A critical look at the UX of various linux desktops

TL;DR: This video criticizes the Linux desktop user experience, pointing out that while it's "technically correct," it makes things hard for ordinary users. Using examples from the LTT video—network drive mounting and the GNOME Disks tool—it calls for the community to engage in self-reflection and improvement. ## The Awkward UX of Linux, Seen Through LTT's Video Linus TechTips' latest Linux daily‑use challenge video vividly demonstrates the fatal flaws in the Linux desktop user experience. Like it or not, Windows is the overwhelmingly dominant OS, which means Linux desktop design must start and end with "how Windows users work." Denying this is giving up the chance to let more people enjoy the benefits of free and open‑source software. Two key moments expose the problem: the network drive challenge and the disk formatting task. ## Failure #1: Mounting a Network Drive Participants needed to export a file from a video editor to a network drive. Windows users are used to mounting Samba shares as drive letters, but in KDE's Dolphin file manager or Settings, there's no obvious way to do this. Elijah ultimately couldn't succeed; Linus tried typing the SMB path directly into the render dialog, got a "protocol not supported" error, and eventually resorted to searching the repository for a random app to install—a frustrating process the whole way. The fix is simple: add a right‑click menu option in the file manager, or a mount wizard in the Properties window, that automatically installs dependencies, configures credentials, and adds the mount point to fstab. But the "noise army" will object on the grounds of "each program does one thing," claiming a file manager shouldn't handle network functions. In reality, Dolphin and Nautilus already support SMB, FTP, MTP, and many other protocols; adding a simple remote mount wizard would only make everything smoother. When a Windows user encounters this obstacle the first time they try Linux, they'll either hit a wall or run back to Windows—our primary task should be to reduce the temptation of option two. ## Failure #2: The Confusing Workflow in GNOME Disks GNOME Disks is a classic case of "technically correct but wrong." Both Linus and Elijah understand file systems, yet both were tripped up by its poor communication and confusing steps. Defenders say "you initialize the disk, then create a partition—it's intuitive." But the problem is: why does the user need to delete the partition table, create a new one, and then manually create a partition? Ordinary users almost never do the first two steps without intending to do the third. Disks makes you complete two steps, then you still have to click the plus sign to create the partition—that makes no sense. Worse is the partition format label. It shows "FAT" by default, not "FAT32." If you don't know that FAT is the same as FAT32, you have to use process of elimination: click into the other filesystem list, see XFAT, ext4, etc., guess that FAT means FAT32, and then take a gamble. That's completely unacceptable. Users don't need to know the historical differences between GPT and MBR; they just need to know "I want to wipe this disk." But Disks requires users to understand a three‑step internal process, or they can't succeed. ## The Community's Wrong Attitude: Blaming the User When someone points out a UX problem, the common response is "if you're unsure about partitioning schemes, don't touch partitions" or "this is knowledge you must have." This arrogant gatekeeper mentality is off‑putting. You don't need to understand the OSI model to set up a NAS, and you don't need to know quantum mechanics to use a hard drive. You only need to know that the disk contains no important data. The tool should help the user, not throw up technical barriers. The Linux community often defends its poor design with "each program does one thing," but forgets the stack is missing a critical "help the user" function. We build free hammers, but without handles, and then mock those who ask for a handle. We expect users to drill their own holes, and even claim the handleless hammer is better. But in reality, such tools are used only by an elite few, while the freedom and privacy of most people become a privilege. ## A Call for Critical Self‑Reflection Microsoft spends millions of dollars every year on UX testing. We can absolutely borrow from their work, reverse‑engineer, and replicate good patterns. The goal of the FOSS community is to build software that respects the user's rights, not to make users adapt to the software. If mom and grandchild can't figure out how to use it the moment they boot Linux, then the promises of privacy and open source are empty. The LTT video proves we can do better. If we care about the rights of end users, we must conduct a thorough, critical, self‑reflective review of the design of all current desktop environments. This is not an elite hackers' club; it's a movement for software that serves everyone. **Source:** YouTube video: A critical look at the UX of various linux desktops (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDKhrLVm3ew)