Ardour 9 was released recently and I think you should take a look at it.

[Tiles]

So I'm not really sure what "conforming" would mean here?

I think he is referring to actual UI and UX design. It starts with sticking to established standards and not being alien just for the sake of it. It continues with following proven design principles such as the F pattern and left aligned text. There is a vast amount of material and lectures on this topic. One of the most well known introductions is Don’t Make Me Think by Steve Krug. There is an enormous amount to learn in this field. I have been developing software for over 25 years and have specialized in UI and UX design for more than ten years now, and I am still learning. UI and UX design differ from programmer driven design in many fundamental ways. And forgive me, but i see many many areas in your actual design that could be dramatically improved.

Another thing that caught my attention as an open source developer is offering the source code while mentioning that compiling it is complicated, undocumented, and unsupported.

... On Windows ... you're basically screwed ...

Ouch

I can sense quite a bit of frustration in what you wrote, and I understand very well what you mean. Dependency management remains complicated on any platform. For me, though, Linux has always been the more complex part of the equation.

In the end, Windows and macOS are where the money is and where most users live. And personally, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect 99 percent of the professional market to adapt to the views of 1 percent of ideologists.

That said, many thanks for sharing your insights and explaining how you see things. And I wish you continued success with your project. Keep it up.

[Tiles]

Delete, double post

[Tiles]

Delete, double post

[Tiles]

Delete, double post

[Tiles]

Delete, double post

[Tiles]

Delete, double post

[Tiles]

Delete, double post. Was trapped in an edit loop, sorry folks.

[ampetrosillo]

So I'm not really sure what "conforming" would mean here?

I think he is referring to actual UI and UX design. It starts with sticking to established standards and not being alien just for the sake of it. It continues with following proven design principles such as the F pattern and left aligned text. There is a vast amount of material and lectures on this topic. One of the most well known introductions is Don’t Make Me Think by Steve Krug. There is an enormous amount to learn in this field. I have been developing software for over 25 years and have specialized in UI and UX design for more than ten years now, and I am still learning. UI and UX design differ from programmer driven design in many fundamental ways. And forgive me, but i see many many areas in your actual design that could be dramatically improved.

With the caveat that specialised software can't always follow UX and UI guidelines, for reasons that Paul hinted at. DAWs need to show a lot of information in ways that are not naturally human-readable. They can't reuse system libraries much, aside from a few basic things, and they don't necessarily fit the design paradigm devised for generic-purpose apps.

Still, Apple does a decent job at this with Logic (which feels coherent with the rest of the OS). Cubase, ProTools, and even Reaper are a bit kludgy instead. Ableton and Bitwig, on the other hand, do not even attempt to fit into the OS design language.

Another thing that caught my attention as an open source developer is offering the source code while mentioning that compiling it is complicated, undocumented, and unsupported.

... On Windows ... you're basically screwed ...

Ouch

I can sense quite a bit of frustration in what you wrote, and I understand very well what you mean. Dependency management remains complicated on any platform. For me, though, Linux has always been the more complex part of the equation.

In the end, Windows and macOS are where the money is and where most users live. And personally, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect 99 percent of the professional market to adapt to the views of 1 percent of ideologists.

That said, many thanks for sharing your insights and explaining how you see things. And I wish you continued success with your project. Keep it up.

The Linux way of doing things, even on the binary side, is objectively cleaner (you have shared libraries, which leads to little replication and easy bug management). But yes, the Windows (and macOS, possibly?) way of doing things is the norm, unfortunately.
On Windows and macOS, users rarely compile their own software so there is no underlying infrastructure to do so, which is a big reason why it is a pain.

[Tiles]

With the caveat that specialised software can't always follow UX and UI guidelines, for reasons that Paul hinted at. DAWs need to show a lot of information in ways that are not naturally human-readable. They can't reuse system libraries much, aside from a few basic things, and they don't necessarily fit the design paradigm devised for generic-purpose apps.

Yes, exceptions can absolutely be part of good UI and UX design. But when you break conventions, there needs to be a clear and solid reason for it. Since every difference has the potential to confuse users and plays against muscle memory. With a few simple changes, many interfaces could be redesigned so people work significantly more efficiently. Less thinking, fewer clicks, less friction. That’s really the core of UI and UX design.

The goal is not to invent obscure or cumbersome ways of doing things just to be different. It’s about clarity and flow. One of the classic principles is KISS, keep it simple. Another is that a good UI should guide the user naturally and explain itself without effort. This is the rule I personally rely on most in my work. These rules exist for a reason. I’ve already referenced a solid book that discusses this problem and its underlying principles.

Which leads me to Linux

The Linux way of doing things ...

… often feels unnecessarily complicated, slower than it needs to be, and counterintuitive for everyday tasks. In many places it lacks consistency and clear standards, not because it has to, but because UI and UX design are simply not treated as a priority. Too often, design decisions are driven by technical preferences rather than by how real people actually work.

There is also a mindset problem. The classic “I’m the programmer, I decide” attitude tends to sideline UI and UX expertise entirely. From a UI UX perspective, that is frustrating, because the goal is not to limit developers, but to make software easier, faster, and more pleasant to use.

A simple example is creating a desktop shortcut. In Windows, this is a single, obvious action. In Cinnamon, the same task requires manual steps, figuring out paths, and following instructions. There is even a full guide explaining how to do something that should be self evident.

https://www.siberoloji.com/how-to-creat ... -cinnamon/

If a basic action needs a tutorial, that is a strong signal. It is neither self explaining nor target leading. This is not about personal taste or preference, but about missing UX fundamentals. Good design reduces thinking and friction. In this case, it does the opposite.

On Windows and macOS, users rarely compile their own software so there is no underlying infrastructure to do so, which is a big reason why it is a pain.

Make works on Windows too. Just install Visual Studio. The difference is that there is no need to compile by yourself. The binaries just works.
From a usability standpoint, Visual Studio is much easier to work with.
gcc and clang are powerful, but expose a lot of low-level complexity that Visual Studio hides behind a consistent IDE and toolchain.

[ampetrosillo]

Linux was born as an OS (well, a kernel really, but once you add in the GNU part of it...) by programmers for programmers (and sysadmins). If you are a (certain style of) programmer, a lot of the workings of Linux will be familiar or at least understandable. At least up to a certain point. The thing is, Linux is the most "natural" OS there is, since stuff is not top-down designed, but rather organically grown by a wide variety of independent sources which all contributed some small part of it. The common thread is the Unix way of doing things, but with differing interpretations. Plus add in stuff that doesn't really conform to the Unix way of doing things (eg. systemd) so it's quite inconsistent in parts. This is the nature of a collaborative effort with no clear leader. Which might sound ghastly, but when you compare it to Windows, it turns out it's often more logical (but Windows is more convenient since it eschews a lot of the nerdy old-schoolisms). Good and bad. If Linux dominates infrastructure, there must be a reason (no, it's not because it's "free").

[Tiles]

I’m both a programmer and a UI/UX designer and I have to say that what you’re describing is not accurate. Linux may have its strengths, especially on servers or in infrastructure, but on the desktop it is anything but leading. Its ecosystem is fragmented and inconsistent which makes software development and user experience more difficult, not more “natural” or logical.

The idea that Linux is “built by programmers for programmers” and therefore intuitive is misleading. Components like systemd or the variety of desktop environments are not examples of clever design, they reflect a lack of standardization that creates real challenges for both developers and users. Windows or macOS, by contrast, provide a more centralized and predictable environment which is why they dominate the desktop.

Linux has its place and its advantages, but the claims that it is inherently logical or naturally suited for desktop use are simply not true.

I already gave you an example with the shortcut.

[ampetrosillo]

That said, you are sort of disingenuous when you compare the Windows way of adding shortcuts and the Cinnamon way. (I don't particularly like Cinnamon, by the way). On Windows, shortcuts are an expected tool to use. On many Linux DEs, desktop shortcuts are actively discouraged, and you are expected to use some sort of global menu or dock, for instance. A lot of the friction between the Windows world and the Linux world derives from the insistence on wanting Linux to work and act like Windows. You talk about UX and UI, but for instance Gnome is an experiment with UX designers leading development. It is all a big UI concept that Gnome designers want you to fully subscribe to. Ironically, many people hate it because it doesn't pander to the "less designed" way of doing things that existed previously.

[Tiles]

It's my decision how i want to work. Not the decision of a Linux god. And it was one example of many. A very valid one. Calling it 'disingenuous' doesn’t change that. Gnome’s vision might be neat on paper, but forcing users to follow it is not UX, it’s arrogance. I don’t need your ideology, I need software that works for me.

[ampetrosillo]

I’m both a programmer and a UI/UX designer and I have to say that what you’re describing is not accurate. Linux may have its strengths, especially on servers or in infrastructure, but on the desktop it is anything but leading. Its ecosystem is fragmented and inconsistent which makes software development and user experience more difficult, not more “natural” or logical.

The idea that Linux is “built by programmers for programmers” and therefore intuitive is misleading. Components like systemd or the variety of desktop environments are not examples of clever design, they reflect a lack of standardization that creates real challenges for both developers and users. Windows or macOS, by contrast, provide a more centralized and predictable environment which is why they dominate the desktop.

Linux has its place and its advantages, but the claims that it is inherently logical or naturally suited for desktop use are simply not true.

I already gave you an example with the shortcut.

The Linux world rarely lives on the desktop. Most stuff is (still) done in the terminal, for better and for worse. When it comes to desktop Linux, you have to start specifying which one of the dozens of DEs you are referring to. Is it Gnome? Is it KDE? Which implementation?

[ampetrosillo]

It's my decision how i want to work. Not the decision of a Linux god. And it was one example of many. A very valid one.

But you're seeing it from a very Windows-centric point of view. Linux people could say the same about Windows when it comes to a large number of Unix-isms that Windows sometimes goes out of its way to impede.