re most accustomed to (usually Windows) than inherent incapability. This is further evidenced by how it’s common for longtime Mac users have similar complaints about the Windows desktop being inadequate/incapable.
Desktop environments and user workflows are insanely personal things, not unlike clothing, diet, and music preferences but for some reason many in the tech sphere refuse to acknowledge this and try to position their preferred environment as objectively more correct/superior/etc. It’s really tiring.
> The power user paradigm of old that expose all the knobs and dials and levers there are to pleasure us simply does not appeal to the commons.
I feel that I wasted years of my life changing UI themes and colors since Windows 3 and MacOS 7, and, frankly, I have never felt tempted to do anything like that since Gnome Desktop. On the more vanilla Gnomes I don’t even change the wallpaper.
Except for most ordinary use cases. I guarantee you that, if someone downloads a compressed file, they'll find it infinitely easier to right click and select the "Extract here" option than whipping out some tar command. The linux-brain has people convinced that the layman would prefer the latter if only they would listen.
That's some windows-land programming right there. The idea that a file is something clickable, some icon with a title somewhere on the screen.
And typing 5 letters is clearly not infinitely harder than right-click and rummaging through 20 item menu to find the right action. The difference is actually infinitesimally small.
I'll hold your hand while I offer this groundbreaking revelation: the vast, vast majority of people are in Windows-land. We're even having issues with the younger generations who do everything on their phone and this don't really have any concept of file systems. Get out of your echo chamber. That means getting off of HN and start looking at how laymen use computers.
My echo chamber is Norton Commander or M602 on MS-DOS, thats how I grew up to understand what a files are and how to work with them. That's how laymen used computers back then and what was thought in schools.
Key property of these was that they had command line, so you could easily navigate and execute arbitrary commands on what you see, by typing them in.
The major reason people don't use command line interface on windows or smartphones and other appliances, is because it does not have anything remotely comparable pre-installed, so they're forced to use the inferior interface.
Apologies but you simply have not grasped the sheer difference in scale between now and then: the number of people who are reasonably competent with a terminal nowadays would absolutely dwarf the total number of people who owned computers then... and the former are an undeniably tiny minority in the total number of people who own computers now. You really, really need to get out of your bubble.
> The major reason people don't use command line interface on windows or smartphones and other appliances, is because it does not have anything remotely comparable pre-installed, so they're forced to use the inferior interface.
If you say so, but you'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the CLI-smartphone revolution.
