Have you ever considered that there's a huge amount of users that don't care about "graphics programming and usable UI/UX tooling"? Maybe Linux on the desktop doesn't suit your individual needs, but you seem awfully combative about it on the basis of your specific niche.
> "Maybe Linux on the desktop doesn't suit your individual needs, but you seem awfully combative about it on the basis of your specific niche."
I see your point. Devils advocate: we're each the center of our own universe, so whatever it is we find important is the marker for usability for us.
Ideally an OS should have tools for everything. Though I'm not certain if "Graphics Programming" means like GUI in C++ (pjmlp often talks about C++ Builder and C++/CX, so I believe he means that kind) or programming GPU's via CUDA. I don't think it's the second one -- Linux is much easier for GPU stuff (IE most ML projects/tutorials are only set up for Ubuntu) than Win.
I imagine the argument stems from a lack of Visual Studio equivalent on Linux. It looks like the only version that runs properly on Linux is VS 2005 -- LOL!
VS on Linux would indeed be great. I had to make a Win10 VM the other day to compile a C# WinForms project that I could run fine in Wine but couldn't modify. Similar deal with reverse engineering, Cheat Engine runs surprisingly well in Wine but none of the Mono stuff works.
I do think it's a little reductive to discuss Linux struggling with things like Visual Studio that are only relevant because Windows is relevant, but that is our unfortunate reality.
> Have you ever considered that there's a huge amount of users that don't care about "graphics programming and usable UI/UX tooling"?
Have you ever considered that this "huge amount of users" might not care about graphics programming or usable UI/UX tooling, but that >99% of them sure care about either graphics (games, photos, video, digital painting, ...) or usable UIs and UX?
I'm using Linux all the time, and it's quite amazing how terrible anything Desktop related is. Who is going to fix that if the state of graphics and UI/UX tooling is so poor that it either drives away or stymies all the people with relevant skills to drive some improvements?
I'm not saying those things aren't important, but they don't warrant the outright dismissal that I was replying to.
Linux has an obvious lack of contribution from designers, designers are employed for products, noone is making money selling desktop Linux as a product. Also, most designers aren't tinkering with open source software alternatives in their free time like developers do.
I also feel like I'm missing something because my experience on desktop Linux is way better than anything I've ever had on Windows or Mac, meanwhile everyone's saying it's unusable. Can't be easy for the handful of people working on desktop environments and the like.
Honestly, I think the entire situation where we have multiple DEs/toolkits/video drivers/window managers/input methods is unmaintanable. It would be likely unmaintanable even for a well-funded corporation.
If there was a well-funded corporation, they would naturally focus on their stack of choice. I think that's what Red Hat does, focusing most of their desktop stuff on GNOME.
Some Linux Desktop are loudly combative about how great Linux Desktop is and seem to consider it some kind of failing if someone else doesn't agree. It's always "you chose the wrong distro!"[0] or "you have to be more picky with hardware!"[1], or even "it works for me, so you must be lying!". I imagine decades of experience with that person on internet forums is what has shaped parent's combativeness.
I know what you mean, but in this instance the complaint is poor UI/graphics while the distro in question is using a very cut-down desktop environment (running in a VM).
