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.

  • dbx12@programming.dev
    15·
    1 year ago

    I’m fine with config files, as long as they are where you expect them (~/.config/tool or ~/.tool). What I dislike is yet another funny config syntax because the dev couldn’t settle on an established standard. Command line syntax is ok, if you give me sensible completions.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
      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@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
        3·
        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.

      • nyan@lemmy.cafeEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Finding the actual location of the executable is what the which command is for.

      • dbx12@programming.dev
        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.

    • confusedwiseman@beehaw.org
      1·
      1 year ago

      I’m with you. I’m a seasoned newbie, and I’m ok with config as long as I can find something to help me get through it where I’m. It completely lost and the guide isn’t 30 pages of gibberish that only makes sense to someone helping build and maintain the source/branch.

      I do love the familiarity of a gui as it lets me be “lazy”.

      That said I started on Ubuntu, didn’t really like gnome, tried kububtu, was meh on it. Then got to dislike cannological. I’m currently using mint, and have tried several distros as a vm. Fedora and Debian are 2 I’m trying to understand better.

      That said arch and gentoo both seem like distros beyond my skill set, and I think I’d struggle with them as I don’t feel like the communities align with my needs. I feel like I should get better at stripping out what I don’t need in my distro before I start bare and build up finding only what I need.

      The cool part of Linux is it’s kinda hard to go wrong with the choice as a platform. Picking the distro has been a harder choice to find what community aligns to my needs. So virtualbox, ‘kinda’ to the rescue.