Why do linux devs completely and totally ignore UX?

why do linux devs completely and totally ignore UX?

Attached: 1634304926723.png (624x454, 71.81K)

cause they autistic,which is a huge shame
if they werent linux would be VERY nice

I have no fucking clue what the fuck OP picrel is supposed to mean.

Is that good UX?

I hope you're not holding Mac up as an example of good UX, because it's exactly the opposite

why do macos devs completely and totally ignore UX?

Attached: 1661366948227.png (623x453, 75.21K)

this
freetroons wouldnt know good ux if it was staring at them in the face
see

>Autism is... Le bad!
Linux is nice as it already is.
OpPic installation process is a meme.
Sincerely,
>iToddlers btfo

There's a prettyy large contingent of linux users that want their OS to be "not for normies reeeeee", they will work against any UX.

Then MS is a major contributor and they obviously don't want that either. Neither does google because they also have their own "OS" (actually two).

The rest are too incompetent and stuck up in "We decide what's good, user opinion is irrelevant" like the gnome team. They're fueled by the idea that they are unpaid so they dont need to provide anything users wants nor support.

Idiot. The point is that for MacOS installing something is dragging a binary to a folder, where as on desktop linux it's:
>add another repo
>install from repo
>dependency not found
>install dependency from ANOTHER repo
>Dependency conflict
>Uninstall whatever that was
>Whole OS breaks

NIGGER

if you don't have autism you don't belong on Any Forums

>add another repo
>install from repo
>dependency not found
>install dependency from ANOTHER repo
>Dependency conflict
>Uninstall whatever that was
>Whole OS breaks
I hate jay so much it is unreal

Are those bubuntu problems? Never happened to me on Arch.

Linux people revel in being arcane, hermetic, inaccessible, also that's terrible UX.

better than linux is not a high bar
i don't see why this is better than an installer

>i don't see why this is better than an installer
No PUPs

How is this better UX than clicking install in gnome software center? They seem about equal actually gnome is more understandable

>they will work against any UX.
because the modern idea of "good UX" is absolute rotting dog shit.

What the fuck do paintbrushes have to do with firefox?

it's "people who insist on trying to install tons of broken-ass nonfree garbage" problems

Attached: 1644377347534.png (1280x1080, 1.45M)

>enable multilib
>install aur helper
>now everything should be fine;
But the most compilacted thing I have usually starts with:
>package no longer available in aur
>to compile this you need to run have an older version of ffmpeg installed(is in official repos, can be installed alongside the new version)
>while the .pc files are provided, you need to overlay the root filesystem during the compilation process, because it isn't available as pkg-config --libs --cflags ffmpeg4.3, or modify the .pc file for ffmpeg 4.3

>where as on desktop linux it's:
>>add another repo
>>install from repo
>>dependency not found
>>install dependency from ANOTHER repo
>>Dependency conflict
>>Uninstall whatever that was
>>Whole OS breaks
Or you could open the software center, search for the program you want, look at the description and screenshots, and then click the "Install" button.

Because they respond to "I'll make the logo" posters.

>IF YOU WANT TO INSTALL ANYTHING YOU WANT YOU ARE SIMPLY NOT READY FOR A PROPER DESKTOP OS

nigga u dumb

>yeah bro you drag the colorful thingy to the blue thingy and poof magic
designed for their customers' underdeveloped brains