Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

blip.tv

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#61

Post by nailer »

vorador wrote: post #58
colonelxc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to believe that sound can be so broken, after all these years (and looking at the huge strides other parts of the desktop have made). If Ubuntu wants to be the uber-friendly, runs anywhere (just works!) distro, they need to avoid these types of regressions from one version to the next. I know they're not in charge of all the upstream work, but they are the ones that make the decision on what version of pul…

But it's not that simple : often, the bleeding-edge fixes others annoying bugs and it's really hard to have an estimate of the affected population. Maybe they should add an extra step to their installer that would allow to send anonymously data about your hardware configuration to Canonical ?

I think you're both right. What I think would made a real difference is making some cruel-but-kind decisions about deprecation.

State officially the other mechanisms are broken, then drop everything that doesn't use pulse from the repositories.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#62

Post by nailer »

houseabsolute wrote: post #20
theschwa wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. I use Linux because of how well it works and would gladly pay money for it, and I think most long term Linux users stick with it because of how well it works. In fact, most Linux users I know purchased a computer with Windows already on it, and completely wiped it off to put Linux on there. So they've already 'payed' for Windows, but use a different OS anyways. I'm also not saying people should…

> would gladly pay money for it So, have you? If so, how much? I've spent $300 on software for my Windows computer in the last year, and another $100 on software for my Mac. > So they've already 'payed' for Windows, but use a different OS anyways. Granted, but I think far fewer people would if Linux wasn't completely free. If Linux distros were able to enforce a charge of $5 per download, I suspect consumer adoption…

Yeah. I've paid for virtualization tools, games, proprietary libraries that made my life easier (OSS back in the day).

I'd happily pay Dag Wieers for RHEL/Fedora repo access if he asked for cash too.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#63

Post by nailer »

blasdel wrote: post #53
russell_h wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every binary distro I've ever used (SUSE, Debian, Ubuntu, RHEL and Fedora) came with a little GUI that let you install packages without going through a repository. Just download the .deb/.rpm and double click on it. This is how a lot of projects deliver their latest builds. If you're talking about a unified package format (it doesn't seem like it) then thats a completely different issue. As for 'stand-alone' applicat…

But everything packaged that way still demands to be installed as root, linked against their depgraph of ancient fucked-with libraries, and split apart into pointlessly separate packages.

It asks for your own password (ala Mac - that said, it could simply ask you to confirm ala Windows).

End users don't do linking or worry about dependencies.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#64

Post by sandGorgon »

nitrogen wrote: post #40
sandGorgon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you need to jumpstart the paid-apps ecosystem. I am not talking about approval processes, but something more on the lines of an Android app store than an iphone one. What you get by that is : 1. signed software 2. small time developers dont have to worry about licensing 3. Distribution channel 4. Payment gateway The windows or the mac system was never built on the basis of a package management system, which L…

Lindows/Linspire actually had an app store back in the day, where developers could package and distribute commercial software. It used apt as its backend. Since that didn't work out, it looks like the next best alternative is something like Steam. It seems highly possible that Steam will be released for Linux (a port already exists). Valve could be persuaded by enough software developers to add non-game software to t…

No it does'nt, but it is DRM all the same.

If you were an app maker, why would you prefer a closed source DRM, than an open-source security model in the OS ?

I just dont get it: everyone likes Steam, but they dont like DRM in the OS - is it something so distasteful that a computer gets tainted by built in DRM ? And then you will find someone who gets pissed off with Steam, goes looking for alternatives... and the consumer ends up with 10 different kinds of app-store software (on Windows, I have Direct2Drive, Steam and StarForce for different games)

I dont know how it can be managed with a built-in DRM, but I suspect something like a PPA (Personal Package Archives) would enable everyone to self-publish their software, yet still be part of a web-of-trust model.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#65

Post by vidarh »

pyre wrote: post #3
krschultz wrote: post #2

The easiest problem to tackle is .RPM vs .DEB debate that should have ended about 3 years ago. If the LSB had said .DEB it might have happened, but since the "official" standard and the actual majority are diametrically opposed it doesn't want to happen. And of course the filesystems don't perfectly match across distros.

From what I hear, .DEB is a bitch to do anything outside of the norm, whereas .RPM is much easier and less complex of a package format. That said, I much prefer the apt system on Debian, and Ubuntu. What really needs to happen is to take the best of both worlds and merge it into something of a complete system.

Apt has little to do with the underlying package format - there is an apt version for RPM.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#66

Post by bad_user »

k-zed wrote: post #54
bad_user wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We use Linux because of its differences I don't know who you speak for, but it's not about me ... I use Linux because it's cheap and I'm in control. Other than that I love having aptitude and a good repository, but every once in a while I really wish there was a click-to-install standard and I also really wish I wouldn't burn my weekend over wireless issues. > developing programs for it is a whole hell of a lot eas…

> You're not speaking about desktop applications / games Those apps aren't hard to develop because libraries or the environment or whatever; they're hard to develop because their developers want them to be closed, so recompilation and putting them into the real package management system is impossible. Starting with such a handicap makes things complicated :) > If you think there are better paradigms that should be ex…

> Those apps aren't hard to develop because libraries or the environment or whatever

They are hard to develop because it's difficult choosing libraries, the environment, whatever, and your choice for today may be deprecated in 6 months. Of course, with the proper abstractions you can painlessly rewrite your app to target the newest toys.

But there are always costs involved ... sure you could rewrite it in a couple of weeks, but quality assurance (if you're a professional that doesn't releases pieces of shit) takes as long as it did for the original target.

> they're hard to develop because their developers want them to be closed

Yeah well, it's their choice, and accommodating applications that aren't open-source should be a requirement of any OS because, you know, the majority of desktop apps in production are closed and that ain't changing because it's a valid business model.

> Starting with such a handicap makes things complicated :)

It's only a handicap on Linux. The other platforms, including Solaris, have been doing just fine. Which makes me wonder about which part is handicapped.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#67

Post by richardw »

wyclif wrote: post #51
thingie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you listen to the talk? :) X.org is quite an advanced graphic system mostly doing what you want it to do. Throwing it out and trying to make something new (for what gain?) means wasting so much resources that it's not even nice. (And how is X related to some start menu?)

The problem might be that the parent doesn't know the difference between X.org and XFree86.

Or, maybe neither and maybe I'm referring to X11.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#68

Post by nailer »

thingie wrote: post #36
nailer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends. Most apps don't link against X, but the toolkits. If the toolkits can be modified to support a cleaner network protocol (something primarily vector based rather than bitmap based). I don't think the parent poster is saying that X is related to GNOME and KDE's start menu clones, other than they both need changing.

How cleaner? X11 is very extensible, if you wanted some vector graphics methods, you could just make an extension. Whole font drawing got replaced in this way, nobody really use old X core fonts anymore, everybody now uses client-based Xft system. (Well, yes, you could make a new version without this old stuff. But backwards compatibility and so.) In fact, this is what happens if you are drawing with OpenGL, you use…

Are extensions negotiated over the network? So two hosts can decide they support a random high level primitive and just send that instead?

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#69

Post by nailer »

blub wrote: post #57
k-zed wrote: post #46

The major advantage of "Desktop Linux" (that I've been using happily for quite a few years now) is that it's utterly unlike Mac OS X or Windows. We use Linux not because it's free, but because it's more comfortable, the UI is better and friendlier, and developing programs for it is a whole hell of a lot easier. Everything Gnome, Ubuntu and this sort of people do work against these advantages. We use Linux because of…

Not me. I use Linux (among other OSes) because it's Open and Free, and I think that it's important to have an alternative to proprietary systems. I don't consider it to have a better UI or to be easier to develop for and I feel more comfortable with Windows.

Lowercase f free.

He's saying most people use Linux not because it's $0.00, which includes your reason, that it's liberated.

Re: Why Desktop Linux (Still) Sucks. And What We Can Do To Fix It.

#70

Post by richardw »

thingie wrote: post #28
richardw wrote: post #15

So much of Linux is designed and modified by committee, so change is slow and painful. Apple managed to get a seriously hot UI onto FreeBSD in a (relatively) short time. Linux has everyone and their dog bartering to make changes, so the UI goes nowhere. Stop copying Windows, already. Start menu sucks. Dump X.

Did you listen to the talk? :) X.org is quite an advanced graphic system mostly doing what you want it to do. Throwing it out and trying to make something new (for what gain?) means wasting so much resources that it's not even nice. (And how is X related to some start menu?)

X.org is just another implementation of X11. Re-implementing it isn't what I'm talking about. No, I don't expect it to be replaced, which I consider a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#Limitations_and... Here's the issue: why did Apple not just use X? Important question.

There isn't a relationship between X and the start menu in my statement.

Yes, listened to the talk. Audio frameworks aren't why the universe isn't using Linux.

Post reply on HN