I have some thoughts on the future of on non-mobile devices and the role that can play.

1. It seems that all proprietary software companies are de-prioritising their desktop OSes, in terms of focus and resources. Microsoft is doing weird tablet hybridisation and Apple is just porting iOS junk back from the iPad.

This creates a vacuum, as there is no modern desktop UI. Nothing's been done since roughly OS X. It's been 18 years. More than my whole adult life.

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.

@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, developer.apple.com/documentat - Linux does have most of it, but not nicely documented or unified.

@MatejLach @albin There's certainly all the libraries you could need though, so really it's just a matter of bundling those together into useful groups.

@alcinnz @albin

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.

@xj9 @MatejLach @albin @alcinnz Also, sort of subjective, but Python 3 (at least to my eye) seems to have grown many times more complicated and less approachable then Python 2 and I think that Go comes closer to capturing the 'feel' of Python 2 then Python 3 does.

@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.

@albin To be fair, it's been a decade since I've worked with either, but I remember removing the functional bits was kind of irritating and some of the other syntactical stuff tripped me up. That being said, UTF-8 is the logical choice and I'm glad Python developed in that direction, even if it did take a breaking language change to do it

@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

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Scholar Social

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!