We all know Linux gives us a world of freedoms we couldn't possibly have on Windows, but have you ever stopped to think about that freedom in real, qualitative terms? After all, when most people say they can't switch to Linux, it's usually because of something they just can't do without Windows or macOS or Android (which itself is Linux, even if most don't consider it such).

So, let's take a closer look at some of the things you can do on/with a Linux system that you just can't typically do on Windows.

1. Live USB/Live session

It goes without saying that this one deserves the #1 spot on this list. After all, for most of us, our first experience with Linux was at the welcome screen of a live session from a USB, SD card, or, in the past, CD or DVD. If you go even further back, some of us (myself included) first got to know Linux through the likes of Damn Small Linux running a live session inside Windows itself.

The crazy thing? Live CDs have been a part of the Linux experience since the early 90s, when we still regularly used floppy drives! And yes, live floppies were a thing, too. In fact, they still are.

Not only is there no official way to run Windows as a live session out the box, but Microsoft's own live session solution, Windows To Go, was an enterprise-only solution and has been discontinued. Non-standard solutions exist, but these are on shaky ground in that they rely on creating a Windows install on portable media, which is something Microsoft hasn't sanctioned.

2. Login screen customization

No lie, this one blew me away when I first switched to Linux from Windows. I'd always loved the idea of customising my system's visuals, and the fact I couldn't do this easily on Windows was a source of frustration. So to come from a world where I needed to risk malware or pay a fee just to put a wallpaper on the login screen to the full-scale flexibility of Linux has never stopped being amazing.

Not only can you change your wallpaper, but you can change the layout, even swap out the login manager altogether. Don't like the layout and style of GDM? Try SDDM or LightDM for greater flexibility, or even Ly, if you prefer something terminal-based. As a matter of fact, you can completely ditch the login manager altogether and boot straight to a TTY or desktop environment if you desire.

While you can change your wallpaper on recent releases of Windows, customising your login screen beyond this or changing your login manager altogether is simply not possible. After all, Microsoft wants you to log in with your Microsoft account going forward, so a third-party solution would somehow need to account for this.

3. Changing your desktop environment

Maybe I shouldn't even say "desktop environment" here, because let's be honest — Linux has way more than just desktop environments for us to play with. We've got a broad selection of window managers (compositors, with the rise of Wayland), desktop environments, desktop-independent panels, docks, you name it. Whether you want to do minimal bling with Wayfire or Hyprland, or sink your teeth into something beefy with Plasma or GNOME, the choice is yours.

You can customise your layout, app selection, software store, launchers, or whatever you like, and you won't be penalised for it, nor do you have to pay a dime or risk giving your data to a company that could go defunct and leave you hanging.

Can you change your desktop environment or window manager on Windows? Nope. Sure, you can use third-party tools to achieve some degree of customisation, but these methods are not officially supported and may even violate the operating system's terms of use. Many of these customisations break standard features in Explorer or other parts of the system and can easily fail when Microsoft releases routine updates.

4. Use the system without a GUI

Whether it's booting to the recovery session, running with the login manager disabled, or using a headless install through SSH, there are many ways you can use Linux on real hardware without ever using a graphical interface of any sort. While this option may not appeal to the majority of "average" users, it's still a pretty important distinction. You can use Linux as minimally as you need, even if it's as a temporary solution to bring up your graphical system just as you'd prefer.

For instance, this is the standard way to install Arch, by the way, and you can customise just about any distro to function in the same way even after installation. What makes this possible is the fact that what we know as "Linux" is actually a collection of software: the kernel, GNU utilities, init systems, and more. By choosing exactly what combination of software you're using, you can set up a minimal system that requires no graphical components whatsoever and still directly or remotely execute software from the system. It's even possible to set up such a system to display graphics over the network.

In the case of Windows (for consumers), this pathway isn't supported whatsoever. If something goes wrong, recovery is typically a graphical affair. Even Safe Mode is primarily designed around this. Running Windows as a text-based operating system just isn't something the average consumer can do.

5. Install it on just about anything

Linux on a fridge? A toaster? A toothbrush? Yes. And it probably can run Doom, too. The reality is, Linux is so flexible and portable, it can run on just about any device with a processor, even a tiny microcontroller. From the world's most powerful supercomputers to some of the smallest single-board computers and Internet of Things (IoT) devices, Linux has grown to basically power the majority of the digital world. There are even custom distributions for many non-standard devices, from game consoles to smartwatches, and the list just keeps growing.

On the contrary, while Windows has spread to some other devices over the years, it's not anywhere near the level of portability we have with Linux. You can't just grab a Windows ARM ISO and install it on a Raspberry Pi. You can't put Windows on a smart fridge either, unless the manufacturer happens to have an existing agreement and collaboration with Microsoft. Plus, since Windows is objectively not open-source, the community can't port it on their own.

Linux on the other hand, we can take wherever we want, not only because it's open-source but also because it was built with portability in mind. It can easily be stripped down and streamlined to fit just about any hardware. That's a freedom we just don't have with Windows.

6. Move your Linux install between systems

You might not have ever considered this, but really think about it. Let's say your current laptop or workstation goes down, maybe because the CPU burnt out or the motherboard got damaged, but the SSD is still working just fine. With Windows, it's time to get a new licence. You can certainly recover your files, provided your drive wasn't encrypted, but it's unlikely you're sticking that SSD in another system, booting it up, and continuing on like nothing happened. The bad news is, this is getting even harder with the introduction of mandatory Microsoft accounts attached to your system's TPM chip.

With Linux on the other hand, that's actually a pretty common workflow. I know this first-hand, because I've done it with multiple systems in the past. Sure, if you've got proprietary drivers installed, you may need to ensure that you remove them if your hardware differs too strongly, especially in the case of graphics cards.

Yet, Linux won't just automatically give up and quit if your drivers don't match your hardware. Instead, it'll choose a fallback method or fail to a command-line interface until you get that sorted out. It's a fascinating experience once you actually try it (or are forced to do it).

7. Customize or even swap your kernel

Imagine one day you wake up and decide you need to swap your kernel for a more optimised workflow. It could go something like this:

"Hmm, let's see here, should I run the Liquorix kernel today or the real-time kernel? How about the mainline kernel? Choices, choices..."

This is one thing long-time Linux users may take for granted, but it's actually a pretty big deal that we can do this in the first place. Again, this is made possible not only by the open-source nature of the kernel but also by the modular nature of most of the distributions we use. As a result of this modular nature, we can swap kernels any time we need to, especially so long as the distribution we're using provides a method for doing this.

Why might you need a different kernel? Well, it can be for any number of reasons, but typically, it's down to two main needs: better driver support and better performance. Newer kernels typically have broader support for new hardware, but sometimes an older kernel may also be needed for a specific device or quirk. Likewise, performance can vary with different kernel versions and build-time configurations.

Needless to say, this isn't something a normal user can do on Windows beyond applying standard updates. Yet on Linux, it's something so normal as to not even feel remarkable.

8. Choose different filesystems during installation

Windows supports a few filesystems for reading/writing files, including the typical FAT and EXFAT filesystems, NTFS, and more recently, ReFS, which is more used for server environments. However, when it comes time to actually install the system your options are pretty limited. You can install your main system on an NTFS filesystem, and with the exception of the FAT32 EFI partition, that's about it. No other filesystems are supported out the box, and while Windows setup supports loading third-party drivers, this doesn't cleanly open the door to installing Windows on any non-standard filesystems.

On the other hand, Linux supports many filesystems by default, and most distros give you the option to install on a much broader selection of them. Most offer at least the option of using ext4 or Btrfs, with some, such as Fedora, offering additional options, like XFS. In theory, you can even move your Linux install from one filesystem to another, provided you have the knowhow. For instance, btrfs-convert lets you convert an existing ext2, ext3, or ext4 installation to Btrfs.

9. Revive older hardware

Windows is notorious for its tendency to introduce seemingly unnecessary, forced hardware requirements that stop users from being able to keep using their older hardware, even when testing proves that Windows would run on it just fine. With Windows 11, things have never been worse. Perfectly powerful systems from as recently as 2017 or 2018 are somehow not supported all because of Microsoft's tighter hardware requirements, including requiring a TPM 2.0 chip, Secure Boot, and other platform features that can sometimes just barely edge a system out.

It gets worse when you consider the bloat that's been steadily creeping (or pouring) into Windows over the decades. Since users don't have any right to control what's in Windows by default or create their own official "Windows distribution", there's no way around this.

Not so with Linux, as many are discovering, and as you may have seen earlier with Linux running live off a floppy disk. In fact, there are Linux distributions especially built for this very reason, such as Puppy Linux and antiX, which the modern DSL 2024 is based on. Furthermore, Linux can be compiled specifically for older systems, even those with 32bit processors, unlike Windows, which typically drops older hardware with no way back.

10. Swap parts of your stack, as you wish

We've already talked about how you can swap your desktop environment, login manager, and kernel, but to end off this list, I think we should dig a little deeper. Unlike Windows which basically dictates what your operating system stack is from the ground up and provides few options for change, Linux gives you freedom change pretty much everything. For instance, let's say you're running Ubuntu and you really don't like snaps. Solution? Remove snapd.

You're probably thinking "But won't snapd just reinstall itself on the next update?", and the answer is no, but even if that were the case, you could block the update by locking the package. You can also change your init system, audio system, display system (betwen X11 and Wayland, and now the various forks of X11 that have popped up since it was all-but-abandoned).

Put simply, whatever you don't like about Linux, technically, you can change it. You just have to know how to do it and what to do if something goes wrong along the way. In some cases, there are even scripts that can automate the process for you, or distributions that do exactly what it is you're looking for already. For example, there's Devuan for Debian users who don't want systemd.

While unofficial "builds" of Windows exist, such as Tiny 11, most of these taking risk by distributing modified ISOs of Microsoft's intellectual property. It's legally gray at best, but it's pretty much the only option for many users.

Final thoughts: The narrative needs to flip

I could've kept this list going even longer, but I think the point is clear. While there are legitimate grievances like software that hasn't been ported yet, or challenges with hardware that vendors haven't provided drivers for, the reality is that Linux has a lot going for it if you stop to give it a fair shake.

If you've not yet tried Linux, maybe now's a good time to see what all the hype's about (and I don't just mean Hyprland, all though that's pretty sweet too). There's a lot you can do just fine on Linux that you can't actually do on Windows, or if you can, it's definitely not a walk in the park, whereas for us Linux denizens, it's just another part of daily life.

If you ask my advice, I say go for it: see what you've been missing, and you might just get hooked over this side too.

These days, it’s become fashionable to make fun of Ubuntu.

Whether it’s jokes about Snap packages or criticism of Canonical’s decisions, mocking Ubuntu often feels like the default attitude in parts of the Linux community.

To be fair, Canonical has made decisions over the years that have not always been well received, and some of the criticisms of Ubuntu and the direction it’s taken have their own merit. Yet, the derisive way Ubuntu is often talked about online isn’t particularly fair and, frankly, misses the point.

Ubuntu didn’t become the “face of Linux” by accident, nor did it gain its popularity and mass appeal (both on the desktop and servers) without real, solid reasons behind it. For many, it is in fact these same reasons that cause them to feel so passionately about the shift in direction since the early days.

Ubuntu’s speciality: Linux for Human Beings

Ubuntu was once widely seen as the easiest Linux distro for beginners and a solid choice for both casual and “power” users alike. Many Linux enthusiasts (myself included) recommended it without hesitation because it was straightforward and opinionated in a way that just felt sensible for regular people. From the time you popped in a live CD, you got a sane, uncomplicated experience that felt like a breath of fresh air compared to Windows, and it made you feel like Linux could actually feel like home. All you had to do was install it, update it when necessary, and get on with your life.

The slogan “Linux for human beings” was more than a branding choice. Ubuntu embodied this motto in a very real way by reducing friction for everyday people and never being afraid to match form to function. It hasn’t always lived up to that purpose in ways that everyone agreed with, but the underlying mission has never truly changed, if we’re being fair.

Even with the shift towards a more developer-focused ecosystem, it has remained just as easy to download, install, learn the ropes (if you’re new) and get on with your life. Drivers are still a breeze to set up for most hardware. The default themes are still designed with a polished aesthetic taste in mind, and yes, installing apps easily and swiftly is still a major feature. Whether you’re deep in DevOps or a casual desktop user who wants a stable system that doesn’t demand constant babysitting, Ubuntu remains one of the most practical choices in the Linux world. In other words, the memes and tropes are loud and often funny, but reality still begs to differ because Ubuntu still delivers.

So why all the hate? What happened to our once beloved flagship among Linux distros?

From darling to punching bag (and why that happened)

In order to understand why Ubuntu has been falling from its place of overwhelming popularity among Linux users, it’s important to remember that Ubuntu was not just a community effort, as is the case with many other distros. Ubuntu is both a community effort and a product of Canonical, and it’s actually the latter first. While the community has some say in what happens through feedback, bug reports, feature requests, and other standard open-source infrastructure, Canonical ultimately makes the call for what defines Ubuntu as a whole.

Like any company, Canonical makes decisions based on factors that aren’t always known or agreed with by the broader public. While many of these decisions have ultimately worked out well, just about as many have also proven not to work out in the long run. This fluctuation between success and well, failure, is a natural part of the product lifecycle for any long-running product.

Ubuntu is no exception to this rule.

However, from the perspective of the community, many of these decisions started steering Ubuntu in directions that many users found puzzling and, at times, concerning. The backlash didn’t come suddenly, nor did it stem from a single decision. It came from a notable pattern: Ubuntu choosing its own path, even when the broader Linux community preferred a different direction. While this isn’t inherently “bad”, it’s unfortunately created friction within the community. To be fair, some of these decisions, such as introducing Amazon affiliate links during the Unity era, or the decision to keep the Snap Store closed on the backend, haven’t followed the expected ethos of the Linux/open-source world.

Furthermore, with the Linux desktop constantly fighting the challenges of “fragmentation”, the decisions to use snaps over Flatpaks for a containerised solution, AppArmor over SELinux, etc, have brought on accusations of ‘NIH’ (Not Invented Here) syndrome. Unfortunately, while Canonical has reversed course on some of its more controversial choices and attempted to show goodwill and engage more collaboratively, the reputation and distrust are unfortunately hard to shake. Yet, in spite of these difficulties, Ubuntu itself has largely settled into a steady state, even becoming, in the eyes of some, “boringly stable”.

But whether or not this accusation is fair, it’s a sign that Ubuntu is largely doing its job. A boring desktop is often a reliable desktop, and for most people, especially people trying to work, play, study, or just have a functional computer, reliability beats novelty any day.

Taking a path less travelled, and yet…

Ubuntu is often criticised for “driving in its own lane”, but that independence is also why it has remained so relevant and popular. Many of the distros that have taken its crown in the ranks of popularity and ease of use are still Ubuntu derivatives. Even if they look different on the surface, or choose not to include technologies that have become synonymous with Ubuntu, they’re still Ubuntu at heart (like snaps).

This isn’t a mistake. Ubuntu is a solid base for the likes of Mint, Zorin, AnduinOS, and others because it’s stable, widely supported, and consistent, even while Canonical is willing to take the heat for making strong platform decisions.

Like any other distro, Ubuntu is a reflection of choices and decisions, whether those are made by the community, upstream maintainers, or the entity curating and tying everything together. It represents the collective work of everyone who contributes, packages, and builds. As such, it’s not just “another Canonical product”, even if the influence of a product mindset is evident. That combination of open-source philosophy and community culture, alongside the stability and direction of a commercially stewarded platform, is what makes Ubuntu unique.

Ubuntu’s mission is simple: ship something cohesive, make it consistent, and keep it well supported over time. Sure, it’s not always going to please everyone, especially those of us who would prefer a more decentralised decision-making process or more community consensus. But if we’re being honest, it’s also why we so often assume Ubuntu when we’re writing tutorials and install instructions.

That’s no accident, either. Ubuntu may not be perfect (no distro is), but it makes enough of the right choices to remain a dependable foundation, not only for users, but for an entire ecosystem built on top of it.

More than a desktop OS

Ubuntu and its ecosystem are often easy to reduce to the realm of “beginner distro,” but that view is outdated, and I’d even argue it’s never really been true. Granted, I personally started using Ubuntu because I wanted to see what the hype was about where the likes of Compiz, Beryl, and other flashy effects were concerned. Yet, I never even got to try any of the whiz-bang features until I was a few years into my Linux experience, due to hardware limitations. So what kept me here? It was recognising that Ubuntu is so much more than a desktop.

Ubuntu is a serious platform across the server space, cloud platforms, and embedded environments and infotainment, and even lives on in the mobile space due to the efforts of UBPorts. Personally, I’ve never run a VPS on any other distro, not because I couldn’t, but because I haven’t found any reason to choose another. Ubuntu just works, and when your mission is to keep servers reliably online and updated for yourself and clients, that’s exactly what you need it to do.

Ironically, many of the same reasons Ubuntu gets flack on the desktop are the reasons it’s preferred in development and server spaces today. For instance, using a snap to install and configure a web service like Nextcloud is far simpler than even using a more well-known solution like Docker. Some snaps don’t even require any further configuration beyond setting up basic admin credentials and settings through web-based UI.

Ubuntu’s LTS cadence is a lifeline for server stability. Once you’ve successfully deployed a complex server environment, it’s often preferable to keep it “as is” for as long as humanly possible, while still getting the necessary security upgrades and minimal feature changes that you need to keep it up to date. With a Ubuntu LTS, that kind of stability isn’t even a challenge to solve, because there again, it just works. You get the flexibility and familiarity of a Debian-based system, with the freshness and stability that Ubuntu brings to the table.

Another important point is that a lot of production environments, containers, tutorials, and automation examples are written with Ubuntu (or Ubuntu-like) systems in mind. By matching what’s common in the field, you spend less time fighting your environment and more time understanding and using the tools you need to get actual work done.

Giving Snaps a fair shake

While “just getting work done” is one of Ubuntu’s hallmarks, that’s not typically what people think of when they think of snaps, and let’s be honest: snaps are a big part of why Ubuntu gets mocked. This criticism isn’t completely imaginary either. While the tech has come a long way, snaps still have some real-world challenges. But, the same can be said for just about any containerised packaging system. For the sake of fairness, let’s just get some of the remaining issues out of the way.

Theming inconsistencies still persist, especially if you are using an app built with a toolkit that your desktop isn’t built on. Snaps still take significantly more storage space than “native” packages, because they often depend on other “foundational” snaps. Also, there’s no open or decentralised software store, so we have to trust Canonical’s stewardship. These are real trade-offs, and it’s only fair to acknowledge them.

Usually, the discourse stops right here, as if “Snaps exist” is the same thing as “Ubuntu is unusable.” If I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen someone say “First thing I do is remove snap from the system”, I could end world hunger overnight. Yet, realistically, most people don’t choose an OS to make a statement about packaging decisions. They just want to be able to install what they need, do it quickly, keep it updated, and avoid breaking things in the process. Whether some in the community like them or not, snaps deliver on this promise.

By providing a consistent delivery mechanism for newer app releases, a simple rollback method and a clean way to clear app settings and data once an app is removed, snaps reduce dependency stress across different Ubuntu releases. For most types of software they simplify maintenance for developers and users alike. Plus, many of the issues that led to snaps being so heavily disparaged, such as slow startup times and terrible desktop integration, have been massively improved since their introduction, and continue to be improved with time.

Besides, even if you absolutely detest snap as a technology, Ubuntu is still flexible enough that you can make your own choices about where you get your apps and what package distribution formats you prefer. Case in point: most of the apps I use on my Ubuntu system today are Flatpaks and native applications, not because I don’t use snaps (I actually use quite a few), but just because that’s how most of the latest versions of the apps I need are currently packaged.

Why you can safely ignore the noise

Many of the arguments against Ubuntu these days are essentially identity- or philosophy- based, not practical positions. For most people, a better question is simply: what do you need your computer to do?

Ubuntu is still a strong choice if you’re new to Linux and want something straightforward, different from Windows and macOS, but familiar enough to not be a complete shock to the system. If you’re a developer seeking the friendly environment of a Linux-based workflow, choosing Ubuntu means you’ll have a system that matches the majority of guides and tutorials you’ll encounter online. The same is true if you work in DevOps or system administration.

The point is, whether you’re a casual desktop user or a seasoned denizen of SSH terminals, Ubuntu still meets the mark, offering stability, broad app availability, and the ability to Google a problem and find answers quickly.

Why it’s never going to be for everyone

It goes without saying, but Ubuntu can’t be everyone’s cup of tea either, and even some long-time users might find it no longer fits their needs. For instance, if you prefer ultra-minimal systems that let you build everything your own way, or even if you just want to avoid Canonical’s decisions on principle, Ubuntu won’t fit the bill, and that’s perfectly okay.

With the move to deliver more core components as snaps, it’s also understandable that some of us might be forced to choose other distros to avoid this fundamental change in direction.

What really matters here is that none of this is a matter of a moral judgement, though I’m sure some folks would argue otherwise (and hey, I respect it, even if I disagree). At the end of the day, it’s all about freedom and finding the matching tools to get the job done, whatever that means for you.

Final thoughts

Long story short, Ubuntu often gets the most backlash because it’s one of the most visible and durable targets. It’s a distro many of us have long outgrown, but it’s also the distro where we “cut our teeth” on everything Linux has to offer. It’s no surprise then, that it’s the distro many people now love to dunk on and poke fun at.

Love it or hate it though, Ubuntu remains. It’s still quietly doing what many people actually need, still serving its age-old role as many folk’s first foray into Linux, still pushing innovation and momentum across spaces where we need it most, and still helping the collective to gain market share. The work Ubuntu does behind the scenes may not always be exciting, but no doubt, it’s quite invaluable. It doesn’t have to be perfect, and sure, it would be nice to see it reclaim its former glory, even just for a bit of nostalgia.

But Ubuntu has earned its place among the Linux giants, and continues to prove itself every day. So maybe, just maybe, it doesn’t deserve our hate.

There is no shortage of to-do apps in the Linux ecosystem, but few are designed to keep you focused while you work. Koncentro takes a direct approach by bundling a versatile task list, a Pomodoro-style timer, and a configurable website blocker into one tidy solution.

What is Koncentro exactly?

Koncentro is a free, open-source productivity tool, inspired by the likes of Super Productivity and Chomper. The project is actively developed by Bishwa Saha (kun-codes), with source code, issue tracking, and discussions hosted on GitHub. Built with a sleek Qt 6 interface echoing Microsoft’s Fluent Design language, this app pairs modern aesthetics with solid functionality.

The latest release, version 1.1.0, arrived earlier this month with new features and quality-of-life improvements, including sub-tasks and a system-tray option.

That said, it's not without quirks, and first-time users may hit a few bumps along the way. However, once you get past the initial hurdles and multistep setup, it becomes a handy companion for getting things done while blocking out common distractions.

In this review, we examine what sets Koncentro apart from the to-do crowd and help you determine whether it is the right fit for your workflow.

Bringing Koncentro’s methods into focus

It is rare to find an app that gives you everything you need in one go without becoming overstuffed or cumbersome to use. Koncentro strikes a solid balance, offering more than to-do apps that stop at lists and due dates without veering into overwhelm.

It combines the Pomodoro technique with timeblocking, emphasizing an economical approach where time is the primary unit of work. As such, it caters to an audience that aims to structure the day rather than the week.

In fact, there is no option to add tasks with specific dates — only times. This omission is not a limitation so much as a design choice. It fits the Pomodoro philosophy of tackling work in short, focused intervals, encouraging you to act now rather than plan for later. It makes Koncentro perfect for day-to-day activities, but you may need to find another solution if you're looking for long-term task tracking.

Backing up this standard functionality is a snazzy website blocker to help you stave off distractions while you get down to work.

The hands-on experience

In my experience, Koncentro proved to be quite pleasant to use, as someone who relies on similar apps in my daily life. In this section, I'll focus on the overall experience of using the app from a fresh install onward.

First run

On the first run, Koncentro will guide you through setting up its website blocking feature; the app's core function outside simple task management. In order for this to work, the system must temporarily disconnect from the internet, since the app must set up a proxy to facilitate website blocking. All filtering happens locally; no browsing data is sent anywhere outside your machine. I'll explain how this works when we get to the website blocker in detail.

Once you've managed to set it up (or managed to bypass this step), Koncentro will walk you through an introductory tutorial, showing how its primary features work. Once the tutorial is completed, you can rename or remove the default workspace and tasks.

Straightforward task management

Koncentro follows a rather uncomplicated approach to task management. There are no tags, no due dates, and no folders. Also, tasks cannot overlap, since the timer for one task is automatically stopped if you start another. Furthermore, while tasks can have sub-tasks, parent tasks cannot be started on their own.

This approach may not be for everyone, but since the app is focused on streamlined productivity, it makes sense to arrange things in this way, as you're unlikely to lose track of any given tasks with strict rules around time management.

Tasks must be timeboxed upon creation, meaning you have to select a maximum time for each task to be accomplished within. This is set as the "estimated time" value. When you start the timer on any task, "elapsed time" is recorded and contrasted against the estimated time. This comes in pretty handy if you want to measure your performance against a benchmark or goal.

Active and uncompleted tasks are grouped into "To Do Tasks", and finished tasks into "Completed Tasks", though this doesn't happen automatically. Since there are no folders or tags, task organization is accomplished by simply dragging tasks between these two sections.

Workspaces: a subtle power tool

One of the standout features of Koncentro is the way it uses workspaces to manage not just tasks, but overall settings. While this implementation is still clearly in its infancy, I see the potential for even more powerful functionality in the future.

Currently, workspaces serve to group your tasks and are protected by an optional website blocker to keep your attention on the present goal.

The website blocker in depth

Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of Koncentro is its website blocker. It's not something you find in most to-do list apps for Linux, yet its simplicity and versatility make it a truly standout addition. Plus, the fact that each workspace can have its own block list makes Koncentro especially useful for scoping your focus periods and break times.

In terms of usage, it's mostly seamless once you've passed the initial setup process, which isn't too tedious, but certainly could be made smoother overall. Koncentro doesn't block any particular sites by default, so you'll need to manually add any sites you'd like to block to each workspace.

Note: Website blocking is only active when there is an active task. If all tasks are stopped, website blocking will not be activated.

Koncentro relies on a Man In The Middle (MITM) proxy called mitmproxy to power this feature. Don't let the name throw you off: mitmproxy is a trusted open-source Python tool commonly used for network testing, repurposed here to handle local HTTPS interception for blocking rules. It's only activated when you're performing a task, and can be disabled altogether in Koncentro's settings.

Part of the setup process involves installing its certificates if you wish to use the website blocker. You'll need to do this both for your system and for Firefox (if you're using Firefox as your browser), since Firefox does not use the system's certificates.

Example usage scenario

Let's say, for instance, you want to block all social media while you're working. You'd just need to add these sites to your "At-work space" (or whatever you'd like to call it) and get down to business.

Even if a friend sends you a YouTube video, you won't be distracted by thumbnails because that URL would be locked out for that time period. Once that stretch of work ends, you could switch to your "taking a break" workspace, where social media is allowed, and (if you like) all work-related URLs are blocked.

But does it really work?

That's the real question here, of course: whether this is actually effective in practice. Of course, if you're highly distractible, it might be just the thing to help you keep on track. However, if you're already quite disciplined in your work, it might not be particularly meaningful. It really depends on how you work as an individual, after all.

That said, I can definitely see a benefit for power users who know how to leverage the site blocker to prevent notifications in popular chat apps, which must still communicate with a central server to notify you.

Sure, you can use "Do not disturb" in desktop environments that support it, but this doesn't consistently disable sound or notifications (if the chat app in question uses non-native notifications, for instance).

A focus on aesthetics - Why it feels nice to use

The choice to use Microsoft's Fluent design language may seem strange to many Linux users, but in fairness, Koncentro is a cross-platform application, and Windows still maintains the dominant position in the market.

That being said, in many ways, it's similar enough in practical usage to the UI libraries and UX principles popular within the Linux ecosystem. It's close enough in functionality to apps built with Kirigami and Libadwaita that it doesn't seem too out of place among them.

Customization

Koncentro features a limited degree of customization options, following the "just enough" principle that seems to be the trend in modern design. It threads the delicate line between the user's freedom for customization and the developer's intentions for how their app should look and behave across platforms.

You get the standard light and dark modes, and the option to follow your system's preference. Using it on the Gnome desktop, it picked up my dark mode preference out of the box.

System Integration

Koncentro integrates well with the system tray support, using a standard app indicator with a simple menu.

However, while you get the option to choose a theme colour, it doesn't give the option to follow your system's accent colour, unlike most modern Linux/open-source applications. It also does not feature rounded corners, which some users may find disappointing.

The quirks that still hold it back

As mentioned earlier, Koncentro has a number of quirks that detract from the overall experience, though most of these are limited to its first-time run.

Mandatory website blocker setup

Perhaps the most unconventional choice, there's no way to start using Koncentro until its website blocker is set up. It will not allow you to use the app (even to disable the website blocker) in any way without first completing this step.

While you can "fake it" by clicking "setup completed" in the second pop-up dialog, it creates a false sense of urgency, which could be especially confusing for less experienced users. This is perhaps where Koncentro would be better served by offering a smoother initial setup experience.

No way to copy workspaces/settings

While you can have multiple workspaces with their own settings, you can't duplicate workspaces or even copy your blocklists between them.

This isn't a big deal if you're just using a couple of workspaces with simple block/allow lists, but if you're someone who wants to have a complex setup with shared lists on multiple workspaces, you'll need to add them to each workspace manually.

No penalty for time overruns

At this time, nothing happens when you go over time — no warnings, no sounds, no notifications. If you're trying to stay on task and run overtime, it would help to have some kind of "intervention" or warning.

I've gone ahead and made feature requests for possible solutions to these UX issues: export/import for lists, warnings or notifications for overruns, and copying workspace settings. These are all just small limitations in what is otherwise a remarkably cohesive early-stage project.

Installing Koncentro on Linux

Being that it's available on Flathub, Koncentro can be installed on all Linux distributions that support Flatpaks. You can grab it from there through your preferred software manager, or run this command in the terminal:

flatpak install flathub com.bishwasaha.Koncentro

Alternatively, you can also get official .deb or .rpm packages for your distro of choice (or source code for compiling it yourself) from the project's releases page.

Conclusion

All told, Koncentro is a promising productivity tool that offers a blend of simplicity, aesthetic appeal, and smooth functionality. It's a great tool for anyone who likes to blend time management with structure. For Linux users who value open-source productivity tools that respect privacy and focus, it’s a refreshing middle ground between the more minimal to-do lists and full-blown productivity suites. It’s still young, but it already shows how open-source can combine focus and flexibility without unnecessary noise.