this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
45 points (83.6% liked)
Linux
8292 readers
459 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
These are probably the biggest reasons, but I think even after literally decades of development the actual desktop is still far behind Windows XP in many respects.
For example today I wanted to add a "start menu" shortcut to a program I had downloaded. The most popular answer is to *manually create a
.desktopfile and copy it to some obscure dot directory! Hilarious. Even Windows 3.1 had a built-in GUI for this.Ok so there is a GUI to do it, but it isn't actually integrated into desktops and isn't installed by default. You have to install it separately.
It's the same for things like WiFi settings! There are some settings in GNOME but most are hidden in the third party
nm-connection-editor(from memory) and of course GNOME doesn't have an "advanced settings" button to open that.There are so many of these paper cuts I think Linux would be quite a frustrating experience for many people even if if had Windows-level hardware support.
I also can't see this changing any time soon. Not that many Linux devs actually care about this sort of thing and many of them don't even understand that it is a problem in the first place. Cue replies.
I've never needed to manually create a start menu entry. I install everything through the default repository or as a flatpak using the default software manager. I did have to manually enable flatpaks in the software manager (point for OP, admittedly).
Everything I've ever installed, including AppImages from time to time, always gets a start menu entry.
Good for you I guess?
No, bad for you for asserting that your experience was universal, and then getting grumpy when someone disagreed and cited their own experience as being different.
No, I said that some important features don't exist. They said "well I don't use them", as if that somehow negated the point that they don't exist. It's typical "works for me" nonsense. You get these replies whenever anyone says anything is suboptimal about Linux. It's so tedious.
Incorrect. You did not just say that some things were "suboptimal" about Linux; your thrust was that Linux offers a "frustrating experience" overall compared to Windows as a result of all of these supposed "paper cuts":