Hacker News Reader

Comment by bad_user | Hacker News Reader

     All of Linux's problems on the desktop aren't really 
     problems with Linux.

Errr, what?

View on HN

He's referring to the finger pointing / blame shifting that seems to happen whenever someone starts criticizing desktop Linux. Any time this comes up people pop out of the woodwork to give the solutions, sometimes of staggering complexity, to the specific user experience problems cited.

The reality is that Linux-the-umbrella will be judged by any specific distro's user experience. People more familiar with the situation will know that in many cases bad experiences are caused by choices specific to distros or even the packages they bundle, but the true average user's perception is not that nuanced.

The same argument largely works for Android. In some ways worse because there is a certification process that allows you to use the Android name, but does very little to ensure someone didn't wreck the user experience with their customizations.

In some ways worse because there is a certification process that allows you to use the Android name, but does very little to ensure someone didn't wreck the user experience with their customizations.

In other words, "Hey, let's make it somewhat exclusive to use our brand, but do nothing to ensure quality from the end-user's perspective!" All the disadvantages of exclusivity, with none of the advantages.

What he's saying is that all of Linux's problems are with the kernel and surrounding low level code (which is quite stable, performs well, etc.), but with the integration, support and design of the distributions laid on top of them.

For example Ubuntu has made great strides in this regard, but some would say the continual, sometimes drastic changes in the shipped apps and modifications of the interface make it hard for users.

I actually think he is being facetious. It may be true to say "it's not android", but as far as they end-user is concerned it _is_ android. It's got the logos, came with an android sticker on the box. For that user, when it comes to purchase or recommend another phone, will they make the same distinction or will their previous android experience influence their choice?

It's more of a statement about the culture and expectations growing up around Android, than about Android the technical artifact.

The technophiles are right about the point they make about the latter, but it's the former that will make or break it in the marketplace.

I think he's saying that people can redefine a problem so that it's no longer their problem. Defining the problem out, rather than actually addressing it.

In this case, instead of addressing (usability?) issues, the perceived problem, rather than being addressed head on, is redefined as being at the feet of the user, thus transferring responsibility and absolving oneself. (I.e "It works for me"!)

I think that's what they were saying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com