And they still wonder why linux isn't more popular.

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,965
I've not tried linux in a long time, but thought it got a long way in user experience since I last tried it. Then I learned this is how you put an icon on the desktop in ubuntu in 2022. In windows you could drag and drop, or use send to desktop. since 1995.

Oh, and also it fails to detect my TV as a legitimate display, and only allows 1024x768 as the highest resolution. Great, now I have to start from scratch and install windows to actually make this HTPC usable.
 

Okatis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
190
In the KDE Plasma interface (available ready-made officially from Ubuntu as their 'Kubuntu' installer) I believe one can just right-click an application from the start menu and select 'Add to desktop'.

Whenever I've needed to use Ubuntu I use Kubuntu since things seem to be more intuitive coming from Windows.
 

FSCDiablo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
344
Yes, Gnome designers decided they don’t like icons on the desktop so didn’t make it an option by default, but the gnome extensions will bypass lots of these issues. Other desktops like KDE (and all the others I think) have desktop icons available by default. Linux gives you options, but expects you to learn to choose which options works for you. It’s not a monolithic organization like Microsoft or Apple giving it to you one way.

Here’s a link on how to add KDE to Ubuntu if you want to try it without completely starting over.

https://itsfoss.com/install-kde-on-ubuntu/

Feel free to keep trying and keep asking questions here.

Cinnamon might be a good option to try also.

https://www.how2shout.com/linux/install-cinnamon-desktop-environment-on-ubuntu-22-04/
 
Last edited:

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
10,308
Yes, Gnome designers decided they don’t like icons on the desktop so didn’t make it an option by default, but the gnome extensions will bypass lots of these issues. Other desktops like KDE (and all the others I think) have desktop icons available by default. Linux gives you options, but expects you to learn to choose which options works for you. It’s not a monolithic organization like Microsoft or Apple giving it to you one way.

Here’s a link on how to add KDE to Ubuntu if you want to try it without completely starting over.

https://itsfoss.com/install-kde-on-ubuntu/

Feel free to keep trying and keep asking questions here.
Parroting "monolithic" does nothing to increase a users experience or the fanbase of Linux in general. Adding shortcuts to the desktop is one of the simplest things you should have to do and yet you have to jump through hoops to do it. If Linux truly offered easy options, the feature would obviously be there, its a no-brainer.
 

Okatis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
190
Parroting "monolithic" does nothing to increase a users experience or the fanbase of Linux in general... If Linux truly offered easy options, the feature would obviously be there
The point they were making was Linux isn't a homogenous experience. The Gnome interface makes this task more difficult (apparently) while the KDE interface makes it simple. Either can be used on Ubuntu.
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
10,308
The point they were making was Linux isn't a homogenous experience. The Gnome interface makes this task more difficult (apparently) while the KDE interface makes it simple. Either can be used on Ubuntu.
I guess where I stand is this. It should be a default option on every GUI based Linux install. I mean, what's the point of a desktop if you can't natively put things on it?
 

FSCDiablo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
344
Lack of desktop icons is not a problem with Linux, it’s a design choice by the one development team. Even then, a very simple google, couple commands, and you can still get desktop icons in Gnome OR you can use any of the other many desktop environments that enable that option by default.

I’m not parroting anything about “monolithic” it just means “Linux” isn’t one entity like MS, but many different organizations and individuals. I just hate complaints about “Linux” as a whole and not whoever or whatever is the actual issue.

Anyway just going to leave it at that and not derail this thread.
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
10,308
Lack of desktop icons is not a problem with Linux, it’s a design choice by the one development team. Even then, a very simple google, couple commands, and you can still get desktop icons in Gnome OR you can use any of the other many desktop environments that enable that option by default.

I’m not parroting anything about “monolithic” it just means “Linux” isn’t one entity like MS, but many different organizations and individuals. I just hate complaints about “Linux” as a whole and not whoever or whatever is the actual issue.

Anyway just going to leave it at that and not derail this thread.
I can run windows desktop without icons as well. And it's as easy as removing them. Not googling commands or installing extensions. So you can bitch about windows all you like, but the features you want are optional and easily changed.
 

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,307
I've not tried linux in a long time, but thought it got a long way in user experience since I last tried it. Then I learned this is how you put an icon on the desktop in ubuntu in 2022. In windows you could drag and drop, or use send to desktop. since 1995.

Oh, and also it fails to detect my TV as a legitimate display, and only allows 1024x768 as the highest resolution. Great, now I have to start from scratch and install windows to actually make this HTPC usable.
There are differences in the various Desktop Envs out there. I'm not an Ubuntu fan, I used openSUSE which has good KDE Plasma support (recommended for Windows users). The Gnome folks wanted a UI experience that was "different". So do not expect it to be like Windows.
 

pendragon1

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
41,778
There are differences in the various Desktop Envs out there
this is also part of the problem, too many cooks. people have no idea where to start or which to choose and then the install process is too complex for the average consumer.
 

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,307
this is also part of the problem, too many cooks. people have no idea where to start or which to choose and then the install process is too complex for the average consumer.
But the average consumer is very picky about "other consumables", and do great research and learning. I think maybe we under estimate consumers.
 

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,561
Using Linux as a desktop/notebook OS is like using a tractor to commute to work.

Sure, you can do it, but it's not designed for it, and no amount shoehorned quality features are going to make it better than even the most basic mainstream option.
 

techie81

[H]ard for [H]ardware
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
5,897
I can run windows desktop without icons as well. And it's as easy as removing them. Not googling commands or installing extensions. So you can bitch about windows all you like, but the features you want are optional and easily changed.
A very small price to pay for customizability.
 

techie81

[H]ard for [H]ardware
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
5,897
Using Linux as a desktop/notebook OS is like using a tractor to commute to work.

Sure, you can do it, but it's not designed for it, and no amount shoehorned quality features are going to make it better than even the most basic mainstream option.
I use windows but have installed many different flavors of Linux on laptops without issue. They all worked very well out of the box. I think the point here is, many people run into only a few issues and give up proclaiming "LINUX SUCKS". However, I can assure you we have all had similar issues on windows. The only reason I stay on windows is gaming and the MS Office suite. If they ported office, I would be on linux.

Listening to the drama between Windows and Linux is comical. Use what works for you but people need to stop making sweeping judgments based off of one experience.
 

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,307
It's a choice. If you think Windows is awesome and excellent, then by all mean use it and love it to death. Saying ignorant things about Linux, just makes you seem silly.
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
10,308
It's a choice. If you think Windows is awesome and excellent, then by all mean use it and love it to death. Saying ignorant things about Linux, just makes you seem silly.
You're missing the point. Linux is about choice but they don't add in options for that choice. They pick what they LIKE and think you need and when you suggest they add the option it's "there are other distros with that option". So, in reality, not choice, but perceived choice.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,452
Using Linux as a desktop/notebook OS is like using a tractor to commute to work.

Sure, you can do it, but it's not designed for it, and no amount shoehorned quality features are going to make it better than even the most basic mainstream option.
Considering the success of ChromeOS I am not so sure about the analogy or the statement (Chrome OS feel very light and not industrial tractor like imo)

Which could be in part of the marketing problem, very few statement about Linux outside general things about how heterogeneous and customizable it is, will tend to work for all possible configuration of it
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,965
The point they were making was Linux isn't a homogenous experience. The Gnome interface makes this task more difficult (apparently) while the KDE interface makes it simple. Either can be used on Ubuntu.
There are several editions of windows as well, that doesn't mean something so blatantly basic needs to be so involved. I did not choose the interface, it defaulted to this, but even if it offered a choice between KDE and Gnome, to someone who hadn't seen either in years that's a completely meaningless choice. The user cannot make an informed choice therefore "which interface to choose" shouldn't even be a question left to the user. They should've amalgamated the best of both worlds into a single uniform interface if mainstream appeal was really a goal.

There are differences in the various Desktop Envs out there. I'm not an Ubuntu fan, I used openSUSE which has good KDE Plasma support (recommended for Windows users). The Gnome folks wanted a UI experience that was "different". So do not expect it to be like Windows.
That's exactly the problem, even linux users can't decide which version or distro is best, I'm far from a linux noob, even so it is not something I can make an informed decision on. Unless I start downloading and trying all the popular ones, I can't tell which one suits me best, and which will have features I'd want. But I really didn't expect putting an icon on the desktop to be a problem for any flavor linux. Not to mention allowing the most common resolutions to be selectable for the display.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
25,362
You're missing the point. Linux is about choice but they don't add in options for that choice. They pick what they LIKE and think you need and when you suggest they add the option it's "there are other distros with that option". So, in reality, not choice, but perceived choice.
Yep. Also unlike windows users, they feel the need to hijack and derail any os thread on every tech forum with evangelism for Linux as though it did something miraculous for their lives. It's uncanny.

The "year of the Linux desktop" has never been further away.
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
10,308
Yep. Also unlike windows users, they feel the need to hijack and derail any os thread on every tech forum with evangelism for Linux as though it did something miraculous for their lives. It's uncanny.

The "year of the Linux desktop" has never been further away.
I think Linux is easily a daily driver. I also think it's really polished and I find it pretty easy to handle day in and day out. It just needs more options out of the box and not "figure it out in the terminal" type answers.

I know they are different OSs, Linux and Windows, but in the end it shouldn't be hell to install features onto one of them.

Linux comes with the security of the OS, the easy of file modifications, the customization, but it lacks in features OOB. Suggesting a feature be added is always met with some snarky bullshit instead of "oh yeah, a toggle would be nice". It would absolutely KILL a Linux user to admit that adding a Windows feature would be a good idea.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
25,362
I think Linux is easily a daily driver. I also think it's really polished and I find it pretty easy to handle day in and day out. It just needs more options out of the box and not "figure it out in the terminal" type answers.

I know they are different OSs, Linux and Windows, but in the end it shouldn't be hell to install features onto one of them.

Linux comes with the security of the OS, the easy of file modifications, the customization, but it lacks in features OOB. Suggesting a feature be added is always met with some snarky bullshit instead of "oh yeah, a toggle would be nice". It would absolutely KILL a Linux user to admit that adding a Windows feature would be a good idea.
I dunno about that. As you said, the options are sparse and really opening Linux up requires a lot of knowledge that isn't helpfully/readily available and up to date.

I also have a lot of programs and utilities that don't have Linux equivalents or equals. Photoshop, office (Libre is not an acceptable substitute for compatibility or some advanced uses), substance (superior on windows), Max/Maya which many in my industry use, visual studio, etc. Performance varies wildly on unreal engine and unity editors on linux compared to windows. Finally, games of course (perf or compatibility issues for most games).

Linux security for the desktop always strikes me as odd. I think it's more security through obscurity than anything. How would the average user know of a bot on his Linux desktop when he has no anti-virus? Do you just check logs every day and hope there are no flaws in Linux with your distro?

Open source doesn't automatically mean "safe". Mac users kept claiming how secure their os was until it became less obscure and tons of malware began showing up.

I've never had an issue modifying files in windows, but I'm not sure if you're referring to something I'm not aware of :).

Finally, the Linux community tends to be very hostile and harsh, while largely unhelpful in most ways (help, feature request, up to date manuals and guides, forums, etc.) :(.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,452
I've never had an issue modifying files in windows, but I'm not sure if you're referring to something I'm not aware of :).

You are lucky, I had issue modifying files/folders in every OS I did try I think, depending on what we mean by issues. And the tools/stuff doing what you ask/expectation seem more robust on the Linux side that on the windows side.

The pre-Xp to Xp and Xp to Vista on the windows side was ridled by it for many people that had to support software that did not follow rules that windows started to enforce.

For the list of missing Linux equivalent, some of Visual Studio debugging for windows application feature are legitimely hard to beat, but in general software development on Linux is so much nicer toolkits wise (Windows is starting to come up and if you do CSharp you will have most of it, I am more talking about how nice C++ is on Linux side) I doubt many miss it.
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
11,029
Considering the success of ChromeOS I am not so sure about the analogy or the statement (Chrome OS feel very light and not industrial tractor like imo)

Yeah, Chrome OS is more like renting an electric scooter to get to work.
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
10,308
My wife uses Linux as her primary desktop. About as non-technical as you can get. Which is to say many of the comments here are rubbish.
If you are an average user who browses websites and does office productivity, sure, it's fine. That's assuming you installed it for her.

Give her a blank PC and a usb stick and tell her "good luck". Let her pick the distro, figure out the install steps and then the initial setup.

Just because you set up a simple to use environment for her doesn't mean any points here are incorrect.

Edit: I just have to add to this. THIS is exactly what we have all been talking about throughout this thread. The self-righteous Linux user. Congratulations.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
25,362
My wife uses Linux as her primary desktop. About as non-technical as you can get. Which is to say many of the comments here are rubbish.
So she set it all up herself? Typical Linux snobbery... How about addressing some of the points I wrote up?
 

FSCDiablo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
344
You guys are trolling. I just built a new PC which I detailed things a little more in another thread, but the installation was seriously nothing more than choose the drive to install too, provide a user name, and everything else was defaulted. Literally a no-brainer.

As fast as they make software dummy proof the world keeps making better dummies.
 

longblock454

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
2,345
So she set it all up herself?
As a mostly non-related experiment and avoiding the real discussion:

I just had my wife (she's a computer moron) do this, took her about 45 sec on Fedora 36, only thing she didn't know how to do was get it to boot off the USB stick.
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
10,308
As a mostly non-related experiment and avoiding the real discussion:

I just had my wife (she's a computer moron) do this, took her about 45 sec on Fedora 36, only thing she didn't know how to do was get it to boot off the USB stick.
Took her 45 seconds to pick a distro, install and use? No. And you picked the distro AND helped her make a bootable usb. She did nothing besides press next next next which illiterate computers users seem to know how to do well.


That's like asking my kid to turn the ratchet that I have already set in the proper direction, with the proper socket size and pre-started the nut for them. It doesn't mean he knows how to do it.
 

FSCDiablo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
344
Install is only part of setup.

See quote. Disagreeing doesnt mean trolling :rolleyes:.

https://hardforum.com/threads/and-t...nux-isnt-more-popular.2020670/post-1045398449
Good grief okay, let's start with app support. Is that a Linux problem or an app developer problem? Every developer CAN provide a Linux option. If they don't that's not a Linux problem. Point the perform were it lies.

Randomly looked at one of your examples, Maya, it appears to be installable in Ubuntu. Sure it doesn't look easy, but again possible which means Autodesk is trying but not 100% there. Not a Linux limitation, a developer limitation.

On the gaming side, lots of development has been done to circumvent the lack of support by game developers. Again not caused by Linux not supporting games, but by developers not supporting Linux. Personally, every game I own works under Linux, YMMV.

Not sure why you complain about Linux documentation and help as it's crazy extensive. Some communities might be on the harsh side to new users like Arch, but then those distros are advanced and assume you RTFM. There are tons of new user friendly distros that are nothing but new user friendly.
 

longblock454

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
2,345
Took her 45 seconds to pick a distro, install and use? No. And you picked the distro AND helped her make a bootable usb. She did nothing besides press next next next which illiterate computers users seem to know how to do well.
valid point, I took Install at face value.
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
10,308
valid point, I took Install at face value.
No worries, I totally agree that the average user and can Linux hassle free. It's just the intricacies of setting up things for more advanced users, who have specialized hardware, or are bleeding edge... Or just want icons on their desktops.
 

Okatis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
190
Took her 45 seconds to pick a distro, install and use? No. And you picked the distro AND helped her make a bootable usb. She did nothing besides press next next next which illiterate computers users seem to know how to do well.

That's like asking my kid to turn the ratchet that I have already set in the proper direction, with the proper socket size and pre-started the nut for them. It doesn't mean he knows how to do it.
I mean, I'm not even a Linux user but let's be fair here, how many non-technical users know without research how to go and find the Windows ISO from Microsoft, find an appropriate way to write it to a USB stick, then turn on the system, spam whatever vendor-specific key is required to change the boot order, then install Windows?

Most Windows users begin with pre-built PCs, whether desktops, laptops or now tablets.
 

FSCDiablo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
344
Adding shortcuts to the desktop is one of the simplest things you should have to do and yet you have to jump through hoops to do it. If Linux truly offered easy options, the feature would obviously be there, its a no-brainer

This whole stupid argument has been your base. Linux DOES offer options; first Linux is NOT the issue here gnome is: second gnome offers an option to resolve the issue : third Linux offers more OPTIONS to easily install other desktops to resolve the issue.

Fourth;. I'll repeat:

As fast as they make software dummy proof the world keeps making better dummies.
 

travm

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
1,845
Parroting "monolithic" does nothing to increase a users experience or the fanbase of Linux in general. Adding shortcuts to the desktop is one of the simplest things you should have to do and yet you have to jump through hoops to do it. If Linux truly offered easy options, the feature would obviously be there, its a no-brainer.
Linux doesn't give a shit about icons. This is a GNOME problem. Install KDE, or xfce, or literally any other desktop.
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
10,308
Linux doesn't give a shit about icons. This is a GNOME problem. Install KDE, or xfce, or literally any other desktop.
Listen, Linux users are always saying they want some sort of mainstream adoption. If you did, you wouldn't attack us for expecting a NORMAL feature to be available on the available desktops.
 

travm

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
1,845
Listen, Linux users are always saying they want some sort of mainstream adoption. If you did, you wouldn't attack us for expecting a NORMAL feature to be available on the available desktops.
But it is available. Just because one doesn't believe icons should be on the desktop, you decry that Linux is bad?
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
10,308
But it is available. Just because one doesn't believe icons should be on the desktop, you decry that Linux is bad?
I didn't once say it's bad. You should read the thread. I have stated numerous times to the contrary. I said a basic feature should be available. It isn't available when the requirement is 10 steps long or using the terminal to install apps to do the job. That. Isn't. Normal.
 
Top