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.

  • TimeSquirrel
    6•1 year ago

    as long as they are where you expect them

    This has to be my number one gripe about Linux. How every package just spews binaries and libraries and config files all over the place. “Where the fuck is the actual executable and its configs? Is it in /usr/bin? /usr/sbin?/usr/local/sbin? Who the fuck knows.”

    God help you when you uninstall and clean things up if you use compiled packages instead of ones from your repository.

    • _cnt0
      2•1 year ago

      edit: mixed you up with OP, but, meh, unaltered reply:

      Where the fuck is the actual executable and its configs?

      which ... with … being the name of the executable. Whyever it matters to you in which exact path an executale is …

      God help you when you uninstall and clean things up if you use compiled packages instead of ones from your repository.

      make uninstall or xargs rm < install_manifest.txt will usually do the trick. If neither is an option, observe the output of make -n install and undo the installation manually.

      Judging from your post and comments, you’d be much better off with a distro other than arch and using packages from a distros repository plus maybe flatpak or snap.

      This has to be my number one gripe about Linux. How every package just spews binaries and libraries and config files all over the place.

      99.9% of the times those places are pretty well defined and easy to look up. You seem to lack some basic knowledge about linux/unix conventions and make false assumptions about how things should be and then come to judgemental conclusions when they aren’t.

    • dbx12
      2•1 year ago

      If the package comes from the repo, you can uninstall it by the same name you used to install it. If it came from a .deb file (in case of debian), you can find out how the package calls itself and use that name to uninstall. Usually the package name is quite identical to the file name. And dpkg -L shows you which files came from the package and where they were installed.