You're viewing a single thread.
A true mainstream Linux distro would need guidelines like this:
- The user is never be expected to type a command into a terminal.
- The user is never be expected to edit a configuration file.
- There is a graphical UI for every possible action the user might want to (or have to) do.
This especially includes:
- Configuring audio devices
- Installing graphics drivers
- Updating the operating system
- Managing applications and storage space
- Connecting to networked storage
- Adjusting kernel parameters (This is neccessary on certain hardware, yet, barely any distro has a graphical UI for it.)
The only distro that comes close to this is Linux Mint, but not even Mint covers everything I just mentioned.
If we want Linux to succeed, there needs to be at least one distro that confidently ships without a terminal.
There can never be a distro that ships without a terminal. I will burn it with the fire of a thousand suns. Even Windows has a terminal
Windows doesn't even cover everything you just said. The number of times Windows 10 broke my Bluetooth devices and I had to much around in registry to remove the device profile just to try to repair the device, is part of the reason I switched to Linux in the first place.
Yes, many distros need a little refining and smoothing for the general public, but only because people are so used to dealing with bullshit troubleshooting on Windows that they don't see it as bullshit anymore.
That’s a low bar, but importantly they’re still correct that technically Windows looks like it can handle those things as far as a regular consumer can see. Windows is unholy trash, but it at least doesn’t tell people who can’t even navigate their basic file explorer that they are expected to use scary terminal commands they likely found on a forum or third-party website.
Personally I think a little more tinkering spirit would do the whole world good, not just with computers, but reality is the way that it is for the moment(things can change, fingers crossed).
but at least people who can't even navigate their basic file explorer that they are expected to use scary terminal commands.
This! I work in IT, in fact, I'm the director of both the IT and software teams at my company and I am constantly teaching my new techs and reminding my existing techs that they need to remember just how little the "average" person knows about computers, and how much more that is than what they'd actually care to learn.
99% of people don't care about computers, or how to make things "more efficient", or anything else. They just care about the easiest way to do something. And like it or not, the easiest way for the vast majority of people is through a GUI.
There is even an XKCD about this
And that's even before you get to the security problems! I am constantly trying to prevent users from going to FreeNuclearCodes.com or sending passwords and social security numbers to i7716tvq_88@gmail.com (actual email address I had to block last week)
You were absolutely right about everything up until your very last sentence.
We need a distro that comes with GUIs for everything indeed, but shipping without a terminal would be both a bad idea and would cause the distro maintainer to go up in flames immediately.
Interesting, i kinda read that quickly and took awsay from it more of a
Ships without the expectation to need a terminal, not actually ship without one at all
The reason I had no problem whatsoever editing config files is because I'd been doing it for decades already in Windows with .ini files.
And not needing a terminal is different than not having access to one. Windows has a terminal.
I think it even ships with 3(?) terminals for some reason now for some reason lol
Seriously - Linux needs a standardized config schema spec. Something that programs should provide which an application can read and provide a frontend interface for the users to adjust config files.
Could be something like:
schema_version: 1.0 application: name: Poo Analyzer icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/icon.png description: Analyzes photos of poo schema: - config_file: path: /etc/pooanalyzer/conf/poo.conf conf_type: ini configs: - field: poo_directory type: dir_path name: Poo Image Directory description: Directory of Poo Images icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/poo.png - field: poo_type type: list name: Poo Types description: Types of Poo to Analyze values: - dog - cat - human - brown bear icon_path: /etc/pooanalyzer/images/animal.png ...Any distro could then create any frontend they'd like to manage this - the user could even install their own.
I agree and disagree.
The premise is solid: unify config so it's standardized and machine parse-able for better integrations like an easier-to-build UI/UX. It could even have ramifications for cloud-init and older IaC tech like Puppet.
The problem is Linux itself. Or rather, the subsystems that are cobbled together to make Linux a viable OS. You're not going to get all the different projects to pivot to a common config scheme, so this YAML standard would need a backend to convert to/from whatever each little deamon and driver requires. This creates a few secondary problems like community backlash (see systemd), and having multiple places where config data must be actively synchronized.
I think the current crop of GUI config systems are aleady well down the most pragmatic path: each config panel touches one or more standard config files, wherever they are, and however they are structured. It's not pretty under the hood, and it's complicated, but it works. These tools just need a lot more polish on the frontend.
They could still use whatever config format they wanted - this would just be for providing their config schema. It also doesn't need to be YAML, that's just the easiest one for me to type on my phone. In fact, I think most schema validation programs rely on JSON as it is.
I also don't think programs should be required to provide it. Many core programs and kernel modules would likely take years if they ever were able to add it just to avoid the risk of mistakes causing any major issues, especially if they haven't needed an update in years. There are also many config files that use their own nonstandardized schema. A possibility is that they could be allowed to provide a CLI tool which could update the config or they could just ignore it entirely.
But creating a common schema for... well, the config schema would make it easier for systems to provide a frontend interface for updating your configs.
This particular program would work great in combination with old school German/Dutch toilets with the poop shelf, take a pic after the deed and let the program tell you how you need to adjust your diet.
Ever heard of xdg?
Been using fedora on a laptop for a year with no command line intervention.
I don't mind the command line, but it has been uneccesary.
OpenSuse does all of this or almost all of this.
Every KDE distro can do all of these except whatever adjusting kernel parameters means? I don't know how to do any of this in the command and I've been using Linux for 8 years.
No pc OS available meets your requirements for this lol, not linux, windowns or crapple osx
Sure would be nice if linux was the first available though.
They don't need to take away the command line. Just to make it so a low skill user can get by without it. Even windows ships with PowerShell.
I've been a happy daily linux user for over 20 years. No need to wait for "linux to succeed" whatever that means. It has gotten better and more advanced every year since I first switched.
I dont understand, why do we want Linux to go mainstream? Eveyone constantly says it yet nobody has an answer. In order to become mainstream it would need to be so dumbed down that people like me would stop using it.