[personal profile] mjg59
I was at the OpenStack Summit this week. The overwhelming majority of OpenStack deployments are Linux-based, yet the most popular laptop vendor (by a long way) at the conference was Apple. People are writing code with the intention of deploying it on Linux, but they're doing so under an entirely different OS.

But what's really interesting is the tools they're using to do so. When I looked over people's shoulders, I saw terminals and a web browser. They're not using Macs because their development tools require them, they're using Macs because of what else they get - an aesthetically pleasing OS, iTunes and what's easily the best trackpad hardware/driver combination on the market. These are people who work on the same laptop that they use at home. They'll use it when they're commuting, either for playing videos or for getting a head start so they can leave early. They use an Apple because they don't want to use different hardware for work and pleasure.

The developers I was surrounded by aren't the same developers you'd find at a technical conference 10 years ago. They grew up in an era that's become increasingly focused on user experience, and the idea of migrating to Linux because it's more tweakable is no longer appealing. People who spend their working day making use of free software (and in many cases even contributing or maintaining free software) won't run a free software OS because doing so would require them to compromise on things that they care about. Linux would give them the same terminals and web browser, but Linux's poorer multitouch handling is enough on its own to disrupt their workflow. Moving to Linux would slow them down.

But even if we fixed all those things, why would somebody migrate? The best we'd be offering is a comparable experience with the added freedom to modify more of their software. We can probably assume that this isn't a hugely compelling advantage, because otherwise it'd probably be enough to overcome some of the functional disparity. Perhaps we need to be looking at this differently.

When we've been talking about developer experience we've tended to talk about the experience of people who are writing software targeted at our desktops, not people who are incidentally using Linux to do their development. These people don't need better API documentation. They don't need a nicer IDE. They need a desktop environment that gives them access to the services that they use on a daily basis. Right now if someone opens an issue against one of their bugs, they'll get an email. They'll have to click through that in order to get to a webpage that lets them indicate that they've accepted the bug. If they know that the bug's already fixed in another branch, they'll probably need to switch to github in order to find the commit that contains the bug number that fixed it, switch back to their issue tracker and then paste that in and mark it as a duplicate. It's tedious. It's annoying. It's distracting.

If the desktop had built-in awareness of the issue tracker then they could be presented with relevant information and options without having to click through two separate applications. If git commits were locally indexed, the developer could find the relevant commit without having to move back to a web browser or open a new terminal to find the local checkout. A simple task that currently involves multiple context switches could be made significantly faster.

That's a simple example. The problem goes deeper. The use of web services for managing various parts of the development process removes the need for companies to maintain their own infrastructure, but in the process it tends to force developers to bounce between multiple websites that have different UIs and no straightforward means of sharing information. Time is lost to this. It makes developers unhappy.

A combination of improved desktop polish and spending effort on optimising developer workflows would stand a real chance of luring these developers away from OS X with the promise that they'd spend less time fighting web browsers, leaving them more time to get on with development. It would also help differentiate Linux from proprietary alternatives - Apple and Microsoft may spend significant amounts of effort on improving developer tooling, but they're mostly doing so for developers who are targeting their platforms. A desktop environment that made it easier to perform generic development would be a unique selling point.

I spoke to various people about this during the Summit, and it was heartening to hear that there are people who are already thinking about this and hoping to improve things. I'm looking forward to that, but I also hope that there'll be wider interest in figuring out how we can make things easier for developers without compromising other users. It seems like an interesting challenge.

Linux should be the means and not the end

Date: 2014-05-19 06:39 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I have been using Linux for a decade now and when I had a chance to grab a MAC, I just did that. And I was amazed at how it made things more easy for me. True to its founder's words, I don't really have to struggle to figure out how to do something. Its all about what is it that I want to do.

I totally agree with you that its a very small percentage of users [ and not developers ] who would be interested in changing their system configuration.

The design with which we need to go for making Linux more useful, will be the key for what Linux actually turns out to be. If we go for enhanced Security, we cannot crib about extra steps to dig deeper into some machine secrets. With enhanced Security, you are bound to have multiple levels of checks before you get your hands to what you need. So, the design drives the outcome.

One design that would be great to have on Linux would be to make Linux just a means of doing something and not the end in itself. We need to start by understanding what people want to use computers for. And give them a tool [ Linux ] that does it with excellence. They really shouldn't be bothered about how it does or how they can enhance it. It should be configured out of the box to do the best thing for the user.

-- Sarfraaz Ahmed

Re: Linux should be the means and not the end

Date: 2014-05-20 12:27 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
> We need to start by understanding what people want to use computers for. And give them a tool [ Linux ] that does it with excellence.

The Gnome developers tried to do that and see how that went...

Re: Linux should be the means and not the end

Date: 2014-05-20 03:13 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
(this seems as good a jumping-in point as any).

> The Gnome developers tried to do that and see how that went...

The problem with the GNOME approach is they seem to spend a lot of time trying to build a desktop for *someone*, without defining who that class of people are. I tire of reading "this is better for Aunt Tilly" and similar arguments, when changes are made at a cost of their existing user base. I tried once, some time ago, to find a clear strategic statement of who their target audience was, and couldn't.


Matthew Garrett

About Matthew

Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Google. Ex-biologist. @mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer.

Page Summary

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags