The Linux desktop I'll Never have
Where this starts
Here is the issue. I’m fond of Linux Mint because it’s conservative and progressive. 2025 and I’ve installed it again… but I’m not fond of what it is. Look at the features/tools—they do not describe the system but given processes.
Ok, I posted a list of things I would like from an operating system. Most of the wishes listed were base, broad, and related to wide operation. Example; that an operating system would last ten years or, even better, never need an upgrade.
When it comes to how I’d like an operating system to work, I would need a book, However, the latest edition of Linux Mint, and an install, has provided me with a near snapshot of where many of my issues spring from. This is a discussion about the philosophy, perhaps general policy, ‘mission aims’ or whatever you want too call it, of what I’d like.
If you prefer, I’ve put together a list of visual examples.
Ah, but I wish…
Text vs. images in a Graphic User Interface
Images win, yes? Images,
give a fast confirmation of what a program is
give a fast overview of how the thing works
take a faction of the time of text to transfer that information
often work across translation boundaries
Yes, but images loose in several ways,
Compared to text, images are deadly slow to load and display
Images take up vast amounts of screen space
Text is precise about abstract objects
Text provides useful cross referencing (‘python‐dev’, ‘python‐doc’, ‘libpythion’ and ‘pythin‐server’ are likely related to ‘python’)
text is naturally searchable and sortable
There’s a huge discussion about why people prefer images, and what images can and can‘t do, and another huge discussion about the differences they make. I’m not getting into that. I’d like software that offers me information that is compact and blunt—‘synaptic’ not software managers.
Show me all
One of the things I like about Linux is that the commandline can root about anywhere in the system, regardless (ok, permissions sometime block action, but there’s no harm in looking). Here’s the old UNIX quote,
UNIX was not designed to stop its users from doing stupid things, as that would also stop them from doing clever things. ‐ Doug Gwy
To be sure, this is a philosophical difference. Microsoft seem to have a base approach of ‘give the user what they want to see’… oh, and ‘protect and guide’—I’m not having a go at them for that. But I often don’t know what I want to see, I’m trying to find something—that’s one reason I’m in Linux.
Circa. 2025 Linux Mint dropped the program ‘synaptic’, which showed just about all the code on a computer, in favour of a new sofware manager which shows users ‘programs available’. I get that many people would say they don’t want to see the workings of a system (and sometimes, I don’t want to either). But mostly I do, so here’s my takeaway—I’d like my Graphic User interface to show me all.
Small tools
When Freeware, before Linux, was started the first aims were to develop small tools that anyone could use. These tools still exist and can be run from the commandline. They are called the GNU Core Utils.
The tools can navigate round the computer, move files about, search for text and other activity. When people refer to the ‘power’ of the commandline, they are often not talking about the power of commandline control but refer to to the power of these tools.
Again, we can say big tools have their advantages,
better laid out interfaces for common tasks (exhibit, the image editor GIMP moved from a three to a single window display because, presumably, the three‐window flexibility was unused compared to the common functionality of the single window)
gather common pipelines into one place (most programs have to ‘save’, yes?)
small tools gain flexibility from being linked together but plugins and interprocess communications on computers are notoriously difficult (only successes I’ve seen are plugins for audio and video programs, and Linux ‘pipes’)
but,
single tools often offer more ability and performance (witness the GNU’s ‘grep’ tool. Would I swap that for any Microsoft/Apple/other builtin search? No)
offer reuse of their ability, with common approach
Like the difference between a socket wrench and a carburettor wrench—if you need to get a carberetter pipe off, you need the wrench, and no number of small tools will help. But the socket wrench is best at what it does, and works for many jobs. Even now, I find operating systems lacking in simple, useful tools.
Interaction with the commandline
I’d like to see a desktop that encouraged interaction with the commandline. Graphic interfaces and commandlines have differing advantages. Commandline controls,
have a crucial element of self‐automation (at least in Linux, awful though BASH is)
enable complex launch commands
ought to be easier to enable, encouraging coding
Errm thats it (before you start on the joys of ‘vim’ or ‘emacs’, I’d claim their displays are semi‐graphical anyway). Graphical interfaces have their advantages,
nothing much to remember, no program names or options
some things must be shown visually, like media‐editing displays
workspaces (tabs too) and forms work naturally in graphics
faster to operate, especially in multiple‐program workflows
So I’m in middle ground. I’m no commandline evangelist—both ways have their place. I wish effort would go into integrating them.
So can I be happy?
This isn’t harsh on Linux Mint. It’s a hefty piece of work, works very well, and is my Linux of choice. It’s consistent, informative, and conservatively modern. And what I say above is not ‘the way it should be’. Plenty of people and organisations want the opposite, big push buttons to do what they want. I’m just saying that on the whole that isn’t me.
I’m not being a Luddite in this. A Luddite is someone who is denies progress. I’m saying there is a alternative, Say you want to cycle to work, because cycling seems cheaper and faster. But people say that the only way to travel is by car, so build car‐favoured systems which make the world hostile to cycling. Objecting to that is not Luddite—it not even a ‘radical challenge’—it says, your system is inorganic.
But I bet I’ll never get to see that operating system. Or build it. The further we go, the less we know.