Live data from Hacker News

What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

tirania.org

111–120 of 307 posts

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#111

For anyone who skipped the comment section of the article, I found the following comment by "has" to be very insightful. Specifically the way that the community would rather divide its resources to keep multiple mediocre implementations of a given thing around than consolidate them, and how the Unix Philosophy has been ignored: @Miguel: You are right about developer culture being a huge factor. Linux geeks all to oft…

I loved reading this comment. Thank you for this long quote which contains few familiar thoughts. I've shared similar points during one of my presentations few years back.

Yet years passed and we in FLOSS world seem to be stuck in the same place. We're creating more and more overbloated-I-do-it-all-better software than to improve with small drop in solutions. We can see that the only integration efforts are done by replacement of small good tools with crappy rewrite inclusions. Not compilation and redistribution of original small but good software following good old UNIX pipeline philosophy.

Sure, the are projects like suckless keeping up the good work but there is no connection with more mainstream solutions like Ubuntu or KDE. Which instead of serving with experience about UX and stuff do their own rewrites according to their own APIs.

Writing independent GUI applications becomes more and more of a chore. So many different ways of doing simple things to support. Like multimedia keys or even a tray icon. Try to do it for multiple operating ststems: you do macOS, Windows and when it comes to Linux: Unity, Gnome, KDE and there is I think still at least standard X-window way of doing things for others which should work quite fine for other UNIX based open operating systems.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2001 laptop? Even contemporary systems (Win XP) would be slow on that. > Inside, it had plenty of power, an 850MHz Pentium III-M, 256MB of RAM, and 802.11b for wireless networking (if you could find a wireless network, that is). Plus it had 20GB of storage, FireWire and even one USB port.

Also, XP was released in 2002, so it should work rather well on the previous year's hardware...

You're the hopeful kind I see. XP was utter shit on "medium" hardware of its time. It ate ram like no tomorrow compared to 98.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#113
How many Linux distros and their many different GUI/UI variations have been listed here???

No wonder the Linux desktop was dead upon arrival. Too many flavors of developers to satisfy. But it wasn't about developers; it was about end users who just wanted something simple. No matter the changes that Windows has made, from 95 to 10, for end users, the changes caused relatively minor disruption, especially with everything moving to the web. Switch to Linux? Which one? Which packages to install and why? Which GUI to use? etc, etc, etc... Linux was the beginning of developers creating something for themselves to control and expecting the rest of the world to just simply fall in love.

I say all that because I genuinely like Linux and it's purpose, but not for desktop purposes. Maybe mobile???

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#114
Something killed the Linux desktop? Its usage is growing, while MacOS stagnation causes people to abandon it, yes you guessed it - often for Linux.

UPDATE: Oh, after noticing the date and the author, I realized, my suspicions were right. I expected the piece like this to be written by Miguel de Icaza. And here you go, it's indeed his rant. From 4.5 years ago...

Just skip it and read something more to the point, which discusses Linux desktop today.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#115
What killed the Linux desktop? Not being preinstalled. For a bit of context from PC history, this is also what killed the GEM desktop, killed the OS/2 desktop, and damn near killed the Windows desktop until Microsoft put pressure on vendors to make a 386SX with VGA the entry-level option and ship Windows 3.0 with every unit.

Preinstalls are an OS's golden ticket to adoption.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there is; it's "regular" OS LTS. Ubuntu won't change the GUI during LTS (5 years).

But that means all the software on your system will be 5 years old.

Yes...that's the downside of LTS. You can't get the new features because they may break the old ones.

If by "LTS" you simply mean "more backwards compatible" well I agree and pray for the day.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#118

What killed the Linux desktop? Not being preinstalled. For a bit of context from PC history, this is also what killed the GEM desktop, killed the OS/2 desktop, and damn near killed the Windows desktop until Microsoft put pressure on vendors to make a 386SX with VGA the entry-level option and ship Windows 3.0 with every unit. Preinstalls are an OS's golden ticket to adoption.

If one Linux with one desktop was widely preinstalled, that would help. That would have made that environment the target for desktop developers, which in turn would have added the pressure for backwards compatibility. Now, as a desktop developer I'm surely not targeting Linux desktop because it's not even a single target.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#119

What killed the Linux desktop? Not being preinstalled. For a bit of context from PC history, this is also what killed the GEM desktop, killed the OS/2 desktop, and damn near killed the Windows desktop until Microsoft put pressure on vendors to make a 386SX with VGA the entry-level option and ship Windows 3.0 with every unit. Preinstalls are an OS's golden ticket to adoption.

These days you can get computers with Linux preinstalled. What you can't get is a computer that has both Windows and Linux preinstalled in some kind of dual boot or VM setup. That you must still do yourself. You can get the choice to preinstall Windows, or preinstall Linux; never both.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#120
> As for myself, I had fallen in love with the iPhone, so using a Mac on a day-to-day basis was a must.

I don't understand this. Why do you need a Mac if you use an iPhone? I have not used iTunes to manage my iPhone in half a decade I think. Is there any connection left between iOS and macOS? From a user point of view?

Post reply on HN