I have similar thoughts. I finally swapped to desktop linux last year and tried to be very mindful about all the little niggling issues I ran in to.
I think the difference between an okay piece of software and a great piece of software is how cognizant the designers and developers are of these things. It's partially why I use an iphone now over android. Even if I disagree with how something is done it's usually evident that Apple at least _thought_ about it. It's not perfect, there's still the occasional interaction that's just plain bad, but those moments are much rarer than I encounter on my PCs (Xubuntu/MX Linux).
If I ever have the resources to retire I think I'd dedicate a solid chunk of my time to just work on those quality issues.
Just to preempt the replies, this is how most of these conversations go:
Alice: I dislike [x] because I can't do [a].
Bob: Oh, why are you trying to do [a]? You can accomplish that by doing [b], [c], and then [d]. [a] doesn't really make sense, let me explain the model behind how this all works.
Alice: Thanks for explaining the model to me, but I still just want to do [a]. Could we expand the model, or handle this as an edge case?
Bob <any of the following replies>
: No! [a] breaks the model! Things are much simpler if you just embrace the model.
: If you want to do [a] go use this other product that's broken in other slightly annoying ways.
: If you want to do it, you can open a PR adding it. But we probably won't add it because it doesn't fit the current model, and we consider that 'bloat'.
It's difficult to get into contributing to some of these projects because you come in with a change you want to make, but you have no standing in the project to effect that change (or are out of your depth and need to convince a more established dev to help you). Which makes perfect sense, a project with random contributors adding their own preferences is anarchy.
It really seems like the best projects have a very strong guideline/interactions framework, or a BDFL (benevolent dictator for life) who takes UX very personally. Most open-source projects are founded with a strong technical vision, but not a strong UX one.
The closest I can think of in the open-source desktop space is ElementaryOS. Which is lovely, but I dislike a few of their core decisions enough that using it is a pain.
The dream is a DE that enforces strict UX paradigms...but also lets you customize them easily. But I'm not sure if that's even possible. Even Apple isn't perfect and they're just trying to enforce one 'Apple way' to do things.
Hello, just wanted to let you know you should probably use a different word instead of "niggling", just to be safe in case some day in the future someone may find your post and try to cast you as a racist. Or worst, it may be detected by an algorithm and your post could be demerited based on that parameter and you would not know why. While niggling is a legitimate word and has no racist origin, people may construe it as insensitive because it might trigger someone due to the similarity to a certain word. Also, actual racists sometimes use a variation of niggling to refer to black children. Sorry that it has to be this way.
While I appreciate you taking the time to write this note, I don't think I will edit the word.
The fact that it sometimes is being used by racists gives me a little pause (that's basically how semantic shift happens, and there comes a point where the new meaning eclipses the old), but I have never come across it in that context, whereas I see it used in it's original meaning commonly (and in professional contexts).
If someone tries to cast a comment of mine in a technical thread as racist I don't think changing my language is going to help.
Similarly I'm not so invested in my imaginary internet points that being flagged by such a poor future algorithm concerns me. If HN got to that point, I would probably have lost interest in it long before.
I'm here for interesting, technical discussion. Not for the zeitgeist's culture wars that are engulfing all the other platforms. With the exception of recent threads (which considering the tumultuous events that are happening, I understand), I find HN to be a lovely corner of the old web where users try to read each other's content in good faith.
I'm just curious but what were the issues with a few of elementary OS's core decisions that you have?
I know personally I'm not a fan of Ubuntu or that it's the LTS version too but I know that you can use Pantheon, it's desktop environment, on other distros (something I have been considering myself).
It's been awhile since I've tried it, but the first thing that comes to mind is not being able to put a file on the desktop.
I completely understand and even vaguely agree with their reasoning, I stopped putting icons on my desktops maybe 10 years ago?
But sometimes I just want to put a temporary file on my desktop as a visual reminder to finish something up later.
In this case it's not the same class of 'bug' as the missing thumbnails in gnome's file picker, it was a deliberate design decision, and I respect that the project thought about the experience they want to create and executed on that vision. It's just not the experience for me.
I think the difference between an okay piece of software and a great piece of software is how cognizant the designers and developers are of these things. It's partially why I use an iphone now over android. Even if I disagree with how something is done it's usually evident that Apple at least _thought_ about it. It's not perfect, there's still the occasional interaction that's just plain bad, but those moments are much rarer than I encounter on my PCs (Xubuntu/MX Linux).
If I ever have the resources to retire I think I'd dedicate a solid chunk of my time to just work on those quality issues.
Just to preempt the replies, this is how most of these conversations go:
Alice: I dislike [x] because I can't do [a].
Bob: Oh, why are you trying to do [a]? You can accomplish that by doing [b], [c], and then [d]. [a] doesn't really make sense, let me explain the model behind how this all works.
Alice: Thanks for explaining the model to me, but I still just want to do [a]. Could we expand the model, or handle this as an edge case?
Bob <any of the following replies>
It's difficult to get into contributing to some of these projects because you come in with a change you want to make, but you have no standing in the project to effect that change (or are out of your depth and need to convince a more established dev to help you). Which makes perfect sense, a project with random contributors adding their own preferences is anarchy.It really seems like the best projects have a very strong guideline/interactions framework, or a BDFL (benevolent dictator for life) who takes UX very personally. Most open-source projects are founded with a strong technical vision, but not a strong UX one.
The closest I can think of in the open-source desktop space is ElementaryOS. Which is lovely, but I dislike a few of their core decisions enough that using it is a pain.
The dream is a DE that enforces strict UX paradigms...but also lets you customize them easily. But I'm not sure if that's even possible. Even Apple isn't perfect and they're just trying to enforce one 'Apple way' to do things.