@7even i think there are some distros that have very pretty desktops but graphic design is not the end all of design otherwise i'd use os x mountain lion exclusively. UX, usability, discoverability, etc.
as for design v development - that's not an unfair position to say they're the same, but i'm talking about "planning what the software is" vs "planning how it is implemented".
@7even don norman - an old timer unix nerd himself, and former bigwig apple designer - wrote the bok on being frustrated with unix's design... literally. i just found out today and was surprised because i'd been wondering what he'd say about all this. (it's called the unix hater's handbook)
small illogical things add up. why the hell are commands given names like grep and awk? how about package management before things like apt-get?
@7even if your response is, in essence, "linux on the desktop doesn't *need* to be A Thing", then i can't really argue with that (although i still won't call vim or bash Well Designed just because they offer a lot of power). that mainly means you aren't really who i was addressing.
also, i just plain don't think dpkg is as good as apt-get.
@7even whether something is "A Thing" or not is much the same as whether or not fetch happens in mean girls. like, bing is real, people use it, but is "binging" a thing? is bing A Thing? no.
my argument is absolutely not "if it's well designed, it must be popular", nor did i ever argue anything *close* to that. if it's poorly designed, it will be *harder* for it to become popular, regardless of how much that didn't stop, say, ie6.
@7even sublime text is just better designed software than vim - and i'm confident in saying that not just because of "people who are used to regular desktops can get it easily" (read: most of the planet), but because even experienced unix/vim users can get frustrated and annoyed with its more obscure choices, with things like vimscript, etc. design is not just graphic design. user experience is not just how pretty the file menu is.
@7even users fundamentally don't want to think about how to use the software to make it do what they want. sometimes, that's unavoidable (shell scripts are exhibit a) - and the users willing to learn those kinds of things are willing to accept that. sometimes it's *entirely* avoidable, like GIMP vs photoshop.
@7even to add - i don't think windows is well designed either. i think a lot of things about it are *very* unintuitive to people new to computing. that's why my mum is committed to macOS now. the attention apple pays to design is the sole reason it has its niche in the desktop market
@angel what do you mean by "a thing". There are plenty of definitions by which it definitely is a thing.
That said, I'm pretty sure what you're getting at: a standard environment "everybody" are using.
I don't think that'll ever be a thing. I think the use of desktop computers will go back to what it was in the 80's (only professionals used them) and most people will be using mobile operating systems.
The biggest one of those happens to be Linux, so it's already a thing?
@loke it's hard to define "A Thing" but it's telling that most major commercial software straight up doesn't bother to release versions for linux systems (and given distro incompatibilities, who can blame 'em)?.
that said, a good metric for whether desktop linux is a Thing or not is simple - how many non experts do you know who know about it for reasons outside of say, xkcd, who want it?
@loke mac has 8 percent market share in the desktop scene. if linux can manage 5, including being consistently sold as an onboard operating system outside of specialized sellers and Dell's US only scheme without being dropped for being unprofitable by Asus, then i think it's fair to say desktop linux is getting somewhere, but still not a Thing(TM).