2. There will be very little financial incentive to fill this vacuum. Desktop OS:es only sell to the enterprise, which has different requirements, and Microsoft has that market cornered anyway.
No-one who is making software purely for money would be able to do this. Well, we, the FLOSS community, aren't, and so we can.
3. In order to do this, we need to experiment. A lot. And most of these experiments will probably fail.
For that to happen, the cost of development in terms of time and cognitive load must go down. Much like Rust seems to have enabled a wave of new command-line tools that are faster and much less boring than the traditional Unix tools. Making a GUI app must be roughly as complicated as making a CLI app.
4. This requires languages AND frameworks. The languages need to remove the incidental complexity in dealing with the concurrent situation that is a modern UX app. The frameworks need to encapsulate common patterns and remove boilerplate.
The languages are mostly there, I would argue, and the patterns are somewhat implemented (functional reactive programming, Excel, etc), but the frameworks are not just a little behind.
5. We also need to train FLOSS people in design AND recruit design-oriented people who may or may not code. This might also entail developing our tools for communication and infrastructure to also capture common workflows in design. I don't know, I'm not a designer.
6. Finally, we need to constantly look for the future. According to the cyberpunk theorem, that the future is here but just unevenly distributed, we can find and accelerate parts of the future we want and decelerate those we want to avoid.
7-ish. I think one of the important value propositions of good FLOSS is precisely that it isn’t market-oriented. It can target segments that are not profitable, but more importantly it can offer software as democratic participation, or, if you can bear the Marxism, non-alienated computing. Doesn’t mean it always does, but it can, and should.
It’s one of the few cases where @doctorow’s Walkaway principle, which only works in the presence of abundance, probably works for real.
@doctorow It doesn't have to be market-oriented, but still product-oriented. As in: the whole package of functionality, design, quality assurance, documentation, user support, release planning, community management and public communication has to be consistent and clear. The best FOSS projects are run like commercial products. But most aren't.
@Sturmflut I didn’t see this at first but I think I, am avid Marxist, would agree. The core difference I see is in participation and influence.
@albin Agreed. We do experiment a bit, i.e. GNOME 3, but then that generates a lot of heated discussions etc.
I think we have fairly decent desktop UIs now. They should keep evolving for sure, but what we should focus most of our energy on is a Mac like developer experience for desktop aps, i.e. developing an unified set of APIs with lots of complex functionality prepared as part of a SDK for developers to tap into. On Mac, there's AppKit, which is why all the independent desktop apps are Mac.
@MatejLach I have tried app development on the Mac and found it unbearable, but I agree, sort of. It’s a trade-off between exploring new things and improving the ones we have, but I don’t think they are in fundamental conflict.
@albin Agreed. I tried it too and didn't like it, but that's mostly because there's a lot of legacy stuff back from NEXTStep days, (a lot of APIs are even still named NS), which is not idiomatically integrated with Swift as ObjC doesn't really fit that model. But that wooudn't really be a problem with Linux if said frameworks were build from scratch. The point is, bellow the cruft, Mac has the most complete set of APIs to tap into for desktop dev, (in terms of functionality, not elegance of use)
@albin The reason why the likes of Sketch, Scrivener etc. are on the Mac is because of all that ready-made functionality you can tap into, which there's no real equivalent on #Linux. #KDE's trying it a bit with their split into frameworks, but that's largely tied to C++ because of Qt a bit too strongly and also tends to be specific to the KDE ecosystem.
If you look at all the functionality here, https://developer.apple.com/documentation - Linux does have most of it, but not nicely documented or unified.
@MatejLach I’m looking for things like even just a widget gallery online and how to do very common patterns (a list with things populated from whatever standard data store you have).
I think C and C++ are both too weak and too verbose for GUI programming. Neither have language constructs for dealing with concurrent programming, and extensions are often very clunky. Vala might work, I don’t know.
Yep. It might be as easy as making a simple 'orientation index' of what's available, because a lot of devs coming from integrated experiences like on the Mac are simply not sure where to look for the stuff they'd expect when developing for Linux.
I also happen to think we need a secondary choice/alternative to program in - something a bit more accessible to people than C/C++.
Qt now has official Python bindings so I think it would be useful for KDE to adopt it as well.
That said Rust won't be a simple transition and I'm sure it'll take a while, it's interpretation is a fair bit different from what they based their APIs on. Until then I may continue to see Vala as the best choice for developing GTK apps.
I think they've invested too heavily at this point in GObject to simply entirely drop it, it's far more than a OO system at this point. I think what they're going to do is to have wrappers around it that hopefully make it a more pleasant experience to write and maybe build Rust-native parts for the new libs etc. that will feel even more idiomatic.
As far as I understand it, some GNOME folks ( @federicomena, @slomo, @alatiera, ...) are interested in Rust, use it in some projects (librsvg, GStreamer plugins) and are working on ways to use GObject-based libraries *from* Rust (gtk-rs) & write GObject-based libraries *in* Rust (gnome-class); and that's it.
@albin it's not a GNOME-wide official decision or anything like that.
A lot of people in the GNOME community are experimenting with Rust, and writing platform libraries and applications with it.
There is even some collaboration between those GNOME developers and the Rust community, in the form of hackfests gathering the two.
@devilish I always felt 3 addressed some mistakes in 2 (mainly Unicode), is there anything in particular you have a problem with? The things I would like to fix in python these days is mainly packaging and tooling (virtual environments), and the boilerplate needed for async.
@devilish most of the functional stuff is still there in various modules, but generally discarded in favour of list comprehensions, but I see your point
I'd prefer a statically typed language that simply compiles to a native binary, the reason I said Python is because that's the only thing Qt officially supports besides C++, making any other language rely on 3rd party libraries, which are not going to be as well supported as the official bindings by their very nature.
@MatejLach @alcinnz @albin https://developer.gnome.org/platform-overview/unstable/index.html.en is Gnome's index to the garden of delights.
@bugaevc @MatejLach I have only ever tried swift, but I dislike Xcode (and all IDEs), and I couldn’t find documentation for anything, including things like basic project structure and what even the basic code temples do, and there was a horrendous amount of boilerplate code and incidental complexity
Swift was created because ObjC is showing its age, rather crufty and it's not that pleasant on the eyes either.
From my own experience, having tried it myself, Swift is actually rather nice to work with. The problem is that Swift, the language, is a small part of the picture.
Most of the time, you'll spend time with Mac's frameworks, which were not made for Swift's functional paradigm, they're still the same old ObjC, wrapped in extremely thin, unidiomatic Swift wrappers.
So you have this nice, modern language - Swift - but you rarely get to write it idiomatically or allow for its expressiveness to shine, because you're constrained by Cocoa/AppKit, which are very much 80s OO.
Then there's the whole thing about Apple having very deliberate patterns, which also don't mix well with Swift, that you need to follow, Xcode constantly loosing syntax highlighting & requiring you to fiddle with settings that are hard to find, Storyboards being a mess...
@trwnh I think from my perspective (that is, the overarching project I described) Gnome is really at least two projects; one of them is the construction of infrastructure for making a DE/GUI apps, and one is making a DE/a number of GUI apps, which is (and must be) opinionated.
@mathieu I saw, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Do you also work with the KDE people on this, or do they have their own version?
@albin KDE is working on Flatpak as well: they have their own runtime to build/run their applications, and their "software center" (iirc it's called Discover) can install/update/remove Flatpak apps.
I have no idea what else they are doing, you'll have to ask them. 🙂
@albin In my experience, those who identify as designers (as opposed to developers) tend to be much less interested in contributing to posterity (e.g. FOSS) because they're used to all their tools being proprietary, and most are taught that only the proprietary tools are good enough (I ran a web dev company for 14 years using only FOSS design tools, so I know that's a false impression)... but I agree, we need to find designers who "get" open and FOSS.
@albin but therein lies the problem: GUI design is an order of magnitude more complex than CLI design.
and GUI programming, to me, isn't just more complex, it simply seems more complicated.
@hirojin Yes, I think I agree to this, but a lot of that I think can be alleviated by canning patterns so that one person at one point figured out a good widget to capture a sortable list of things and I as a programmer can just decant it and try it out in my application
@hirojin Like, any programming typically stands on an inordinately complex tower of language design, compiler infrastructure, etc, and I don't see why we can't capture design in the same way we capture other complexity
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!