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

71–80 of 97 posts

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

#71

Post by coffeeaddicted »

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…

And getting new versions of your software out by trying to get X distributors to include your newest version in their repositories (which are completely outside of your control and each with it's own set of rules) is less complicated than just putting new stuff up on your own website? I don't think so. There is one advantage for users certainly - it's easier to find versions of software which are officially sanctioned by their distributor, although it might be outdated by months. Which does often not matter much for server-software, but for desktop software it's something which users don't really accept.

I think we can discuss if this central-control-by-distros model of software distribution has more advantages or disadvantages, but it's not all shiny throughout. As example when stuff go really wrong with that model - maybe you heard of the troubles with Debian, J.Schilling and the cdrtools. I didn't until I noticed I could no longer burn CD's(!) with k3b and had to spend a few hours on figuring out how to fix this (you have to get the Schilling versions of the tools - the official Debian-version simply does not work in some cases and that is known now for a long long time). So there is a well-working combination of k3b+cdrtools which fails to pass the distributor rules (which is certainly fine) and now the authors can't really get the working combination (of 2 open source packages!) in an easy way out to the users.

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

#72

Post by peter_severin »

coffeeaddicted wrote: post #55
cookiecaper wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason this couldn't be done now, someone just needs to implement that in PackageKit and it would work fine on many distros and package managers. The backend and everything is all there, just make a drag and drop event instead of clicking an "Install" button. That said, installation of software on Linux has been one its shining points for a long time. Package management is awesome and neither OS X or Windo…

Some package management (apt) would be better if it would be easier for 3rd party vendors to get into the sources.list. For now you either have to get users to edit that file by hand (for which they might not even have the rights) or you have to use another installation mechanism which avoids the package management to which they are used and lose the advantages of stuff like upgrade. Maybe there should be a sources.l…

On Ubuntu there is a /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ directory and files included there are automatically loaded by apt.

Google Chrome uses this mechanism and it seems to work well. You install the .deb package manually the first time and then the package manager will update it automatically.

I thought that this solution was really great when I saw it.

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

#73

Post by arch_hunter »

sandGorgon wrote: post #60
sirn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, like Arch Linux's Pacman and AUR? :) I found Pacman to be easy and simple--on the same level as APT, and when the binary package doesn't do what you want, packing your own package is really easy. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Build_System

upvoted for pacman. I actually have only tried arch at a friend's place, because for some anal reason Arch does not provide livecds. Only a command shell from where you must build your system up, which is quite a pain. But I have only heard good things about pacman (and it's ultra simple package format). It enables Arch's rolling releases model, which means that you are always up2date without having to go from Beserk…

You should really try Arch. I was initially hesitant, because of the whole 'Build you own Linux!' thing, but after doing it once I learned LOTS and realized that it was not near as difficult as it sounds.

There is excellent documentation in the Arch wiki, and the forums are helpful. And I have to say, installing arch linux taught me more about linux than anything else that I have ever done.

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

#74

Post by dagw »

richardw wrote: post #70
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?)

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…

Apple didn't use X because OSX is based on NeXT and NeXT didn't use X. As to why NeXT didn't go with X, I don't know, but I assume it had something to do with the state of X in 1988, and those arguments probably aren't valid any more.

For me personally as a Linux user the audio framework is the one point that is causing me the most pain at the moment, and the one thing I really wish they would fix. If I could get audio working perfectly, I really cannot think of any other major complaint (other than a couple of pieces of Windows software I kind of wish I had) in my day to day Linux usage.

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

#75

Post by thingie »

nailer wrote: post #68
thingie wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's always client/server asymmetric communication. Server supports QueryExtension and ListExtensions commands. You can see extensions supported by your X server with xdpyinfo command.

(see www.x.org/releases/X11R7.5/doc/x11proto/proto.html specification for further details)

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

#76

Post by coffeeaddicted »

hristov wrote: post #48
Maro wrote: post #42

Here's one suggestion: adopt the drag & drop software installation model of OSX.

Don't agree. Installation of distribution supported software on linux is very easy already. Drag and drop will just cause a lot of issues with software that actually requires more complicated installation, as well as libraries, etc.

That is pretty much the problem. The only software that installs easy (in most cases) is the "distribution supported software" (in the version(s) currently used by the distribution that is).

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

#77

Post by cschwarm »

houseabsolute wrote: post #8
theschwa wrote: post #5

I think it boils down to what he was talking about at the end: Linux users need to be willing to buy software, and Linux software developers need to be more business savy.

The open question is why anyone would buy software for Linux. The key differentiating factor for _most_ people who use it is that it's free (as in beer). There are two other operating systems that for most people work better than Linux. It's hard to see how you can ask people to pay for software now in the hope that it will eventually be good. I'm sure some people will buy software because it's the Right Thing To Do,…

> The open question is why anyone would buy software for Linux.

Well, I'd be interested in one of the following apps: a desktop wiki, an email client, a contact management app, a feed reader, a music player, a scalable image editor, a layout app, a recording app, a guitar effect app, a GIT client, and probably some more.

Of course, for each of these, there's some free app somewhere. But each of these free ones have something I don't like.

I admit, my willingness-to-pay is quite low. That's partially due to some free apps being available. The better reason, however, is that installing proprietary apps sucks under Linux. I also fear, the regular distro updates will break apps I've payed for.

In other words: If there's a way to conveniently download an app from a store or homepage, and to get security and "distro upgrade" updates (maybe, by registering the app automatically with APT during installation), my willingness-to-pay would be quite a bit higher!

> The key differentiating factor for _most_ people who use it is that it's free (as in beer).

How do you know? Any empirical studies I'm not aware of? Or just the Biased Sample fallacy?

> It's hard to see how you can ask people to pay for software now in the hope that it will eventually be good.

Dunno. There's a lot of applications that were not 'good' when they were first released. People still bought it.

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

#78

Post by richardw »

dagw wrote: post #74
richardw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apple didn't use X because OSX is based on NeXT and NeXT didn't use X. As to why NeXT didn't go with X, I don't know, but I assume it had something to do with the state of X in 1988, and those arguments probably aren't valid any more. For me personally as a Linux user the audio framework is the one point that is causing me the most pain at the moment, and the one thing I really wish they would fix. If I could get aud…

There was some X11 in OpenStep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep

The link I put up earlier has some ref to Apple's reasoning. In the end, they decided to just replace it instead of just add the missing bits. That is really significant if X brings so much. I think it's just easier to get somewhere useful without the huge network of interested parties involved. I've watched Linux gyrate (and used it) since about 95, each year or so with a prediction it'll take over. My hope is that Google's OS will be a useful makeover for the mainstream.

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

#79

Post by xtho »

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…

It's funny you're saying that after all the years of work that went into making traditional window managers more Windows/MacOSX like.
Post reply on HN