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

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

#91

Post by krschultz » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 4:50 PM UTC

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…

Their absolutely are reasons why GNU/Linux development is harder/more restrained than Windows at times. On Windows I can go with DirectX or OpenGL depending on my needs, with GNU/Linux I only have OpenGL. Say what you want about DirectX, it is ahead of OpenGL in some respects.

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

#92

Post by russell_h » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 5:53 PM UTC

acon wrote: post #89

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…

Unfortunately this isn't used enough. It is not used by Firefox and Thunderbird. Instead they provide .tar.bz2 files. I was pleasantly surprised by skype and chrome, who actually provide rpms and debs. Nice! Open Office gave me a tarball with a myriad of debs. Not the nicest kind of packaging. Unfortunately the distributions performs their own packaging of a lot of these applications which may give some people the id…

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at, are you concerned with out of date packages? The whole point of package repositories is to avoid that problem, although QA testing and policies can make that non-obvious to users who aren't running some sort of 'unstable' option.

Some projects (Chrome I think?) release packages that actually add their own repository to the user's system so that the user can receive updates through their standard package manager. Other projects (Firefox) have a built in "check for updates", but then you end up back in the decentralized Windows/OSX update hell. That option is generally disabled by distro packagers for obvious reasons.

I've seen a lot of people citing the lack of package repositories and package managers as a weakness of Windows/OS X but this is definitely the first time I've seen it the other way around.

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

#93

Post by jgg » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 8:17 PM UTC

machrider wrote: post #47

The audio situation is a total debacle. n-1 of the sound systems need to be killed so we can focus on making the remaining one work really well. It's really funny that this is his first point, because I ran into it just two days ago... the microphone jack on my laptop, which worked fine in Ubuntu hardy, intrepid, and jaunty, no longer works in karmic thanks to the upgrade to pulseaudio (bug has existed in launchpad s…

Worth mentioning: http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html

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

#94

Post by jgg » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 8:22 PM UTC

moultano wrote: post #4

I wish talks like these had transcripts. I listened to the first half, but don't have the time for the whole thing.

I listened to the first half, but didn't listen to the second half, since by that time him constantly cutting out on the mic had driven me insane.

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

#95

Post by acon » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 8:26 PM UTC

russell_h wrote: post #92

acon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this isn't used enough. It is not used by Firefox and Thunderbird. Instead they provide .tar.bz2 files. I was pleasantly surprised by skype and chrome, who actually provide rpms and debs. Nice! Open Office gave me a tarball with a myriad of debs. Not the nicest kind of packaging. Unfortunately the distributions performs their own packaging of a lot of these applications which may give some people the id…

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at, are you concerned with out of date packages? The whole point of package repositories is to avoid that problem, although QA testing and policies can make that non-obvious to users who aren't running some sort of 'unstable' option. Some projects (Chrome I think?) release packages that actually add their own repository to the user's system so that the user can rece…

Yes of course I'm concerned about out of date packages. For example, my Fedora machine at work only has packages for Firefox 3.5. I tried using the tarball from firefox's home page, but for whatever reason it was really unstable.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to be able to install the latest version of such a major open source product as Firefox without hassle.

I don't know what you mean by the Windows/OSX update hell. Perhaps you mean the lack of a centralized place to look for updates. Here I agree that the situation is less than ideal, but I wouldn't call it hell. I'm sure the situation can be solved without relying on a centralized repository of all software.

The way Chrome does it may be the best option. Too bad it's not used by more projects.

The main thing I want is a clear separation between the core platform and the applications. Then the platform vendor can focus on the platform and the application developers can focus on their applications.

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

#96

Post by protomyth » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 9:20 PM UTC

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.

I guess one of the questions to answer about ease of installation is what makes Linux software different from the majority of OS X software.

[note] OS X does have a package format for more complicated stuff

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

#97

Post by nitrogen » Tue, Apr 27, 2010, 9:58 PM UTC

sandGorgon wrote: post #64

nitrogen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

I think that many of us who don't want DRM in the OS believe in a concept of layers of separation. The core OS should be as widely applicable and as open as possible, while any restrictive technologies or licenses should be in as high a layer as possible, so that they affect only those people who want/need them. The benefit to doing things that way is that all layers become easier to maintain and less prone to failure (DRM being used to blacklist hardware drivers would be considered a failure in this case), because each component in each layer only contains those things necessary for itself and the layers above it.

DRM especially should be in as high a layer as possible, or ideally not present at all, so that its casualties are minimal if the authentication servers disappear or the company holding the keys becomes malevolent.