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

What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

tirania.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 307 posts

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#291

Post by PeterisP »

Shorel wrote: post #288
PeterisP wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really that high bar to say that "nothing can be really compatible"? It comes down to a simple test that can be easily automated - take a test file (created in MS Office), run the load-from-MS-format operation, run the save-to-MS-format operation, verify that the resulting file is identical to the source file. There might be some differences in metadata (e.g. timestamps) but the document file content should b…

> Is that really that high bar to say that "nothing can be really compatible"? Yes. Different MS Office versions can produce different results.

I certainly experienced such situations back in MS office 95, 97 and 2001, but that has been a long time ago - the last few versions of MS office don't result in layout corruption like Open/Libre office does, even when interchanging the documents between windows and mac MS office versions which are quite a bit different.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#292

Post by phillipwills »

jankotek wrote: post #22
phillipwills wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wiki: General availability October 25, 2001; 15 years ago. General minimum recommended for XP was/is 512MB.

Nice... Didn't Google before posting... Busted. :)

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#293

Post by julian_1 »

pmontra wrote: post #188
julian_1 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gnome went off the rails, Unity completely ruined Ubuntu[1], and KDE always felt very cheap and hard to navigate. Completely agree, and as a user of Desktop Linux for a very long time - I always felt that Linux GUI have been inferior to the options available on Mac and Windows. It's not for everyone, but I found a personal solution with tiling window managers (Xmonad, I3) and related tools (suckless' dmenu). They r…

That's not my experience. I switched fron XP to Ubuntu 8.04 and I remember how the DE felt much better. I could do everything with half the clicks. Windows control panel dialog were so clunky in comparison. Four years later I discovered that KDE shares that clicks problem with Windows and I went back to Gnome after a few months. I'm on Gnome flashback now and specifically a Gnome 3 tweaked to look like Gnome 2 from 1…

I agree about windows 8 and 10. Around the time of the Gnome versus KDE wars - I felt Windows XP, 7, and Server 2000/2003 were clean simple GUIs. I messed about with Compiz as well and thought it very neat. I was happiest on Linux with the simplicity of fvwm though, and I think modern tiling WMs replicate that experience for me.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#294

Post by julian_1 »

j3097736 wrote: post #140
julian_1 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gnome went off the rails, Unity completely ruined Ubuntu[1], and KDE always felt very cheap and hard to navigate. Completely agree, and as a user of Desktop Linux for a very long time - I always felt that Linux GUI have been inferior to the options available on Mac and Windows. It's not for everyone, but I found a personal solution with tiling window managers (Xmonad, I3) and related tools (suckless' dmenu). They r…

But why switch to a tiling window manager when XFCE + dmenu + custom shortcuts is good enough?

For me it's because a tiling WM is simpler, more aesthetic and more responsive.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#295

Post by shmerl »

marvy wrote: post #285
shmerl wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is much simpler just not to ship any OS to customers that want to avoid the Microsoft tax Simpler yes, but it would undermine MS monopolistic control. That's why MS force manufacturers not to sell such computers. Their leverage is simple. If they would sell such, MS would raise the price of Windows for them. Most give in to blackmail. See https://web.archive.org/web/20150714080353/http://www.justic...

Is that still true today? I think these days it's possible to buy a computer with no OS preinstalled from some manufacturers. It might even be slightly cheaper than the identical model with Windows. (Of course, only select models, etc.)

From some very obscure ones, may be. Not from any major ones however. Try buying a Dell without any OS. Or some other major brand.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#296

Post by marvy »

shmerl wrote: post #295
marvy wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that still true today? I think these days it's possible to buy a computer with no OS preinstalled from some manufacturers. It might even be slightly cheaper than the identical model with Windows. (Of course, only select models, etc.)

From some very obscure ones, may be. Not from any major ones however. Try buying a Dell without any OS. Or some other major brand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_n_Series

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#297

Post by shmerl »

marvy wrote: post #296
shmerl wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From some very obscure ones, may be. Not from any major ones however. Try buying a Dell without any OS. Or some other major brand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_n_Series

Where are they on their site? Besides, why isn't it an option on all their models? Admittedly, Dell have some models with even Linux pre-installed. But since it's only a small subset, it doesn't help boosting Linux adoption.

And others are even worse than that. Try Lenovo.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#298

Post by dang »

AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #84
VonGuard wrote: post #6

I think it was the inability for GUI's to stay stable. Gnome went off the rails, Unity completely ruined Ubuntu[1], and KDE always felt very cheap and hard to navigate. My opinion, yes, but I always felt the GUI changes in Linux were extremely gratuitous after Gnome 2. Couple this with the fact that for a decade, the actual GUI was tied very, very heavily to the apps. So you had to use Gedit in Gnome, or whatever the…

Comments like these really make me believe that it is people like you who are killing the Linux desktop. Of all the window managers and desktop environments I have tried the last years on Linux, Unity, Gnome3, and Cinnamon are the only ones that don't look and behave as if they are from fucking 2003. Those others might be enough for those people who have stopped adapting and like to be left alone under their rock, bu…

> people like you

You cross into incivility when you do that, so please don't do that. I'm sure you can make your point principled instead of personal.

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#299

Post by marvy »

scholia wrote: post #290
marvy wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that should be illegal is the kind of secret deals that MS makes with PC manufacturers; see this for example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/20/be_inc_sues_microsof...

The 1990s called, they want their anti-Microsoft bigotry back.

But this hasn't changed since the 90s, has it?

Re: What Killed the Linux Desktop (2012)

#300

Post by marvy »

shmerl wrote: post #297
marvy wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_n_Series

Where are they on their site? Besides, why isn't it an option on all their models? Admittedly, Dell have some models with even Linux pre-installed. But since it's only a small subset, it doesn't help boosting Linux adoption. And others are even worse than that. Try Lenovo.

hey, I never said the situation is good, just that it's better than the worst possible situation.
Post reply on HN