When Linux desktop adoption is discussed, some point out the lack of graphical user interfaces (GUI) and the necessity of using command-line interface (CLI) tools or editing text files as a reason more people don’t use Linux-based systems. Such characterisation misses how much Linux has changed. The notion that the terminal is a major barrier is outdated and ignores the fact that most users never need to touch it. An assertion that users should not need the terminal for common tasks is different from a claim Linux distributions lack GUIs.
The Good
First, let’s recognise how Linux has improved. In the ’90s and ’00s one had to manually edit cryptic modelines to get their display working. A mistake could lead to a damaged monitor. Nowadays, the main complication is picking a distribution which includes Nvidia drivers.
And that’s not the only thing that has changed. Installing software often required interacting with the CLI; now graphical software managers — which work not unlike app stores many users are familiar with — are common. Handling WiFi used to require messing with wpa_supplicant; now it’s done through an icon in the system tray.
The Bad
While Linux has made huge strides in user-friendliness, some issues remain. In particular, Linux challenge videos — where people with little Linux desktop experience try to use it as their primary system — showcase difficulties new GNU/Linux users face.1
Certain problems can be attributed to uncooperative or even hostile hardware manufacturers; many boil down to a lack of software polish.2 For example, Michael Horn explains KDE’s network drive handling which may confuse new users. Crucially, the issues don’t stem from lack of graphical interfaces. Rather, they come from underlying bugs and those interfaces incorrectly handling corner cases. Graphical wizards for mounting network shares exist, but differences in philosophy lead to unfamiliar behaviour. Another example is the infamous situation of Linus Sebastian breaking his Pop!_OS installation which was caused by a mistake in Pop!_OS packaging rather than lack of a GUI.
The Overcorrection
Meanwhile, the argument for user-friendliness can be stretched too far. Case in point, reacting to Linus Tech Tips’ Linux challenge, Gardiner Bryant criticised GNOME Disks, a tool for disk partitioning. At this point, one should ask: are we still talking about typical users? Non-technical people who use their computers for entertainment and to do their jobs? For most desktop users, disk partitioning tools occupy a very low-priority corner of the UX landscape.
Let’s gain some perspective and look at experiences of average Windows users. Some years ago, my friend’s Bluetooth headphones stopped connecting to their laptop. I came to help and navigated through relatively intuitive Windows GUI to fix the issue. The solution was trivial: to unpair and pair the headphones again. More recently, I helped troubleshoot a lack of Internet access. I went through the Windows GUI to identify the problem: the DNS servers had been configured with static IP addresses. The solution was again simple: use configuration provided through DHCP, although required familiarity with network protocols.
Most users won’t attempt to troubleshoot computer problems. Even if the solution is trivial, they’ll end up asking others for help.3 And among the minority who try, a substantial part will lack necessary knowledge to make sense of what they are looking at. Not every tool needs to be designed around the average user because many tasks are ones the average user will never perform. Those operations requiring the terminal don’t make Linux ‘scary’ as some people suggest.
Let’s also keep in mind that looking at simplicity and user-friendliness of a system, Windows doesn’t pass with flying colours either. Microsoft dragged their system through a few redesigns leaving a complete mess behind. Addressing the aforementioned DNS issue, I spent most of my time figuring out where the DHCP configuration is and in doing so went through several different interfaces taking me backwards through the evolution of Windows design.
Summary
None of it is to discourage development of more graphical tools. After all, even though I’m perfectly capable of using gdisk to partition my drives, I don’t deny that GParted is sometimes more convenient.
Rather I’m arguing Linux’s remaining adoption barriers are problems of refinement rather than missing GUIs. The scope of existing graphical tools is largely sufficient for the needs of regular desktop users. Although, such tools may be lacking is polish, handling of corner-cases and user experience research.
Focusing exclusively on tasks that still require the terminal or editing text files can create a misleading picture of modern Linux desktops. It keeps alive the long-untrue stereotype. In reality, there are many non-technical people who use GNU/Linux successfully.
1 The challenge has been taken by several content creators. Such as PewDiePie, Switch and Click, foci’s girlfriend and, last but not least, Linus Tech Tips. For the latter, I’ve particularly enjoyed Michael Tunnel reaction videos since he adds a lot of context and explanation to encountered issues (part 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1 and 2.2). ↩
2 I do not assign blame here. A lot of free software is developed by volunteers and it’s unfair to expect them to cater to every user or be user experience experts. I’m merely describing the state of Linux desktop. ↩
3 There is a reason why ‘have you tried turning it off and on again’ has become a running joke within IT departments all around the world. ↩