Some interesting reading about other distros and Gnome bad decisions.
We will see how it will be in next few years 
3 Likes
I could go on for days on this...
ZorinOs KDE edition, but I think ZorinOs Core is going to continue to be Gnome because all the Zorin Team work will just be wasted. I'm actually not a fan of Gnome because of the options it gives you to customize your desktop.
The ZorinGroup is quite capable of adapting to a different Desktop Environment if they need to.
Zorin OS Lite used to be LXDE, not XFCE. They had switched over.
This is exactly how I feel about this.
I also feel that Gnome is not the strongest starting point for users migrating from Windows. On Zorin OS 16, ZorinGroup did an amazing job of adapting the Gnome desktop to be far more usable, configurable and user friendly.
But it also brings some problems such as gnome-software, gnome-extensions and a locked-in gnome-shell.
Migrants from Windows are not accustomed to the configurability of Windows. On Windows it is discouraged even. Not just on home computers, but in the often encountered office place or school or library - Windows is used in places where administrators do not want users having control.
In this regard, Zorin OS being Windows-like has always been a bit of a given.
However, I believe it is perfectly acceptable to think of Zorin OS as a launchpad into Linux, rather than a Windows-Like OS.
Zorin OS may be a training ground, as it has for many of us.
A Linux Desktop Environment will be different from the Windows Desktop Environment. I personally think that avoiding this difference is as much a problem. Many Windows users join this forum with complaints that they are expecting Windows Behavior and Windows Functions - on Linux.
Zorin OS being a guide or gateway into Linux may function more strongly than Zorin OS being an alternative to Windows.
Windows is actually very custizable, you just haven't dig arround the files. You can actually make Windows look like alot of different things. I would argue that Windows have more customization than gnome out of the box.
The problem is not that is hard, the problem is that you can't. Users are more frustrated when they can't do something vs they don't know how to do something.
1 Like
Very Well said.
Yes, I know you are able to customize Windows and I have also said that Windows is more configurable and less controlling than Gnome is. And I mean it.
There is a whole community devoted to it:
I point out that it is discouraged on Windows, in many settings.
Its really not, Windows just didn't port all the settings from control panel. Windows 11 is gonna fix that.
It isn't discouraged, it's just most users don't bother to change the look of Windows.
Yes, it is.
It is often discouraged in many settings. I know, because that was my Job at one point. To ensure that employees at Sega did not modify or change the computers. It was all on the cloud, so any modified machine simply got Wiped and reloaded.
This is what many people are familiar with and what they are used to - what you see is what you get.
It doesn't mean that Microsoft actively discourages something- but it can be passively discouraged. For example, the command prompt. Windows does not actively discourage its use. But it does discourage its use often, by ensuring the availability of GUI applications to cover as much as possible to prevent User Command Prompt Configuration.
MacOS is proprietary. It and Linux are remarkably similar. Both are Unix-Based Operating systems and many of the terminal commands are the same.
Yet, Mac users very rarely use the terminal, whereas on Linux, where the terminal is encouraged, users open the terminal quite often.
Mac discourages the use of terminal on their proprietary systems, limiting user modification, control and customization, by providing GUI apps with a "what you see is what you get (and you better Like it, too)" interface.
Gnome is much the same way. They do not actively do so or outwardly do so as that would be way too obvious. They just limit you. Hide some settings.
Look at Adwaita as a Prime Shiny Example of this.
The M.O. is Brand Image. If a user modifies their system, another outside user may not recognize that Gnome Is Being Used. Gnome doesn't want that.
You see Adwaita and you see Gnome.
By locking it in and then passively ensuring that most users just get complacent, they maintain control.
MacOS is build for the average user, yes it is much like GNU/LINUX because it's based on Unix. MacOS is made for money, Apple clearly want every Mac to be almost the same to keep it iconic. Apple wants people to think it's a premium brand, so people will buy their computers even the prices are unreasonable, it is just capitalist marketing.
They lock the settings, but you can edit it. MacOS is even more locked than Gnome, at least in Gnome I can edit the configuration files.
Even though there isn't any GUI, it is actually very easy to customize. Maybe in the past it was hard, but I tried it isn't that hard on Windows 10.
Windows is design for everyone, that is why there is a Command Line Interface and also a Graphical User Interface.
Kedrik. Chill.
No one said it is impossible on Windows. No one said that Windows gives a Notice to users to not modify. No one said that it is exceptionally difficult. I even pointed to Wincustomize, which centers around it customizing Windows easily (If you pay money).
I said it is discouraged and pointed out examples of this, along with the reasons why.
It may not be hard to do- for someone curious and willing to explore. And some do. But most do not know and do not try. There is conditioning, even if it is passive.
My point is that Windows is designed for everyone, so there are both interfaces.
It is not the problem, you still have the choice to do it. Windows allows you to thinker around with the shell files etc. It is all about the users skill, most users just don't touch them. Windows is just as customizable as Linux. Many files you can touch to change something. Changing things like Icons, Theme is going to be a bit harder, but it's almost like Linux.
Dude, that is LONG. @tomscharbach nice job summarizing the discussion. Well, it's still long, but you really got the perspectives just right.
Analogy: Private car.
Some people just want a car to drive to/from work and leisure trips comfortably and without incident. The car is standard manufacturers spec and is serviced when specified.
The car simply provides a means of moving people and goods. Nothing more is expected of it.
Other people want to customise, tune their car, go to auto events to show it off and meet others with the same interest.
The car may have non-OEM parts, paint finish and sound system. It is not serviced annually but constantly tinkered with daily.
That car is not just a means of moving people and stuff, its much more.
Some work to drive, others drive to work - well I guess you may understand what I meanfrom the above. Same is true for computers. You try customising a work laptop when Corporate IT doesnt give you admin rights.
Whats more, if your work laptop dies, IT give you a replacement with same software pre-loaded and you are back working again.
3 Likes
In my opinion, attracting users won't get Linux anywhere. The key goal in getting your operating system to be more used is to be the default option. We need more computers that come with Linux for average people, not just the enthusiast that search for the specific brand.
In Windows, CLI is still very useful if you want to do a very repetitive task or just want to do it faster. I would actually say that Linux is already pretty friendly (depend on what distro you choose). I think you can use Linux without touching the terminal if you don't have to do heavy superuser stuff. I still strongly think that every Linux user should know how to use it, tho.
No bias in this statement, right?
How to address the notion... that if we expect people to not be lazy and to be willing to learn, willing to put forth Minimal Understanding of a machine they rely on is not "Looking down your long nose at them."
This statement is very similar to claiming all scientists are Arrogant Know-it-alls for expecting people to Know Some MATH.
No one is entitled to ignorance.
That interesting. I came to Linux desktop (ZorinOS) from Windows. I can't pretend to be a normal "Windows consumer-user" as I worked in the trade so to speak, so have experience of other OS not just desktop OS. However, I still have not fully migrated from Windows to ZorinOS. It is hard to cast aside years of DOS/Windows desktop experience and app usage even for me.
My wife uses the Zorin laptop, but she doesn't care what OS it is. She just wants to use FF and Thunderbird. Leaving me the sys admin role. For that, she is happy with Zorin as it serves her needs and prolongs the working life of a solid 2008 vintage laptop.
1 Like
Explain to me where your assumption of "Beyond the settings" comes from?
There is a huge difference between using the settings and users demanding that systems and programs do the work for them. There is a huge difference between putting in some effort and demanding "I don't want to have to learn" "I don't want to have to use the CLI" "I Want this, I want that."
This is not "joining the Linux Culture", Tom. It is a willingness to Use The basics. No one at any point said anything whatsoever about all users having to turn into programming gurus. You shifted the goal posts in order to support your attack of "looking down their nose."
The thing is, what this statement does is shifts the responsibility of the user onto those that provide support as a derogatory statement- that something is "wrong" with Linux users that expect users to be responsible and willing to learn.
I think we are debating a lot of undefined variables, here.
Let's take this forum as an example: How many users join or refer to the forum daily to resolve issues - things not "just working."
Out of how many total users?
I think this is a critical point: Most (The vast majority) of Linux users experience no problems with AMD or Nvidia graphics or Ultra-wide Monitors. But occasionally, some do.
Or in this recent case:
A bit of additional programming was needed.
This is as true on Windows. Mac experiences this less, because Mac provides the machine along with the OS. But it still runs into conflicts and trouble in spite of having Fuller Control.
So really, we would be hard pressed to say that on the Linux Desktop, things don't "just work."
The concept of "I just want it to work" sounds reasonable on the surface, but carries some hidden assumptions. For example; A Car.
A person may buy a car and if the alternator goes out, or the engine is run without an oil change - they claim it does not "just work." This is not unusual.
I see this all the time. They don't do maintenance as outlined in their owners manual - but shift the blame onto the producer under the very reasonable sounding expectation.
There is not one bit of the above that expresses an attitude of "looking down ones nose" on people. Rather, it expresses an attitude of frustration at those who shift the burden of responsibility.
It is not elitism to hold users to a reasonable standard. It is not elitism to say, "This is Linux, Not Windows."
I think that this falls under "reasonable." After-all, users must know the differences between files on Windows and Mac.
Is it really too high an expectation for people to learn the differences between one file and another file? How are they to know the difference between .docx and .pdf?
This is also "reasonable." There is absolutely no reason to think that a user cannot or should not learn a valuable and essential tool. This falls into the point raised between myself and Kedrik, above: That conditioning to only accept one limited tool (GUI) is by no means reasonable. Linux helps undo that conditioning.
This one gets more interesting. I think your statements have merit, here. However, the point in this is how it compares to linux vs. Windows and it must be pointed out that Windows users struggle just as heavily with getting Printers to work on Windows. And that is odd, when compared to Linux which has far more variety.
But getting Wifi and Graphics to work? I agree with you there. That requires extensive programming knowledge to solve.
The only reason to learn this is if the user wishes to. Linux offers options, choices and variety and this should be celebrated, not used as an argument against Linux, somehow.
And there is nothing whatsoever that is unreasonable in users knowing how to replace, install, upgrade or downgrade tools. That's user control over their Own System.
My answer to this would be "no."
Their terms are unreasonable and hazardous. This becomes apparent looking at Drivers on the road and licensing. If Dept. Of Motor Vehicles operated in the same way as Windows, we would have ten times as many wrecks on the road.
A user is responsible to learn.
Take GIMP: Should we expect users to open Gimp and without any training or learning, start cranking out images? No.
Can we expect this of Blender? No.
Any Office Application (Windows or Linux)? No.
You have to learn how to use them. You cannot demand that the app opens > Magic Happens > You get what you want.
They just work, but they require learning. Pandering to a lack of desire to learn does far more harm than good.
What if we applied this standard of entitlement and expectations toward our Educational Facilities? Our Universities?
How many students complain bitterly that the work is hard and the path to acceptable grades is difficult?
Should our Universities ask themselves if they must meet the students on the students terms of less learning, less responsibility, less work?
My point of view on this is a lot like Dating.
If I read a girls profile and it says, "I deserve..." "I expect..." "I want..." I'm passin' it by.
Windows damaged it's users with its use of "easy" to make them complacent to its control. With treating its users like they are too intellectually deficient to do anything and they need it done for them. Linux is a path to fixing that. Damaging Linux won't fix anything.
And to what end do we want to draw users away from Windows anyway? Money? Is this a competition?
Users come to Linux. Of their own free will - because it meets their needs. You don't see ads for Linux on T.V. People seek it out for a reason and emulating; or even becoming... as Broken as Windows is will Kill Linux. There would be no point in migrating to Linux if it is just another Windows.
The nub of the matter is that you are stating this as if none of the above is the case. It is the case.
You cannot claim that Linux does not do the above. I realize that the forum sees those who do not just have everything immediately work out of the box, which may skew perceptions; I remind that if you visit some Windows forums, you will see a very large number of Windows users having the Same Problems; with obscure and vague error codes like "This performed an illegal operation 0x00001".
In Linux, if you get an error, it usually tells you what is wrong: "missing dependency, leaving unconfigured." You have a better chance of doing a netsearch on that and narrowing it down than you do with "illegal operation".
Although I could make a strong argument about : permit reasonable levels of user customization through menus - Gnome is the worst on this. But in fairness, ZorinGroup has done a remarkable job of re-adding that ability. In spite of gnome-extensions. But even so, KDE, XFCE, LXDE, Cinnamon, Mate all offer that functionality in Full Force.
This is why I am pointing out the difference in attitudes. Because there is a clear difference between a user saying, "Can I get help installing my printer?" and a user saying, "Can you set up my printer, and I want it done my way, and I don't want to have to learn anything or understand how it works. I just want it to Just Work without effort on my part."
And... I must point out for the record, that very, very few people join this forum with that type of mentality. I can name - Two.
The vast majority of users show a willingness to learn. Many display hesitation or fear about using the terminal, but with some encouragement, they get in there. Many express apprehension, but are happy to overcome it.
This being the case, at least based upon the majority of users we see that do migrate- It begs the question as to whether Linux needs changing? But this bias may be due to us only seeing the users that Choose Linux to suit their needs.