I have never heard anybody say Linux doesn't look sexy. Remember when we were comparing Compiz to Windows XP, or Enlightenment to Windows 2000? Ubuntu is one of the few OSs that can pull a black theme.

Linux problems include:

1. Hardware compatibility

2. Office compatibility (also Adobe + games)

3. Easy to mess up your system with no hope of fixing it

I don't see how any of these address the problems with Linux.

I run Gentoo with XFCE as my main OS, SUSE at work, and Windows to make presentations.

Fun things to do include: tight WINE integration, better genkernel, modular configuration structure so that it is harder to mess up and easier to restore.

Compiz is sexy, with it's sexy animations, and it's sexy rotations, and I still couldn't get it as usable as I had windows be. That's the point. Sexy is secondary to utility. They appear to be basically trying to copy the good parts of OSX.

Which "good parts", exactly, are you talking about? There's a lot of talk of elementary copying OSX, but much of the video is default functionality of GNOME/Compiz -- no one is specifying _exactly_ what is being copied. The only major difference is a grey theme, which is probably triggering the whole OSX copy nonsense.

In fact, the video (and Luna) uses neither GNOME nor compiz. We use our own window manager called "Gala"[1] (it is based on the same library that gnome's is) in our own desktop environment called "Pantheon"[2].

[1] http://elementaryos.org/journal/meet-gala-window-manager

[2] (I couldn't find an elementary journal article explicitly about this, but here's one from the Gentoo wiki): http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Pantheon

> 3. Easy to mess up your system with no hope of fixing it

That's the main point of them making decisions for you. The more opinionated the software, the less decisions the user has to make, the harder it is to mess up the system.

Note that if they position this as competitor to OS X instead of Windows, then GNU/Linux and Elementary OS actually have better hardware compatibility (broadly) than OS X.

OS X & Linux are not direct competitors, they are in different market segments. Extensive hardware support is not that important to end users. The important thing is that the OS supports well the individual hardware you use.

Hardware support matters to end users in terms of portability of app data. If I use an app which is not ported to other platforms, I can't use my data in a new hardware, until the platform itself is ported.

If the data has an open format, then this problem is reduced, but many applications out there have a proprietary data format.

Hardware compatibility hasn't been an issue for me for years. Back in 2000? Yes, major issue.

#2 -- Specifically Adobe applications & Excel present big roadblocks from companies rolling over from Windows on OSX. Much of the other software that stopped companies in the past is now web browser based.

#3 -- Definitely an issue.

Isn't #3 largely attenuated by not giving users root? How do you mess up a system beyond the point of fixing it if you don't have root access?

I've seen many users who have (but shouldn't have) Administrator on their Windows boxes mess them up beyond fixing, usually because of malware.

Yes but users still need to install new software and make basic changes. The complaint, as I understand it, is that when breakage occurs, for whatever reason that may be, you pretty much get locked out of your system. Either you have a lot of work to do to repair the issue or you may just need to do a re-install.

I am far from a Linux/Unix expert, but I think this has to do with updates and dependencies. Using an Ubuntu LTS release along with not messing with any of the system settings seems to be fairly fool proof. Windows has its share of problems but the only complete failures I have experienced in two decades of use were hardware or malware related.

Is Open Office Impress really that unusable that you have to turn to Windows for presentations?

I can't help it, but this sounds like straight from 2001.

Never had any issues with the things you mentioned for the last 3 to 4 years.

"elementary OS sets out to settle the number one complaint casual users have of other Linux distributions: design."

In this regard Elementary seems to be part of a larger trend in the linux desktop world, rather than unique. GNOME 3 has been heavily influenced by designers, to the point where there's been developer backlash. [0] Canonical employs thirty people to work on the design of Ubuntu and their other products, and they're still hiring. [1]

[0] E.G. https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2012-Apri...

[1] http://design.canonical.com/team/

It's not just Linux, design is becoming really important in user tech. Google, Microsoft, etc have recognized the importance of design and are putting emphasis in it.

It's interesting that the features of this OS sound like the features of Gnome in the late 90s (we care about design, and we don't swamp the user with choices)... and Ubuntu a few years later. I truly wish this project the best but it will be an uphill battle when Apple revamps the look of OS X, and Elementary OS is left looking like a dated, less consistent version of someone else's system software. That sounds more cruel than I intended, but I don't see the future in slavishly copying OS X... even the Dock, the worst feature of OS X!

We came up with a lot of new stuff, we have tons of developers with brilliant ideas and innovation has always been present on elementary OS.

I'm pretty sure we'll keep innovating and I'm pretty sure OS X's updates won't contribute to our failure in any way possible.

Judging by the screen shots there's some talented people involved in the project, and probably a lot of care. On the other hand there's something broken with the decision making process when you wind up borrowing Apple's Dock[1][2].

[1] http://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html [2] http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/4q00/macosx-pb1/macos...

You can still describe Ubuntu and GNOME as "we care about design, and we don't swamp the user with choices."

for the linux user interface, I'd say copying is all good, but you can't always copy your competitor. it's better to invent new things and make your competitor copy you. then you've made it and have entered the competition.

this desktop seems good-looking and simple to use, I'll give it a try.

Sorry but the number one complaint about GNU/Linux is certainly that it doesn't run the same programs people are forced to use at work and at school or that their friends use (games maybe). The OS is not the issue, the compatible programs are. That said, improvements in the OS can't hurt. Elementary looks superb design-wise.

Does anybody else remember what people said about Eazel in 2000? Because what you are saying is giving me deja vu. If only some designers would come in and fix Linux, it'd be a smashing success, inevitably. Didn't work out so well for those guys.

I am no Ubuntu fan (I use openSUSE) but there is no way that this distribution is better for new users than Ubuntu. The mind share Ubuntu has is huge as much as it pains us Ubuntu is the reference when it comes to desktop Linux.

There is enough crosscompatibility (eOS is based on Ubuntu) that as long as users are told to use Ubuntu resources I think they would be okay.

That said, it's tough to get in the mindset of someone who isn't already comfortable in linux, so I really don't know.