Why the BAD design of WINDOWS hurts LINUX desktops
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 22. 05. 2024
- Download Safing's Portmaster and take control of your network traffic: safing.io
Grab a brand new laptop or desktop running Linux: www.tuxedocomputers.com/en#
đ SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:
Get access to a weekly podcast, vote on the next topics I cover, and get your name in the credits:
CZcams: www.youtube.com/@thelinuxexp/...
Patreon: / thelinuxexperiment
Liberapay: liberapay.com/TheLinuxExperim...
Or, you can donate whatever you want: paypal.me/thelinuxexp
đ GET TLE MERCH
Support the channel AND get cool new gear: the-linux-experiment.creator-...
đïž LINUX AND OPEN SOURCE NEWS PODCAST:
Listen to the latest Linux and open source news, with more in depth coverage, and ad-free! podcast.thelinuxexp.com
đ FOLLOW ME ELSEWHERE:
Website: thelinuxexp.com
Mastodon: mastodon.social/web/@thelinuxEXP
Pixelfed: pixelfed.social/TLENick
Twitter : / thelinuxexp
PeerTube: tilvids.com/c/thelinuxexperim...
This video is distributed under the Creative Commons Share Alike license.
#Linux #Windows #ux
00:00 Intro
00:35 Sponsor: Monitor and secure your internet connection with Safing
01:35 The Start Menu
05:34 How the start menu affects Linux desktops
06:42 Disjointed User Interface
08:55 Program installs and storage
12:22 System Updates
14:17 Windows design matters to Linux
15:53 Sponsor: get a PC that supports Linux perfectly
16:46 Support the channel
This is going to be controversial, but the Windows menu, or really the whole start menu paradigm is bad. This menu is used to start and open things. It's not a multitasking experience. So having a menu that occupies a small corner of your screen is not great.
The reality of things is that people are now just used to it. In Windows 11, the centered menu is a disaster, and once it's open, it's just a bad launcher. Apps are sorted chronologically, so if you don't know the name of a program, you're out of luck, and you can't create any folder that you could build muscle memory upon. And there's the case of opening multiple apps in a row.
With the windows menu, you need to open it as many times as the number of apps you want to launch. Not efficient.
The issue is, this bad menu design affects Linux desktops. Because many distributions or desktops don't want users to run away, they mostly moved to a windows like menu.
We all know about the mismatched UI of Windows.The real problem is that people are now completely used to it. And for Linux, it means that UX, or just UI is not often considered.
Next, let's look at how apps are installed on the system.
On Windows, while the store is progressively getting better, the main way to install a program is still to head over to its website, download an executable, and run it, then click next a few times, pick a location, and let the program install itself.
The files are stored in a single folder usually, with all the libraries the program needs, and the program itself in its own directory structure, that varies from program to program.
And this is a bad design. First, for security reasons. Storing executables and libraries and data in a single folder is a surefire way to have badly set permissions on these files.
Second, it makes finding the files you're looking for difficult. You need to learn each program's directory structure, and look online to find where the data is stored.
And this bad design on Windows also influences Linux desktops negatively. Because to this day, I still get people telling me it's easier to install a program on Windows than on Linux. Seriously.
The reality is that a lot of people don't understand how to install programs on Linux. They're so used to downloading them manually that they try to replicate this, and get super confused.
And a lot of newcomers to Linux just don't understand where the files a program uses live, because they're used to having them lumped into a single directory. The better way to look at it is: what type of file am I looking to access? And then this tells you the folder where it's been stored.
It's no secret that system updates are dreaded by a lot of Windows users. Windows updates have always been problematic, super slow to install, they require a reboot in most cases, and they can make your system worse than it was, so it's no wonder that many users are wary of these.
App updates are also handled separately from system updates. And people that moved from Windows to Linux will keep this fear of updates, because it's been drilled into them again and again that updates or even worse, major version upgrades, aren't a good thing. But they ARE.
And that negatively affects Linux desktops, because you'll get plenty of people who don't apply their updates and then ask for help about a bug that's been fixed already, or who stick to insecure software that has patches available. It makes the work of maintainers and developers harder. - VÄda a technologie
Download Safing's Portmaster and take control of your network traffic: safing.io
didnt you just said that you should install your apps from software center rather than web browser?
Get with the times, even a decade ago, backwards compatibility was bad on windows
My upgrade to Fedora 38 went well, mostly. I didn't have video, same thing happened from 36 to 37, so I had to boot from the previous kernel from 37. A week later, after the first update to 38 after installing, everything is running great.
I use i3 window manager. In the i3/config, I have it set up to automagically start the apps I want, on the screen I want, in the workspace I want. So when I login, everything is where I want it, no dragging and dropping etc required. Gnome can do that too IIRC, and some other window managers can save your current environment on shutdown, but that doesn't always work.
I am very happy for I have stopped using windows for many years ago! I have used MacOS in almost 10 years! Last time I used windows was windows 7! MacOS is doing everything must better than windows!
Portmaster is kinda unstable for me. At least in Windows 11 Enterprise. I don't know if it is just me but every time I use their secure DNS, it always tells me that device is offline and later no internet connection even though I am having internet access. Somehow it also disconnects the network too. It also occasionally tells the same even when everything is stable and no secure DNS then later tells that they cannot find DNS so it fallbacks to my original DNS...
Edit: Nevermind, the new version solves it for some reason. Quad9 for the win. Still, it would be good if the devs can let their DNS system stable rather than changing some just to make sure you don't disconnect...
I'm helping someone move from Windows to Fedora on an older laptop, and I've gotta say, it's bold of you to assume they delete the installer file after installing the app. When I was backing up their data, the amount of stuff in their download folder was... impressive.
Hahah yeah, Iâm not surprised
yup... accurate. I suspect most people don't even know it exists....
I've seen A LOT of people who will find the very website they downloaded it from, or even the email with a certain attachment, just to find the file they're looking for. And that's what makes me believe they have no idea where files go....
When i use Windows, i never delete the installer either⊠but i do move it to installers folder on my dropbox⊠along with debs when i use Linux.
accurate
@@SnowyRVulpix That's at least organized (although still confusing to me). I just can't understand people letting their Downloads folder get all cluttered up, regardless of their OS. It makes no sense.
Of course, I also get anxiety attacks when I see desktops covered with shortcuts...
There's a funny thing I notice in myself. Whenever I encounter a UI or UX inconsistency on Linux - I hate it and try to fix the issue. Whenever I encounter the same on Windows - it's just expected and I don't care, because the entire system is like this to the point that being inconsistent is kind of consistent.
LMAO because, up until I read your post I couldn't figure out why Window's inconsistency didn't bother me. Its inconsistency is consistent! đ
By the way, Linux is way more consistent in inconsistancy than Windows.
Yet Windows 7 still has the best UI of any desktop OS including Linux distros past and present, and it's 10+ years old... Microsoft may suck now but they made that once upon a time and somehow nobody could ever top it.
Interesting that, when you ask what is the number one people reason people stick with Windows, the answer is âgamesâ. Yet the Steam Deck is having a lot of success running a Linux distro with a purpose-built UI. While Microsoft is struggling, and failing, to adapt its unwieldy Windows UI to that same form factor.
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 when people say "games" they dont mean "purpose built ui". They mean... games....
As someone who chafed really hard under the concept of a full screen start menu in windows 8, gnome is like home these days. Turns out it wasn't the concept that was bad, it was Window's implementation of it.
Yep!
I really disliked Gnome's UI when I first used it.
However it is bloody perfect when used properly. On my laptop I run KDE but my MS Surface runs Gnome.
And it works like a charm.
Yes, Win 8 was just bad bad bad.
Can I ask you how you got used to your youtube getting covered when you want to open a notepad, or having to move your mouse much further to click icons, or how you deal with the partition effect (that thing where when you walk into a different room your brain forgets what you were doing because it designated that as a task for the previous room) cause yeah that's a thing on computers too. just unfullscreening a youtube video can trigger it.
@@stephblackcat As someone with ADHD which exacerbates that effect, it hasn't bothered me much. I already used the super key for launching the start menu and typing in the name of what I was looking for. I know they have icons and the like, but for my workflow I basically never interact with them. The overview and it's list of icons is basically just a spot I look at if I want to know, roughly, what's installed on my computer and something I reference if I don't remember the name of what I'm looking for and it didn't pop up for me.
I think this may highlight the real issue. If you're a more graphically oriented used, preferring icons and shortcuts as your primary method of launching programs, then the gnome interface may not be for you because it does have those issues if you're sensitive to them.
There absolutely _is_ a reason to have your app menu occupy a small section of your screen instead of filling the entire screen. That reason is to prevent the user from losing the context of what they're working on when looking for the next app they need to open. It's essentially the same as the "walking through a doorway effect", where you walk into a room and forget why, because the complete change of context wipes your short-term memory clean. Microsoft tried the full-screen app menu paradigm in Windows 8 and it was a complete failure. Almost everyone hated it, and this is the reason why. That being said, I absolutely agree the design of the new Windows 11 app menu is terrible and I hate it. Show me ALL my apps dammit!
The failure of Windows 8's Start Screen lies in its design. When users open the Start Screen, they expect to see a grid list of installed apps. However, this is not the case with Windows 8's Start Screen. Instead, it is filled with "garbage" widget tiles that simply do not work as expected, even on Windows 10. Look at the macOS's Launchpad, that is how start screen supposed to be.
I did not like the Windows 8 Start screen, but not for the reason you suggest (not invalidating it either). I hated it because it seemingly never had what *I* needed in the list of programs. I nearly always had to 'search' for what I wanted (and could a simple program search be fast...heck no). And heavens forbid if I did not know exactly what I was looking for and needed to 'rummage' through the installed programs to find the tool for managing some obscure database engine or third party app. Sheer frustration. At least with the classic start menu I could rummage through the program list to discover what was actually installed. I also find the Windows 11 Start menu tedious to use as everything seems to move around of its own accord again and again and again.
Windows has lowered my expectations so far that I can't recognize better when I see it.
@@nawantabahpangestu1973 : The Windows 8 fullscreen start menu had many problems, but being fullscreen was the biggest one, pun not intended. Even if it had been a simple grid of icons, it still would've been counterproductive to cover the user's entire workspace. (source: I'm a software engineer and I specialize in algorithms and UI design.)
@@deusexaethera Yeah, win10 start is basically just win8ÂŽs but not full-screen, and (at lest to me)that's the best start menu ms ever made, resizable(in both X and Y) and super customizable, with lots of organizational features.
I want them to bring back the entirety of the Win 7 UX with the current list of app features. the dumbing down and burying user CONTROLS is annoying af. also the forced updates drives me nuts
The reason most OSs use a traditional start menu in the corner is that the corner is the fastest spot to accurately move the cursor to, and once the menu is open, you want things as close to the cursor as possible, in order to reduce how much it has to move to reach items.
It is not simply because people are used to it.
That doesnât work though, because while aiming for the corner is easier, you still have to move your eyes or entire head to look at the menu, and then aim carefully for categories or small icons. The corner is fine, the menu isnât!
This is why the Ubuntu shell puts the most commonly used buttons in their own corners. It's actually a smart bit of design honestly.
@@TheLinuxEXP I don't have to move my eyes much to scan colorful icons in alphabetical order for the one I want. When you allow reordering and throw everything into a grid it becomes MORE difficult to target those icons. Additionally, grouping those icons into a single icon "subfolder" exponentially makes the problem worse.
@@TheLinuxEXP So it's too hard to move your eyes to one corner of the screen, but it's not too hard to move your eyes back and forth across the entire screen, to scan a full screen app launcher?
I'm not so sure I can agree with that.
â@@TheLinuxEXP but the thing is, I don't really want to see it. I just want a small thing to quickly search for the program and press enter, while still being able to see the rest of what I'm doing. (for example watching a video or something)
For me a small menu like this is perfect. Small and unobstrusive.
I am a retired mainframe programmer/analyst. Using Linux since 1995. I have used many OSes over the years and had to adapt to a new UI/UX more times that I care to mention. I guess I am so hardened that it matters not to me at this point. I just adapt and keep on truckin'. Nicely presented, however.
what was your favourite one to use, out of curiosity?
@@gunaodegaia9082 I would say Linux Mint with Cinnamon DE. I guess I find it suits my workflow best. Yours?
â@James Smith Mine would be Arch with KDE Plasma. I like getting regular updates and new hardware (point releases likely have older kernels, which means newer hardware might not work with them), and I also like how KDE is customizable. And of course, it has Wayland support on my Nvidia laptop! (Even if Wayland doesn't work on my desktop, it clearly is the future of desktop Linux.)
@@cameronbosch1213 my hardware is old, stable, and since I do not game, a stable release works fine for this old timer. I still code in COBOL!
@@jamessmith4229 That's great for you. Quite the opposite of me. I don't even know COBOL! đŹ
The reason a small menu makes more sense is that if you open it with your cursor, it will be closer to your cursor/finger, and you can traverse more options in less space than if they were larger. (though the items need to be large enough to comfortably click)
The Start menu from the Windows XP and older days was pretty great. There are very good reasons to have the menu small and in the corner. I don't want everything else I've got open to be obscured by a huge menu. Just because I'm not actively working on something doesn't mean that I'm not watching it. If I have a transfer ongoing then I might abort my menu searching to bump that along.
The combination of the cascading menu and pinning at the bottom is the best paradigm I've seen to date. GNOME's launcher is inferior for the same reasons Windows 8 Start was inferior..
If you're having to abort your menu searches in order to complete some other task, that sounds like a major problem with the layout of the menu, the organization of the data in the menu, or the number of steps you have to take to find and start an application. The size, position, or visual opacity of the menu is not the underlying problem.
I use Gnome 3.36, and the menu is rarely displayed on my screen for more than 2 seconds. When I need to start an application, I press the Super key and start typing either the name of the program or some related keyword such as "audio" (which filters the list of displayed app icons down to those that are tagged as having something to do with audio). There are rarely more than 5 choices at that point, so it's quick and easy to choose one and move on.
@@penntaylor695 No, it's not remotely a problem with the layout of the menu. If I'm looking through the contents of the menu to make a decision about what to use in it then I'd be looking around regardless of the layout. The most organized menu in the world can't decide on a program for me. If I know what I want then I can hit Windows+R and type it directly or hit the Windows key and type the first 2-4 characters of the program name or click on it in the pile of pinned tiles or (most likely) click the pinned icon on the taskbar and not use a menu at all.
Give me an example of what you need to be visible at all times on screen while you look for the app in the Start Menu. To me, that's probably like 0.01% of use cases.
Exactly, can't agree more
@@Dee-Ell Tell me why my application launcher needs to be full screen in the first place. I shouldn't have to justify everything I can see NOT being obscured by clicking on the launcher of choice in the OS/DE. Completely hiding the screen interrupts workflow. What does any full-screen launcher give me that justifies breaching workflow? In other words, why would I CHOOSE Windows 8?
New Linux user here coming from Windows just starting a few weeks ago. Very good breakdown of some of the habits that we former windows folks have. Especially true about downloading content. One of the reasons I always downloaded from the official site was for the assurance that Iâm getting the correct file. When I see some packages in Linux for the same thing with slightly different names/sources, it sends alarm bells to my brain that some could be imposter apps trying to Trojan onto my system. Likely not the case in Linux for most apps, but itâs a real concern coming from windows and a hard habit to break.
When I started with Linux 5 years ago - I broke my system first time because I tried putting a downloaded AppImage into a /bin directory. I couldn't do that ofc because of permissions, so I set all folders in root directory to be owned by my user instead of root. After that I couldn't log into my user account anymore.
The funny thing is through social engineering, malicious users can put up phishing sites. We already see this as ads on the Google search pages. It took a while for me to get used to as well after leaving Windows but now I cannot just go back. App stores/package managers are objectively better since it's so much faster and easier. After all, Android and iOS users mostly use the app stores to download their applications so it's not all too foreign to use an app store on a desktop if you use a smartphone
I completely trust distribution packages. User provided packages like AUR should be checked though I have not seen malware yet.
And I've always felt uneasy about Ubuntu PPA - Launchpad as build service is a great idea but I don't know how to check recipe.
Boi am I having a terrible time checking if every website I download something is legit !
@@pialdas6835 AND I can't imagine manually updating each app instead of using package manager.
I like the small "start menu" because I want to see what's behind it. If I'm streaming, using the menu can free my mouse from the game
I'm not sure what yo mean by you "want to see what's behind it". For the mouse freeing stuff, you could also use virtual desktops (even with a single monitor) to run games on a different desktop and switch between them. Or in some environments its called "Workspaces" or "Groups".
A favourites page with all apps listed by category is **still** much easier than the Redmond alternative. Whether it be Gnome, KDE, or a tilers dream - categories are a real win.
@@MatthewWilliamsX oh 100%
â@@thingsiplaywhen you want the game fullscreened but you need to do something in the background activating the menu results in a visible cursor. It essentially makes the game windowed on a hotkey without reducing resolution.
@@iXenox I guess it turns the focused fullscreen game window into a kinda sort of preview window. I can imagine how it might work. Is this a Windows thing?
I personally just switch the virtual desktop and leave the game in fullscreen on another. In example in online games when waiting for the match to begin (or find something), I switch to a different virtual desktop and read something in Firefox while waiting.
I think having programs in their own folders is great for portability as transferring apps to an external storage is simple.
which you can't do anyway because they won't work anymore đ MacOS handles it the best way
13:10 This made me laugh way more than it should have đ Yesterday I went through an update on Arch that left my ENTIRE main computer unusable. After 1 year and a half of running only Arch, today I officially switched to Fedora đ
You're actually quite right about new Linux users. However, I will honestly admit that I switched from Win 10 to Linux Mint in February this year because I was irritated by updates and the general sluggishness of the Windows system. Now, when I see opinions about Win 11, I think that switching to Linux Mint was one of the best decisions in my life, especially that I just fell in love with cinammon, I think that I will use this system for a long time. :)
I passed for the same process almost a year ago, still learning, but I still love this.
I haven't understood how to use Linux Mint enough. I'm used to using Windows, so if I install apps by commands on Linux Mint, I don't know where the apps were installed and how to uninstall them.
@@user-cv9pg8lo4j The same. I don't remember whether I installed an app from source, AppImage, deb or anything else, and it annoys.
Moved to Linux Mint 3 years ago, I'll never ever go back to Windows.
@@TheRandomGuyTheFarNoGameCat I'll build a desktop computer and install Linux Mint later on, I only used Linux Mint on my old laptop so far, the hardware isn't good enough for what I want to do. I'll learn more about Linux Mint after I build the computer desktop, it needs to make an effort to learn, and once I'm familiar with Linux Mint, I can ditch Windows.
How long did you spend learning Linux Mint?
Options over decisions. A good UX has a thoughtful design with consistency and clarity, but it also has options to let users customize things to their preferences and needs. Its a factor of accessibility as well. Being able to customize the under interface may make someone with limited means able to use a device they couldnât otherwise.
Yeah, thatâs why KDE is probably the best DE out there
@@TheLinuxEXP And yet you spend a lot of time fanboying Gnome shell because of its full screen app launcher and how it's forcing that ugly ass adwaita theme that only offers two versions, dark mode and light mode with blue highlights with no option to change the colors outside using other themes. Meanwhile, KDE remains extremely customizable even if you stick to breeze. You can even GASP change what colors you want things to be!
@@themadoneplays7842 Accent colors are coming to GNOME too.
@@pulkitkrishna8809 I heard, but they are not there now.
Not exactly true. Gradience allows for full customization, even using custom CSS at times.
The thing that's nice about the traditional smart menu paradigm is the fact you can still see what's on the screen. As someone who is easily distracted things going full-screen without being able to reference what I was already doing is kinda lame. Generally I just search for programs or use keyboard shortcuts for my computing this day and age but the off chance I need to look for something I want to be able to reference what's already open without closing the menu.
I actually prefer that the program is at the same folder with the library files because 1. You'll know what libraries the program is using, 2. You can easily delete them since they live in a single folder, 3. Finding the program + files is simpler.
Snap or flatpak
@@mrgm148 Yeah right, as if they would work correctly out of the box in most distros, or would be configured correctly....
1.) "ldd" will tell you what libraries a binary was linked against. Package dependencies tell you what it needs. And good look fixing a library vulnerability issues when having multiple copies of the same library all over the place (multiple versions of the same shared library in /usr/lib on the other hand is perfectly possible, though seldom taken care of by package managers)
2.) "apt-get uninstall" or "apt-get prune" if you even want customized global files be gone (or the yum/dnf/zypper eqivalents for RPM based distributions)
3.) that's a matter of habit, "all binaries are in /usr/bin, all libraries in /us/lib, all support files under /usr/share, all global config under /etc, all globaly managed data is in /var/lib, user config is in a hidden file or directory under $HOME (old style), or under $HOME/.config (new style)" for pretty much *every* package, with the exception of those 3rd party packages installing themselves in the /opt hierarchy, is easier in the long run IMHO
@@hartmutholzgraefe I think applications being "installed", meaning spread all over the filesystem is an outdated concept. It is for me at least, because I don't want to spend time installing an application and doing all the configuration work again and again on each install of linux / windows, whatever. I tend to pick apps by "being portable" or once installed, they can move around and be started from anywhere (local disk, usb-drive, another computer etc.). This is how I want the future to look. Install the OS of your choice, copy your existing application folders back in place and be ready to start working on things.
It can takes several days to setup and configure all the programs before I can start working. I want to upgrade/switch hardware more easily, so this really needs to stop! o)
There are many applications (on windows) already which don't need "install", could be even more. I don't find flatpaks and things on linux very appealing, since application files are hard to access in a "blob", configurations need to be managed externally and the 32bit vs 64bit issue is present as well.
In general, I find things to be quite cumbersome on current operating systems. Nothing got more easy over the last 30 years.. this is my impression at least. o)
Why do you care what libraries the application is using? And if you really care, ldd is a better way to find that out.
With package manager, deleting the whole program is not an issue.
The problem os not that we can not stray to far from Windows.
I converted a company from win to Gnome last year and they just sat down and started to work. No problem at all. 5min basic "how to" was all it took.
I think the problem comes before any contact with a gui. The problem is to make the decision to throw yourself out of your "safe" Windows environment to something unknown.
I agree on that. Making a move that will throw you out of your comfort zone is hard!
@@TheLinuxEXP thing is that Windows is a mess but the store made the decision for you. Much easier!
Interesting how you didnât highlight the application *categories* on Linux, probably because Gnome doesnât have them anymore. ;) Plasmaâs start menu does have a pin feature what makes it sticky to launch multiple programs, btw. Itâs also size-adjustable and the mouse distances are way shorter than on Gnomeâs full screen view.
Yep, I think it's because of GNOME.
Plasma still has that, as well as MATE and a few other environments, while on Windows, lots of app installer frameworks create folders and put shortcuts into them as a lazy holdover from Windows 3.x, but also if they were suites that created multiple shortcuts.
I do honestly like the idea of having different categories and a favourites section, or maybe I'm just too accustomed to Plasma.
I think Gnome does have it, just not in their app launcher. You can use Gnome Extensions to enable launching apps from the top edge of the screen kinda like I believe Xfce. The apps are categorized by default
@@pialdas6835
Ah, I forgot about that. I did see an extension like that in some distro's modified GNOME setup, though, but forgot about that until your reply reminded me.
@@pialdas6835 Thatâs a broad definition of "Gnome does have it". The programs just provide a category manifest but the official shell doesnât do anything with this information.
@winlux2 oh then what does the shell use to create those categories? Is it just an extension that Gnome provides but not native to the shell? I remember using that category feature on Fedora before I switched to their KDE spin
Hmm. Mixed bag, IMHO. Probably because I'm a software engineer, my ideas about usability are slightly skewed. Great video, but my views are a little different.
I use all three major OS's (Windoze, Mac OS, and Linux) daily, so my comparisons are continuously updating. For me, the start menu makes sense (when it's on the left, always in the same place), along with the ability to tap the Windows key, type the first few letters of the program I'm looking for, and then hit Enter to launch. Pretty simple. On Mac, it's Windows+Space bar (I use Mac with a Windows keyboard) to get a middle-of-the-screen launcher. Before Windows adopted the quick keyboard method of launching from the Start Menu (and many Linux distros as well), I used to use Launchy or something similar, which mimics the current Mac quick-launch method. I don't like the Gnome way of doing things, though I'm sure many do. To each their own.
In terms of app installation, I frankly don't like ANY of them. They all pretty much suck. Yes, app stores/repos are great, _as long as they have the app you want._ If not, it's the Wild West. Flatpak? Snap? AppImage? Deb? RPM? Source? You either have to keep multiple package managers (which can totally mess each other up), or go with something like the AUR on an Arch-based system (which is what I do). And I DO like the concept of the single-folder install, where all the dependencies are in one place. If I want to configure an app, I can just look in its folder. No scrolling through a zillion config files. AppImages are the next best thing, although there is more work (making them executable, getting them on your menu).
One thing I absolutely _HATE_ and which has not (so far) infected Linux or Mac, is the Windows Registry. Dear God! Whose idea was that? We need to bring back cruel and unusual punishment just for that person - and maybe the idiot who invented COM, while we're at it!
What would you do if two apps required the same library ? Have them duplicated into their separated folders wasting space and cluttering shit or having symlinks for those libraries in that folder whilst the original one copy remains somewhere else organised ? But having symlinks means ONE change to any shortcuts (which point to one single library) means applying change to all apps which may work well for the respective application that the change was made for but might break others . Also , different developers might use a different heirarchy for their applications , cluttering everything like Windows.
If they go down the route to have single directories for programs then a good solution would be to standardize directory structure for all applications as a requirement to develop for linux and have the ONLY libraries which are explicitly required by ONLY one application being included in that applications directory , while the system-wide used libraries could remain as they are now . One big downside would be that this "migration" of directory structures would be a huge slowdown in linux development and would cause headaches for the developers who ALREADY have their applications follow the current structure . Although this would make it easier for users , the downsides make it just not-so worth it.
Another solution could be to keep applications along with their libraries as they currently are and make a separate single folder like windows having symlinks to all of the explicity application-specific libraries which are ONLY used by that specific application and none other while again the system wide libraries remain in their respective folders as they currently are.
Several of the things you went after Windows for have been solved a long time ago. User data and programs have been forcibly isolated since Vista came out around 2006. You can't store user data in program folders. There are two places that per-user program data are stored: in your user profile under AppData and then Local or Roaming. The split exists because Windows in a server environment supports "roaming profiles" where Roaming is stuff that should follow your *login* anywhere on the network while Local is stuff that should only be on the local computer such as browser caches. In an organization where your account's profile is a roaming profile, you can log into any machine where you are permitted to do so and all of your stuff follows you because it's actually stored server-side.
Of course this is pointless for the vast majority of smaller businesses and residential users, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. The setup, update, and upgrade processes have improved massively in recent years as well.
I think you may not understand these aspects Windows enough to properly criticize them. I applaud you for admitting your biases upfront. I'm just annoyed that my most popular production is "Windows 11 Must Be Stopped" yet here I am defending Windows. Excuse me while I shower.
My favorite thing is the Virtualstore compatibility layer that they shimmed in. If a legacy program "Foostuff" tries to write to C:\Program Files\Foostuff, Windows will pretend to accept it but actually place it under the local user's Appdata where it "should be". Of course, this fails in the case of multi-user, but what can ya do...
@@warlock415 That was put in place to make old software that violates the new strict security model not break completely. The vast majority of software never touches VirtualStore anymore.
The ability to copy a program to a thumbdrive and run it from there or copy it to a new system is a massive convenience. This requires that everything be installed in a single location and is not the norm for any OS that I've ever used (save most MS-DOS programs). I've no idea why the video presents single-folder installs as a Windows method. Even Win3.X would scatter program install files all about the OS.
The VirtualStore (Program Files protection) can cause just as many issues as it solves for legacy/portable programs. When a user decides to run a program as Admin, it can start writing its data to the the Program Files folder. On subsequent runs without admin, it reads data from Program Files and Windows redirects writes to VirtualStore - effectively erasing any an old stored data from this point forward.
@@joejoesoft There is no doubt that VirtualStore can cause problems, but *it exists to solve a far worse problem: most XP software would completely break under the new Vista security model.* That would have made Vista (and 7, 8, and so on) a total deal-breaker for everyone. There had to be some way to run those "Windows 3.1 scattered files everywhere" on a more strict security model and VirtualStore is what they did to solve that problem.
Single-folder installs are handy for some types of software, but they also completely prevent code library reuse (both on-disk and in-memory), adding bloat and ongoing security issues. The equivalent of a single-folder install on Linux would be Flatpak, Snap, or AppImage, and all of those are terrible for the reasons outlined above. The *only* advantage of a single-folder install is portability.
@@JodyBruchon I agree with most of that. However, a stand-alone EXE (like those created by Delphi) uses the system libraries on a standard Windows install. So, you get the memory paging benefits and the security updates provided by the OS. This, however, is more exception than the rule. Most Windows frameworks require an installer. You have to go out of your way to create a standalone EXE in most languages for Windows or use a lesser known language like Delphi.
I think you went a little hard into the start menu, and it's more of a preference thing. That said, window managers with basic run prompts are far better in my experience.
Of course, as I said, UX can be subjective
You can't go hard enough on them removing do not combine option from task bar. They want to turn windows into a mac, they fail with ui and shell.
Is subjective
I do agree with that though. If I'm opening the menu is because I want to open something quickly so I don't need to see all the other stuff. I don't just keep the start menu open for fun
Been experimenting with AwesomeWM for a couple weeks. I must say, it does improve workflow more than I thought it would. So easy to whip around the system once you get used to the hotkeys. It does assume you know the names of your programs though.
Strongly disagree on the start menu. I don't want anything to open full screen by default. I want multi tasking with all the apps simultaneously visible including while using the start menu.
You can do that with a launcher like spotlight or krunner. Works better than a menu, and isnât fullscreen
Time will tell but I think people leaving Windows will figure things out that work best for themselves. We as a community need to be there to help them make the change. Change is always hard but we can adapt.
4:20 You actually can make folders for organization! I daily drive Windows 11 for work and gaming, and one of the main things I like about the new start menu is how much cleaner the folders are. You just drag one pinned app over another pinned app to put them in a folder together. It's cleaner and less buggy than the Windows 10 "tiles" system đ That being said, I'm typing this from inside a Linux VM, lol. I do really love the Gnome desktop experience as well.
Personally I do actually prefer the start menu as is in KDE. I do need it not occupying the entire screen, because i can immediately forget what I was looking for if the visual contact with what I am doing at the moment is broken. It literally takes like 50ms sometimes. Id say it's 50/50 for me in mouse and keyboard based searches. I type as often as I navigate the categories.
same. using kde rn
Yep much prefer the win7/kde plasma start menu.
exactly
I use KDE Plasma and I prefer its default start menu over GNOME's because Plasma's menu is reliable and unobtrusive. However, KDE Plasma gives you the ability to switch menu layouts, and I found a full screen, touch friendly menu called Plasma Drawer that's also more reliable than GNOME's menu and also unobtrusive.
Nick lost me on the whole menu thing!
Good point, while I equally appreciate the point in the video about Start Menu. Both are way overlooked points. First of all, about the very context of launchers, I generally lean towards The Linux Experiment's point and thanks to him for finally calling out the issue after almost three decades of suffering - I have always preferred the Program Manager we had up to Windows 3.11, and the change into Start Menu concept since 95 has mostly been pissing me off.
But, you are very right on the importance of retaining visual contact to view you are working on, and while I personally don't find it as much of issue with launcher operation (I see it may be for other people and even for me in some specific situations), and specifically it is not overlooked in the designs (as the Start Menu concept is the very prevailing one), *but* it is really overlooked in many other contexts. For example, more and more dialogs have been replaced with full-screen (or full-window) views, which is really, totally pissing me off, for several reasons.
One reason is exactly what you mentioned, forgetting what you were doing/looking for when the visual contact has been interrupted. Second reason is, that often the change in the dialog would affect the viewed content and you would like to see the change in real time. Third and often the most pissing off reason is, that when you are using software that you are not completely familiar with, especially if it is of a kind with several working modes with corresponding entire views, then all the functions we have used to open in dialogs, such as "settings", "properties", "add object", "edit object", etc. opening in full-screen (or full window) makes you "feel lost", as without being completely familiar with the specific software, you cannot intuitively know in which working mode you are / into which you got "jumped", and how you can go back and in which you even should go. Dialogs instead are extremely intuitive on that, as they just come on top of the view so you can "rest assured" you are still in the same view, and you can return into it by simply closing the dialog.
Generally, user friendliness used to be the thing, the design paradigm was that programs should be made easy and intuitive to use without any kind of familiarization with a specific program. Nowadays, along with horrible bloat and other unprofessionality prevailing in the software industry, we have made giant leaps backwards in that during the post-Windows XP era.
Finally switched to Linux after using Windows all my life :) And your channel has been great at convincing me to do so :D I use Fedora with Gnome, and I love it!
I finally switched to Linux after using Windows for over a decade, then ran Linux for many years, then used Windows 10 for a couple years, then now just recently switched back to Linux. :)
I'm still using Windows 11 for program compatibility, but I use Mint on my previous Windows 10 PC and I am absolutely amazed on how fast it is compared to Windows 10. Been daily driving it for a while now I love it.
Welcome, and thanks for being a responsible and conscious person not falling for the Apple trap!
I switched quite a few friends to Linux (Fedora with Gnome) and I tell them to treat it like their phone. Use it the same way you would use your phone and you will be fine. Now they are happy Linux users.
That's a incredible proof that GNOME doesn't fit on desktops. Feels so unnatural to use a supposedly *Desktop Environment like a Phone UI.
@@bionic-beaver I don't think making the interface less janky means it doesn't fit on a desktop.
Since when was jank a requirement for something to work as a desktop environment?
...but the small start menu does have advantages. What if I wanna see what's behind my desktop. Like, having a video running or a game but just wanting to launch some program without having everything to be hidden/being made smaller.
Every Gnome user at this point has at least once moved their cursor to the top left in Windows and was truly disappointed by nothing happening. Then he/she promptly presses Alt+Tab/Start to mimic a fraction of Gnome's power.
I became so used to keyboard shortcuts in Gnome that I'm frustrated when I use Windows or MacOS and try to switch workspace.
Honestly, mate, instead of using "he/she", just use "they". It's comprised of fewer letters and is easier to read.
I actually donât like the hot corner because I have two monitors, with the primary being in the center and the secondary being on the left, so my cursor just flies off to the secondary monitor. I got and extension for making the bottom center of the screen a hot zone, but I donât actually use it so much, and have accidentally triggered it a few times⊠Itâs mostly the super key life for me
GNOME is a very different way of working on your computer, which doesn't work well for me, so I don't use it. Not saying it's bad though, just not for me.
hot corners are bad, the mouse travel distance is too far. the hot edge extension is 1000% times better.
I started with GNU/Linux years ago, my last machine with windows had win 8. No matter of OS, switching to another will always require some adaptation. I was beginner too, and everyone should know that everybody faced that discomfort of change. I wish you all grit! Don't give up, even if you hear M$ voice calling you in the middle of the night!
For menus in both Plasma and Icewm, I just bring up an application menu with a right mouse button click anywhere on the desktop. Icewm (I use it at work on an old computer) facilitates putting preferred applications at the top of the menu for quick access.
One thing about the "you're not gonna do anything else with your screen or your computer while you try to open an app", I don't use the start menu just to open apps. I use krunner, which has lots of helpful tools like a calculator, unit/currency converter, command line, spell checker, dictionary, translator, and more, which often require me to look at something else while I do it.
For example, if I'm in a foreign website and want to convert their prices to my currency, it's annoying to have to keep going back and forth and keep having to remember the data i want to convert, and it's really nice to just have it there. Yeah, I know there's copy/paste but I can't always do that if the data is in an image or a video or something, and it's still annoying to have to keep going back and forth. It's just so much nicer to have it as a small panel in the corner of my screen that doesn't get in the way instead of having my entire desktop shrink and bring up a search bar that covers the entire screen and without anything to keep it from going away the moment I click anything else.
As for opening multiple apps, at least in KDE, you can pin the start menu, open the apps, then unpin it. This is also useful for keeping open stuff up like calculations, conversions, and other stuff I mentioned above. Maybe it could be better if you could, say, keep it open by Shift clicking, but that's still nothing inherent to the start menu, just a flaw in it's current implementation, and if that's your problem with it, just what the current implementation happens to be, fair enough. But it's definitely not inherent to the Start Menu.
I'm fine with using a start menu. Gnome's application menu, Windows 8's Start Screen , and macOS' Launchpad all go to a full screen leaving me to have to search the whole screen to find an app that I may have just installed. The start menu may not be perfect but I would prefer having a smaller, concise window that doesn't need me to look at the entire screen.
I understand Libadwaita being used to unify the design of Gnome but I like customizing my UI. Libawaita is so limited out of the box that even Windows has better customization (At least I can change the accent color). Gnome isn't a bad DE, it's just not for me
That being said, I have my commonly used programs mapped to a keyboard shortcut and I use the search bar in the start menu to find what isn't mapped, or KRunner when I use KDE to just type on the desktop. I also use Plank Dock
In Windows 10, I don't start things from the start menu at all. 14/20 times what I need is one of 4 applications I've pinned on the task bar, 5/20 times it's a desktop symbol for all the secondary stuff and the remaining 1/20 times I jump straight to the search.
If you want efficiency, optimise the most common cases the most, optimise other common cases, and have a fallback for everything else. When it comes to launching, the start menu is that fallback. Everything I commonly use, on Windows, is on the taskbar, and/or with an Autohotkey combo. On KDE it's all key combos (I launch Chrome with Win+W, Konsole with Win+T, File manager with Win+E (a throwback to Windows), Kate with Win+N (on Windows this launches notepad++), and a few things like Libreoffice take up Win+1,Win+2 and so on). For many things I have to-character commands defined so that e.g. "Win+T o / " opens up the file manager in the root, for example -- any activity I repeat, if I can, I reduce to scripts and shorthands. What annoys me is that I can't for example, from the command line, say 'launch Chrome if necessary, open a new Chrome window on desktop 1 of activity 2, open three tabs in it, and switch to that activity/desktop'. And so on. AppleScript toys us with the potential, which has fallen by the wayside. Ultimately I want everything to be controllable easily by scripts. For example xdotool I would like to turn into Python and Rust libraries (though this is beyond my ability at present), likewise many command line utilities.
Thank you for mentioning about the Gnome app grid and how it can be sorted/grouped. I'll also be using Fly-Pie as I've always hated having to press Windows/Super or dragging my mouse all the way into the corner (or worse, down to the middle of the screen and then offset with each additional program thanks to Windows 11).
Wow!
I haven't previously considered most of the things you discussed. The more I dwell on it, the more I think you have enlightened me.
Thanks for that!
Global menus like Rofi are a god sent on WM. I prefer it over any other type of menu.
But if I had to choice between the classic start menu and the GNOME/MacOS style app menu, I'll prefer the classic start just because I hate that it has to go to a separate screen, it kinda hurts the eyes and waste microseconds on a transition.
Global menus are great, yeah
I second this, Rofi is great and I've been using it on all the computers that I've installed Linux Mint on. My main PC still has a few things which necessitate using Windows 11 as my daily driver, but even there, I use Open-Shell (a revival of the Classic Shell code) as a mouse-based launcher, and then for Rofi-like access for Windows, I decided to go with Flow Launcher, which is FOSS and works much like Rofi does for Linux.
@@CanuckGod I also use Classic Shell! Fix everything I need. Altrough tbh I mainly use the taskbar to search for apps.
Windows just for games and Linux for everything else so Rofi is my way to go.
My biggest hurdle learning Linux is the Linux user community. If I run into an issue trying to do something in Linux, and I reach out to the people who appear to be knowledgeable of what I am trying to accomplish, I typically receive a verbal beat down and no help whatsoever. The only thing I am more sick of than reading documentation is being told by Linux users to read the documentation. I find it annoying when I have a question and I search for the answer, all I can find are forum posts where people who have asked the same question and were told if they want to know, they should go read and find out the answer for themselves. Iâm not a full time Linux Admin. My interaction with Linux is limited, so Iâm usually just trying to accomplish some very specific task and it may be a year before I see another Linux machine. I may not want or have time to study the complete RHCE courseware to find out a command line switch.
Ah, I was wondering when you'd bring this up. I love how you go into all the UX elements of a cohesive desktop and Windows creates bad habits and it needs to be called out. A "perfect" UX is a very subjective and personal choice, but I do like to think we can all benefit from more consistency in which ever one we want to use. On KDE, I stick to QT applications when possible for this consistency. On GNOME/Cinnamon/Mate/etc., I'll use more GTK applications. When COSMIC comes out for PopOS....well we'll just have to wait and see what happens with it. In any case, I'm hoping to see more app stores on Linux handle the different packaging formats more seamlessly as they aren't all at the same level of maturity for that.
I recently switched to a KDE global menu MacOS style environment and I like it much better than the traditional window like environment of having the taskbar and systray in one panel
The global menu is so good!
i disagree i find global menus not great
@@TheLinuxEXP If only it doesn't break DaVinci Resolve keyboard shortcuts!
Not sure how I feel about global menus anymore. I was a Mac user from ~1990 thru ~2018, and I always though per-window menus were a dumb waste of screen space. Today, very few programs I use even have menu bars at all and I don't feel like I'm missing anything. At least in Gnome land, everything turned into better focused, searchable UIs, and a little hamburger menu for the spillover. Maybe it's Stockholm syndrome, but I think I like the new way. hehe Like even VSCode technically has menu bars, but the whole thing UX is based around hotkeys and searching. I can't remember the last time I touched the menu bar.
@@slembcke I like hidden menu bars, when I need them I hit Alt key and they pop up, just like auto hide on task bar, why should it take any space if I'm not using it right now.
In the end feels like everything is full screen
I remember watching linus install a font pack, and they looked up some tutorial or smth and drag and dropped it somewhere
I was like "OMG JUST DOUBLE CLICK IT its that easy, they think linux is hard, ofcourse its hard when you try to apply complicated windows logic,"
and I say that as someone who never really used windows for me windows is overcomplicated especially simple stuff like auto login, defaultt browser etc.
Yeah, exactly! The default is so much easier on Linux but the terrible practices of Windows makes everything worse for everyone!
There are good UX reasons for the small start menu!
One reason is mouse travel. There is a reason why menus generally don't occupy the whole screen, but pop up close to your mouse pointer . Recently, Gnome and Firefox even introduced scrolling to their menus, which makes the menus even smaller and decreases mouse travel.
Another reason is legibility. It is hard to read text when the lines are too long, that's why most websites limit the width of the page these days. Similarly, it can make sense to limit the width of a menu to make it easier to overview the items.
Probably the most important reason (this might be the main reason why many users are alienated by full screen menus) is orientation. When we use a graphical computer interface, build a spatial model of it in our head. Replacing the screen content with something else requires a lot of work for our brains to reorient. Unless you were about to switch contexts anyway (which you admittedly are quite often when starting a new app), full screen menus actually take more time to use for the reason of reorientation.
Windows tried pushing a full screen start menu with Windows 8, but they realised it was a mistake to provide a full screen menu on a desktop device.
Nobody uses the full screen menu on KDE, even the KDE devs said that.
I'm a Gnome user and a Mac user and I almost never use the Gnome app grid or Launchpad, even though they are the only app menu there. Both of them are just not suited for systems with big screens and systems with pointer based input.
Windows 10 supported full screen start if you wanted it.
@@berkeli383 win11 has it as well. This is generally a good idea on smaller touch screens. I think it could be even a default setting in Surface and similar devices
@@qj0n Where's the setting?
I use the full screen menu on windows 10 and it's literally fine???
â@@Emily_Bondevik_Official Yes, but they removed that option in windows 11 :(
I honestly like Gnome's launcher, because i can click the super key once and I got access to the run menu and search for exactly what I need, and super + a to browse all the apps when I want to.
I used to work with someone who INSISTED on pasting screenshots into a Word document, and then sending that entire document instead of just simply sending the screenshot because it was easier for her.
Linux in a lot of aspects is much simpler and more efficient to use than Windows, people just don't care because they're not used to it.
its not even needed that way on windows, windows has a keyboard shortcut for selecting what you want to screenshot or another simple button press for screenshotting the entire screen. After that you can just paste the screenshot whereever.
screenshots in a word document shit is thanks to windows not having a decent screenshot tool, idk about win11 but in windows 10, you have to either use the snipping tool program which is a half decent program but no shortcuts to open it, making it annoying to use or the built in super shift s shortcut which lets you take a screenshot that thing wont save your screenshot anywhere but your cliipboard and now you have to open something like paint or something, paste the screenshot there and save. its soo fucking stupid, idk how the developers cant even add a simple ass thing as proper screenshot support, how stupid are they? gnome is sooo sooo SOOOO better, printscreen shortcut lets you take a screenshot of your liking, and it autosaves the screenshots in Pictures/Screenshots and also copies the screenshot to clipboard.
@@monochrome_linux yeah you right about the saving part. I use sharex anyways which has way more features. I don't know how screenshots really are on Linux. I only tried mint once but nothing in-depth. Only used it for a couple of hours to try things out.
â@@monochrome_linux Yup, they fixed most of that in Win 11
There is an option to screenshot with Snip & Sketch by pressing PrintScreen now and every screenshot gets automatically saved into Pictures\Screenshots, plus your clipboard
â@@monochrome_linuxon the other hand, on Gnome IIRC if you just want to screenshot + paste somewhere (a document for example if you are writing a tuto of some sort), you have to click somewhere in the screenshot app again to copy to clipboard...
about system updates:
dist-upgrades on stable systems can easily break (and when they break, they really break)
on ubuntu in my limited experience enabling a third-party repo is guarenteed to cause dependency conflicts and prevent your system from booting later down the line
Linux is much more unstable than windows.
Updates break the whole os even if you haven't installed just a single app from the store.
I borked my os while trying to install nvidia drivers.
No one wants to mess around for 2-3 hours to make their system work. Nobody gives a fuck about how their app looks.
People just want a working system and that's what windows provide.
I LOVE YOUR WORK!! Very good comments about Widondws and Gnome UI/UX. The only thing I don't like about Gnome is that seems to have a problem with users using the mouse. Because you have to go to the upper left corner and then go down to the center to open the menu of all the apps and then go to the center to find the app that you are looking for. It's a lot of travel to do with the mouse
Here's an anecdote: there's a few old laptops at university here that are only used for teachers to connect to the projector at the classroom and display presentations. I was like "ok, I'll just install a lightweight linux and be done with it" so I installed Debian with XFCE. I *STILL* got someone complaining he couldn't figure it out, even with shortcuts to libreoffice in the desktop AND the taskbar, the taskbar being placed at the bottom and the whisker menu at the bottom left corner just like in windows.
i agree with the start menu, even when i used windows 11, i only used powertoys run to run my apps. and yes the inconsistency is jarring and so bad lol. but id argue that sometimes it feels the same on linux with kde and gtk apps...
Thank you again, from my point of view, you are one of the best ways to stay informed about Linux news. It's fast and efficient. I loved the troll about Arch at 13:10 XD, even though we all know it's more stable than Fedora (When you know how to configure and administer it) ;). And yes, UI discussions are quite subjective. KDE > Gnome !
Thanks a lot âșïž
arch is the most stable distro fr đ€Ł
That was quite a blow aimed to the balls there, the aspect of Winblows update (and Winblows in general) being more unstable than a rolling release Linux distro.
@@Ptero4 i wouldn't say it's more unstable but definitely as unstable XD. if you're careful with updates, both windows and arch can be very stable, the difference is that arch doesnt force you to update before you're ready
One good thing about Taskbar is that all the running programs are in it, so switching between apps is easier than in gnome where you have to go to too-left corner and then all the way down to select thd program you want to bring to the top.
Windows has an appstore too, you know.
I have a powershell session starting automatically, and I use to launch my apps by typing the command or pressing the appropriate shortcut. The win menu I only use for the weather app.
I never got used to the GNOME app launcher, although I had been working with GNOME for quiete a while, but I instead prefer classic (Windows-like) start menus as in Cinnamon or Xfce. However, I also think that the recent Windows 11 start menu is bad, because it presents when opening just a limited selection of apps (and mostly white space) and not the complete list and no fast navigation to certain locations. While I certainly get the point of the inconsistent UI of the control panel and the settings app, the more drastic problem is the fragmented distribution of settings between those two and the lack of advanced features within the settings app (I would be much more pleased with an graphically overhauled full-function control panel because of the minimalistic approach of the settings app). There are many additional minor issues with Windows (11) which got really annoying; an additional click to get advanced features of the old context menu, the listing of recently and frequently opened files, the removal of the âCreate new text documentâ, and also non-UI-related issues; Being forced to use a Microsoft account during installation or âOn this dayâ-notification from OneDrive. There were many instances, where I had to edit registry entries (because of the non-existence of the corresponding settings) just to get the desired behavior back. I generally get the impression, Microsoft is forcing someone to work in a specific way, they assume to be the correct one, which might be desirable or at least acceptable for most but not for everyone. Linux on the other hand offers so many possibilities to let the system behave exactly like you want it to!
I mostly use a tiling window manager with key bindings to open my favorite apps. For other applications, I just use a fuzzy finder. Didn't use a traditional start menu in a long time now, in years.
Yeah, thatâs a good setup!
@@TheLinuxEXP I also want add the fact that most files are opened up with default associated programs anyway. So there is even less of a reason for such a start menu (at least for me).
Defiantly agree with your point about the start menu, I've switched to using Powertoys Run(basically like Mac Spotlight search), and it's soo much nicer. Granted, I was already towards the tech-savy side and have gotten used to using a keyboard more than a mouse, but it just makes things so much quicker
powertoys run is so good! should be standard in windows.
I get all your points, Nick.
I too am one of those who even after two decades on Linux still get confused about where certain files are located on the filesystem.
As for the startmenu debate however, I couldn't tell what to make better or different.
The way I use the start menu (on both kde and windows) is by pressing the win key, then typing (part of) the name of a program and pressing enter. I don't even look at it most of the time so it's convenient that it occupies little space on my screen. But I see how that's different from how the vast majority of people use it
On this case, using KRunner makes more sense!
Nobody uses windows that way. They either stack their desktop with icons to open them, or press windows key and search the name of the app to open :)
Desktop icons are horrible for this, theyâre hidden behind your windows
Yeah no one uses windows that way BECAUSE the start menu is such shite. Thanks for proving the point.
I haven't had any issues with stability on Arch in years. As for downloading/updating apps, it's really hard to beat "yay -Syu" for fast full system updates
6:09 Yes a menu similar to Windows BUT that menu is also organized by category. Gnome menu doesn't really organize by category, and nether does Windows.
I wonder if anyone remembers the old "games" on early Windows like Windows 3. There was this adventure game where the puzzles would explain Windows UI/UX decisions as sort of puzzles to teach people how windows works. I wonder if we need something like that for linux? Though how you tarrget all the different distributions is probably going to be a headache.
The Metro launcher in Windows 8 was arguably better, more in line with modern launchers like Gnome. But everyone disliked it.
Absolutely! It wasnât amazing but it was better!
Dang, I thought I'm the only one who likes Metro launcher.
4:21 you can create folders for the all apps list, just move the shortcuts in the start menu folder into a folder in file explorer. its very simple
1:22 I love it.... now if only I had one to see what resources each app is using and how much.
In defense of KDE while the default menu has the issue you mention, the alternatives available solve that. An application dashboard is one of the three alternative widgets included.
It really depends on what you think is _easy_ to install.
If you compare the Windows store and the app center of your distro, they pretty much have the same functionality. I can't even say one is better than the other since both have positive and negative sides to it.
If you talk about installing applications through a single file (eg. .exe or .deb) Linux clearly falls behind Windows here. I never had any issue with some missing files or dependencies on Windows. Plus there is only one .exe file for "Windows" and there is not one package for Home and one for Pro Edition like there is with Linux for Debian, Arch, Red Hat, etc. The single package usually works with many different versions of Windows and can thereby be used over many years. On eg. Ubuntu one application may works with 22.10 but not on 23.04 for some reason even there is no LTS step between them (and don't even think about Arch here)
== Edited for typos ==
It's the creator's fault. If You want something to "just work" in, basically, every Linux Distro there is one simple solution: compile static and send all needed libraries with it. Yes, it can be done. Yes, it will be bigger. No, usually it's not done.
But can be done. Compile once, create 3 files: one .rpm, one .deb (that's about 99,5% of all Distros out there, and 100% of the "normal" ones) and one .tgz - a portable version. Done.
"But it can't be done!"
Of course it can. Excluding the package part, how do You think native games are installed on Steam/Linux? Yes, static compiled, with all libraries coming with it.
@@sysbofh Or you can make it a flatpak or appimage witch most distros run oob
@@AstoundingAmelia Yeah. A solution looking for a problem.
Now, with 4 different users on the system, we have the same installation - times four. Not to mention the basic libraries used by flatpak/appimage.
No, thanks.
â@@sysbofh I prefer older ways with less 'machinery' and duplication as well, but it seems most disagree :-/ Maybe the biggest draw of flatpak/appimage is that they have lots of structure and best practices around how to package things. Guard rails that make people feel safer on both programmer and user ends. And lord knows how everything has to be _safe_ nowadays.
@@PassifloraCerulea I don't know. Seems pretty safe to me just to compile static, send everything in one package (or several, if they want to) and put it in "/opt//
I like to have a small application menu, because that means I don't have to look at the whole screen. I can just focus on a small area. Same reason I use small file manager windows instead of fullscreen. I can't focus on 6 columns at once, one or two are plenty, as I scan from top to bottom for the application I want.
Open the KDE start menu and look at the upper right corner. That's a pin icon. That toggles the behavior from closing every time to closing only manually. From that same corner you can drag and drop to resize it and make it much bigger. Boom.
Funnily enough I hardly used the start menu on windows. I prefer a vertical task bar with pinned apps, pretty much like the Unity desktop. Not being able to do this on newer windows was part of what held me to Win 7 for a long time, but now I use KDE and can do what I want.
There are far too many fundamental problems with the Linux desktop experience to be slinging schmoo at Windows (which is also broken in various regards). Install the most recent GNOME release, launch the file explorer and attempt to navigate to a specific system path. You will find it to be impossible unless you happen to know the specific keyboard shortcut, as there exists no button for that simple function within the interface.
Thatâs only an issue on GNOME, not on Linux. All other desktops handle that normally. Doesnât invalidate any of my points!
â@@TheLinuxEXP Any issue that exists within any desktop environment is necessarily only an issue with that environment and not with the Linux kernel itself. That means very little to a new and casual Linux user, who will expect such fundamental functionality to be present and simply give up in favor of Windows when it isn't. It happens far too often.
If we want Linux to gain a foothold as a desktop platform for everybody, ignoring blatant problems for ideological reasons isn't the way to do it. The GNOME issue was submitted as a ticket four years ago and the response was effectively "learn the keyboard shortcuts; we don't really care". That is a mentality that needs to change.
I honestly prever having my app list in a compact stash that I can just swiftly pull up and select something from. Full-screen app lists work for the small screen of a phone, but big icons across a full-screen menu on a full-size screen simply feels tedious to look through. That said, I do indeed miss the customizable app list from older Start Menu iterations.
Agree with most things here except the start menu concept as others in the comments are stating. If I was going to use the mouse to open apps rather than the keybaord, I would much rather have the apps right next to the area I just clicked on rather than having to drag my mouse all the way around the screen. On Mac, I use the spotlight search and on gnome, I just hit the super (windows) key and type the first few letters of the app and hit enter instead.
11:56, On this point I actually think it's better on windows to some extent in that you don't have to map in separate directories for the libraries, all in 1 place excluding the system libraries.
In the world of Linux, looking at executable and library files manually is never something that should be done. Package managers always.
I do agree that on Windows, where package managers are little more than a pipe dream, it is actually better that way.
Corrections to this video:
1. The disjointed Windows UI dates back to Windows 8, not Windows Vista.
2. No, Windows apps' "data and libraries" are not stored in the same directory as an application's binaries. Shared system libraries needed by an application can be stored in the system's shared libraries store and it's been the case forever, and since Windows XP it also automatically manages different versions of those. And for user data there's been a standard way of storing them, and protecting application binaries with different access rights by default, since Windows Vista. Software that does not follow this is either old (often pre-Vista) or bad software (yes, even some Microsoft apps like Teams are guilty of this and therefore are bad software).
Note that those two points are directly following Windows' strong position in backwards software compatibility, and large market share. Apple manages to force developers into compliance at the cost of backwards compatibility and limited choice of hardware which also limits its total market share; and Linux only avoids those problem because it has a low market share. If it was as popular as Windows, it would also start to attract developers who don't care about standards in the same way.
3. You'r arguing in bad faith in your "install procedure comparison". It's also perfectly possible to install a program on Windows the same way as on Linux: you go through Microsoft Store (has existed for 11 years now, btw). It now even supports for quite some time the packaging of old Win32 apps as store apps, so developers can publish their apps on it.
Now please tell me how to install a program on Linux that isn't available on any supported 'repo', so we can all laugh a bit and see if it's easier than on Windows (last time I had to do it, it had at least as many steps as on Windows, plus additional ones if something didn't work right at first, which often happened).
You then acknowledge this very problem while making like it's Windows' fault users don't go through their distro's app repo, but sometimes they don't have a choice.
Corrections for your incorrect corrections:
1. Win 8 might be the most drastic or shocking UI change for you, but this problem has definitely been a thing for a very long time. Just compare the control panel with some of its own submenus or the registry UI, for example.
2. Just look at literally any program data folder. See all of those .dll files and folder mess? Yeah that shit isn't a thing outside windows.
3. Who even uses that? I mean, that store only has a few propietary Micro$oft programs and maybe a couple other things from asus or google. No community allowed here. It's also worth nothing that programs installed through that official and secure method are way harder to troubleshoot and fail more. You can't even add extra reposotories, so that's literally everything. Compare that to a GUI running a "get this program from this direction and install it", where most of the things you'll ever need are likely already there, and if you need it you can add more sources.
@@Sora-zb8kv
1. The Vista/7 Control Panel just added new widgets to the classic Win32 controls, it's not a "disjointed UI" like is the case with the difference between new "Win UI" apps and old Win32 apps.
2. Those DLLs are not shared system libraries, it's code belonging to the application itself. Hence why it's in the application's own binaries directory.
It's how software is developed, look it up.
3. Who uses the Microsoft Store?
Definitely more people than the total Linux users.
A UX paradigm that I miss from Amiga. The RMB was the universal menu button. Press and hold the RMB and then move the pointer around to navigate through the active window's menu. To select a menu item you would release the RMB. But if you clicked on a menu item with the LMB the menu would stay. This would allow selecting multiple menu items with a single RMB press. This is very helpful for toggling multiple menu items that are toggleable settings.
That sounds pretty awesome. Old Motif and even Gtk+ (not sure about Qt) widget sets had these "tear-out" menus where you'd click on a "---" line to pull the menu out into its own window that would stick around until you closed it. Not quite as amazing as what you're describing, but half way there. I feel like GUI design peaked in the 90s and it's been downhill ever since as the web and then phone-style UIs took over.
A pro on the small start menu: Usually all my applications are grouped in a single place and not scattered over the entire screen.
For me the start menu of Windows 10 (yes, customized but still on a Windows level) was so efficient that I even installed in on my KDE machine (try and to that with Windows 11!).
With arch, the only things that have broken for me are openGL and bluetooth. Surprisingly nvida has given me little to no issue in the last 7 years or so
I remember the first thing I hated about gnome 3 was the app grid. I find it very uncomfortable to move my mouse around that much to get to the app I wanted because they are now occupying the whole screen.
I've since moved to kde and always have my app launcher in a centered panel that refuses according to the opened windows. So in both cases I'm closer to win11 đ .
Although I think you make a fair point and I might consider playing around with different launchers
I agree. GNOME 3 & later is _not_ for everybody. It certainly wasn't for me. I tried to use Ubuntu after being away for over 7 years, and when I got back, GNOME 3.whatever Ubuntu was using on version 18.10 was too unfamiliar to me and I left to go back to Windows 10. It wasn't until I tried KDE Plasma (at the time 5.20) that I wanted to stay on Linux, only confirmed by Windows 11.
App grids are objectively inferior to app lists with colorful icons in alphabetical order.
Ah, the good old days of SunOS, where the main menu was a right-click of the mouse away, and if you needed to add a new program to the list you just opened a text file in the editor. Funnily enough, there is a variation of the "start menu" of my XFCE desktop on the right button of the mouse. I really ought to use it more.
4:39 the thing about needing to re-open the Start menu for each one if you want to open multiple applications at once makes me think of another UX fail in MSWindows: why canât I open multiple files in multiple applications? I can select 20 MSWord files and open them as a single command. But if there happens to be a pdf amongst them, then I canât do anything. Maybe Iâm working on a project that involves a text file with measurements, some photos for reference, and a 3D design file-I should be able to select all of them and âopenâ and have them all open in their respective applications. And/or have the option to open them all with an application that can handle all the different file types.
Never has Windows Update bricked my system. Can't say the same with some Linux distros.
I actually find windows installation better overall, due to consistency. At least I expect a convoluted process and generally know it.
In Linux, over half the apps I use are not in package managers and require me to download it, which for Linux, is far less consistent. I do love the ease of the package manager when I do get to use it
All valid points for sure. I'm old enough to have used Windows Program Manager, the Start button was a revelation. I agree it has run its course. When using a Windows machine, I've always either placed a shortcut on the taskbar or on the desktop for things I open regularly, so, no opening the start menu multiple times to open multiple apps. Now a days if I want to open something I don't have a shortcut for I click search and start typing then name.
I would disagree about the UX. The reason cinnamon and KDE have such smaller menu is actually a good UX. Suppose you have terminal, IDE, Browser and debugger open in 2 screens. You want to open another terminal - for such a common activity the best way is keyboard shortcut - you do not need to look at the keyboard, you look at the apps, press the shortcut and get another app open without losing focus. For KDE and cinnamon, on meta key you get a small menu taking less than 25% of the screen space, with search automatically focused, so you can type without even looking at the menu, or if you do not know what you want to start, there are categories. Unity and KDE's hot corner (by default) are bad, they move the apps you are using and use the *entire* screen space to give you ability to launch an app. Launching an app is like walking to the toilet - it is activity, but you do not have to think about it, it is not the final goal, you do not need to have your entire attention on it. And PC is not a phone, there is plenty of screen space to work with, you do not have to have a single task taking the entire screen.
As you can guess I do not like adwaita minimization of the window decorations. We have plenty of screen space, even when most of the title bar is empty, it is not bad. You have all window functionalities in one click. I do not get why they have to stuff controls into the titlebar. It made perfect sense in early 2000s when our resolution was 800x600 - saving space for more of the app is worth it. But today with 4k resolution, making what was one click or drag functionality of the window decorations to save workspace does not make any sense nowadays.
But as you said - UX is subjective - and that's where linux shines. You can choose any starting UX on Xfce4, KDE, Cinnamon, Unity, Gnome, etc, and in a day or so, you can modify it to look how you want it to look, whatever menu and launchers you desire and whatever keyboard shortcut you want. On Windows it is possible, but it will require much more third party tools, more expert knowledge, etc. If you are simple user, you just do not modify the UI, you use whatever MS provides and get used to it. This is the most negative thing I see about windows - users getting used to the defaults and never touching anything they are not sure what it does.
I'm not a fan of many things about Windows, but I do appreciate the Windows UI design. I use XFCE because it closely resembles the classic Windows appearance. With Windows, you have a nice GUI tool for everything, whereas on Linux, you have to type everything as if you're on a Commodore 64.
Depends on what you're trying to do, even on Windows you need to bring up CMD or PowerShell to make some changes
The Start menu feels way less efficient than using a keyboard activated launcher. Maybe itâs good for newbs, but there is still a lot of cognitive load in parsing all the options. Good video.
Since win7 and vista you have had the option to type into the menu to get to where you want. Before that you had arrow keys to navigate with, so this doesn't quite hold up as well as you think.
@@TheExileFox sure! But the search results have usually been âmehâ. A search for Photoshop requires that I type the whole word in. Smart search functionality is lacking, imho.
@@KrishnaDraws I don't know in Windows, but with KDE most surely not. Open the menu, and start typing - it will auto complete after the first letter. Not to mention that if You type outside any text box, it will do the same.
I dunno, for the seldom used applications, the menu provides a way where I can easily look for them (when using the GUI); for my more frequently used ones I have shortcuts set up.
In regards to manually installing apps in Linux, as a novice I notice that apps in the app stores/package managers are quite often not kept up to date or are maintained unofficially by 3rd parties which brings into question the quality of the package, or are a version or 2 behind for ages whereas the version on the website is fully up to date. This is why I still try to download the latest versions from websites directly whenever I've tried Linux in the past.
The start menu was fixed by metro tiles and becoming resizable. The reason it doesnât cover the whole screen is so that itâs easy to exit. True power users just create keyboard shortcuts for apps, which is a step down the window manager path of using oneâs computer.
While GNOME is more visually cohesive, some usability features are locked behind custom themes. For example, you need a theme if you want to move the titlebar buttons to the other side of the window, resize a buttonâs hitbox so that it extends all the way to the corner of the window, or just use a dark theme thatâs easy on the eyes. GTK has some very annoying faults, and the GNOME developers donât seem to care because those things donât factor into the design of the GNOME desktop. GTK is more than just GNOME, and its lack of flexibility without total theming matters in other desktops. Also, even if we had the perfect toolkit and associated desktop, there will always be apps that people use which use their own designs. Steam is one such program.
Aside from those two points, I think this video is very much on-point. Finding all of oneâs data on a Windows is a real bear, and I think itâs something many former Windows users (now Linux users) can attest to.
It's amazing how GNOME users think it's much more efficient to have a crapload of icons covering your screen almost entirely and then scrolling through pages and pages of icons looking to find the one icon you want, instead of having a taskbar on the side or bottom of the screen with a few icons that you use more often. and launch the programs you need more quickly and, yes, more than one at a time. I don't doubt that windows has it's problems, bu GNOME is not necessarily the answer.
Good point about the Start menu, though I like it. I must now see if there's a way to make the Cinnamon Start menu occupy more of the screen; the classification of apps it has I find useful.
Your concern about consistent app UIs maybe comes from your being a design professional? A case for differences is that different apps do different things, and maybe some divergences are good for app-specific memory. But certainly there's no reason why the user has to guess whether it's Preferences or Settings or Options that they want, and whether it's on the File menu, or Tools, or somewhere else.
There is a semblance of organization to the app list in the Windows Start Menu. It's supposed to be alphabetical. However, sometimes it's a guessing game whether it's just the name of the app, if the publisher put their name first (I always go looking for "Chrome" and it's under "Google Chrome") or if the installer made a folder with the name of the publisher (Adobe) or the name of the suite (LibreOffice). Also I grant that alphabetical isn't a very efficient way to find things next to grouping by type, but it's a starting point for finding what you're looking for.
And I think you can create your own folders by messing around with the Start Menu folder in the file explorer, but that's not intuitive or widely used.
Nick, you are correct about the muscle memory of users of windows who are still in the Microsoft ecosystem. I believe the whole concept of the menu system in Microsoft Windows is to consume time. Although the app launch process is just familiar to people, it is carried over to Linux and it just works for many new users who are making the transition from MSW. I can only echo the superiority of gnome 40+ over the "old" menu structure. Since I made the switch to Linux in 2008 it's been a roller coaster of changes. it's only been improving, getting so much faster and I spend less time sitting at a desk. furthermore, because I can get things needed to be done at my workstation faster, I have more time to focus on my physical health. I love Linux. There is no way I would ever install MSW again on any computer, in fact, I haven't since 2006. Enduring UI crashes and lost data enough for a good year and a half, the obvious choice was RHEL. Now I use Fedora Linux because it is even faster.
I like the files being in one place makes it easier to find. Been running arch for a while now and do all the updates when they pop up and my exp has been rock solid. I thought using an nvidia gfx card would hurt stability considering support is relatively new but I have had no problems.
I run manjaro, and besides some hardware compatibility I forget that I have updates, I get a notification, click install enter password and it's done. Now I'm excited to get next kerenl version instead of dreading will windows update mismatch my drivers or something.
My Linux journey has been Manjaro, Mabox, then Arch. I installed my current Arch system 11 months ago and I've had an excellent experience despite knowing nothing about the Linux file system or really anything other than pacman/yay and pamac. I have yet to touch fedora or any debian derivative.
When WIndows 8 introduced the full screen laucher, most people hated it. I personally hated it because it took a few seconds to open up and show useless stuff, then I started looking for the app I needed. Then when I clicked it, it took a couple seconds for the launcher to refresh to the desktop, then it started the app flash screen. It was necessarily slow and cumbersome.
Another thing with updates is how distros are moving to the Windows method of rebooting to apply updates, which takes way longer than installing updates and THEN rebooting.
I'm sure it reduces problems (for one thing, WINE applications behave oddly if you update the libraries with the application still open, though just closing and reopening fixes it) but I absolutely hate it. I have far more problems with updates using the Fedora default method, vs just doing a dnf update and rebooting when I'm ready. It also doesn't seem to offer major OS revision updates from what I've seen which is really bad.
It doesn't matter how pretty your linux desktop is at the end of the day if there is no across the board compatibility. You can't even get some apps to work on the same kernel on different distros. Maybe it would be better to push devs to solve the compatibility issue than it would be to be upset about subjective design influences. Since that is what effects the market share the most. At least that is what I hear daily when I suggest linux to others. They do not talk about the interface, they complain about not wanting to live in fear of a simple update destroying their app compatibility.
Would you expect to run a mac program windows? An Android app on iOS? Why should Linux run Windows apps?
And Linux apps run across all distros no issues
@@TheLinuxEXP what he was saying was that in 79% of the market (windows) you develop one version of an app and it works. In Linux, the same version number of an app might or might not work depending on kernel, dependencies or even packaging method. IF you package and distriute via flathub, you just created a pain point for yubuntu users... that is 30% of the 5% of the Linux market.
In regards to the start menu: you said it best that UI/UX is subjective. As someone who's first modern computer was windows 8 back in 2013 and prior computers I had were XP laptops as hand me downs, I find that start menus/launchers akin to Windows 8 feels like I'm using an iPad without a touch screen. I don't inherently think that the start screen/full screen launcher approach is bad, but really only works on a touch screen interface. When I briefly used macOS, I never used the launcher, but rather launched programs from ~/Applications or through Spotlight. The full screen launcher that Gnome has is the main reason why I don't use Gnome. That being said, I cannot speak as to how much better a full screen launcher would work with a touch screen as I have yet to get a computer with a touch screen, I've always used a keyboard and mouse/trackpad. That's just my two cents though.
8:31 Yes! I was so happy when I worked out how to overwrite the theme of libadwaita with something I actually wanted.
Nice video! But quick warning: I have heard that Grub Customizer (which you opened at 5:08 ) is potentially dangerous and could mess up your grub.