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

Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 157 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?

#61

Post by _odey »

There's many factors to this, some of which are:

1. Branding. Unlike MacOS/Windows, there is no ONE Linux, you have Linux "Distributions". So the brand is split between different entities with different goals and mentalities. The most known, and defaulted to, outside of hardcore Linux enthusiasts being Canonical's Ubuntu. As you can see from the name, it sounds quirky, but alien, hard to embed into people's minds. Others don't do well here either: Fedora Red Hat Linux, Manjaro Linux, OpenSUSE, Elementary, whatever, none of these are relatable, they're just exotic names. Solution: to have a "default" Linux, just Linux, no other names. When you search for Linux on Google you should get the first result to be "Linux" the "default" distribution, with a big download button for the ISO to install, with the default experience, without having to think about what other words surrounding it mean. Just like MacOS and Just like Windows, you should have a proper default. Not saying other distributions shouldn't exist, but they should be an afterthought for the average user.

2. Evangelism. You don't see people queuing for days in front of a Linux store to buy the latest Linux laptop on release day like you have for Apple and Microsoft products because there is no evangelism, no virtue signaling towards consumer vanity surrounding Linux. And I think there should be if you want normal consumers to show desire; mainly because the "competition" is doing it. Instead Linux markets itself towards the other end of the spectrum: bulky, hardcore, geeky, non fashionable by choice, and this hurts general public interest.

3. Corporate. There are features missing from Linux that corporate environments require, either with good reason or only to tick a checkbox, but nevertheless the reason doesn't matter, as long as they require it, Linux should provide them. The list includes: TMP full disk encryption. Active Directory setup with UI tools, reliable screen sharing and recording, system user for administrators to log in remotely, users wiht different privileges to install tools for normal users, antivirus and VPN support for different vendors, a way to push updates and manage certificates, passwords, disk encryption remotely, with UI tools for each. This is not an exhaustive list but just things for which I was denied a Linux laptop in the past at different workplaces. While there has been some improvement here and there, there hasn't actually been a unified, across the board solution for these that is usable by sysadmins in corporate environments, which are not programmers, so they want UI tools to manage these, and ideally the same tools across any distribution, so they don't have to learn a new tool every time they want to do their work.

4. Desktop Environments. Just like with the branding, there must be only ONE default. I don't really care which, or even if my preferred one gets thrown out and my most hated one becomes the winner, as long as there will be only ONE. This is very important, I would even say the most important point. Without stability, comfort, and harmony in this area there will never be an environment of desktop apps available for consumers to enjoy and use for their work. And desktop apps is what normal consumers expect from their OS.

continuing in a comment...

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?

#62

Post by _odey »

_odey wrote: post #61

There's many factors to this, some of which are: 1. Branding. Unlike MacOS/Windows, there is no ONE Linux, you have Linux "Distributions". So the brand is split between different entities with different goals and mentalities. The most known, and defaulted to, outside of hardcore Linux enthusiasts being Canonical's Ubuntu. As you can see from the name, it sounds quirky, but alien, hard to embed into people's minds. Ot…

...continuing here:

5. Slow Update Cycles. This is about hardware support; in recent years there have been rare cases in my experience where some new hardware was not supported on Linux quickly enough (let's say either on launch day or withing a few months of launch). But this is only if you look at the latest kernel version. Distributions don't run the latest by default, and many don't even provide a way to install a Linux with the latest kernel shortly after it's available. So you might be stuck at installing the OS because the live USB uses an older kernel incompatible with your hardware and halts at a text prompt. It only takes one annoyed person, with a new toy that he wants to try out, to blast Linux since Ubuntu did not install on his new laptop, and the whole ecosystem gets a bad reputation in his social cycle. Speaking of which...

6. UX/UI. Normal, every day consumers don't like text and beeps. They don't want to see it on the screen when the computer is booting, nor want to run commands in a terminal, nor want to edit configuration files. They want slick UIs that look good, spinners and animations that make it look like the device is from the future, not walls of texts and beeps. But for Linux, it seems like people don't want to refine the system with such things. This to me seems like a cultural problem that Linux has.

7. Leadership. There is no one person with authority around the entire ecosystem, that can force a direction change. You have the Kernel team that do their own thing, the distributions which focus on their stuff, the desktop environments doing whatever they please. This creates a great ecosystem for experts that know what they're doing and can piece things together. But common consumers are not like that. Their main focus is to feel good about themselves and the things they use, and a leader that can make choices for them on things they don't care to understand is part of this. So far there has been no such charismatic individual to penetrate the mind of consumers and address their needs since there is no way for such an individual to influence the direction of all the Linux ecosystem members. When Steve Jobs said a thing, it got done. When Bill Gates said a thing, it got done. But when Linus says something, maybe someone takes note, no pressure though... So the things people care about don't really get implemented, as everybody works on whatever they want in the Linux world. A great things for experts but a bad thing for everyday consumers.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?

#63

Post by john_the_writer »

deng wrote: post #43
daneel_w wrote: post #20

To people commenting how "well if you install Linux the right way on the right hardware like this here purpose-built laptop, it also 'just works'", what the OP is trying to underline isn't just the technical aspect of the OS booting flawlessly and recognizing its periphery, but also the whole experience that comes after. One special part of this, which is easily overseen, is the fact that Apple has poured hundreds of…

OP writes: > I am talking about a distro, that you don't have to configure anything for. A distro that handles things like external devices screen recording without weird glitches. I don't read this as a plea for better HIG? This is HN, so I'm assuming most of us live in the terminal anyway. I'll never understand why people prefer MacOS for development. From my experience, it is clearly worse in pretty much every res…

Mostly because we have no viable option.

Most work places want to have one device for all staff. So the IOS team and the Android team and Marketing and API and JS team, all need one common system.

Windows is out for the Rails/Elixir team, and IOS team need Macs. Marketing and Sales teams could live in Windows or Mac's

The only Venn diagram match is Mac. Low powered or high powered, Mac is the answer.

Honestly... Package Management is really good for IOS/Rails/Android dev. I personally never use containers at work, and I don't change the configuration on my Mac. Out of the box, it works.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?

#64

Post by anotherhue »

mike_pol wrote: post #42
hans1729 wrote: post #23

Wow, lots of disappointing answers. Easy: Apple hires TEAMS of designers, UX-experts/engineers [...]. The reward incentives in open source environments are not aligned with the required workload. People who seriously compare any modern linux desktop environment to the UX that macOS delivers must be lost in tunnel-vision/confirmation bias, it's not even close. Also, like some said, as Apple provides their own hardware…

I think this 100%. The problem with Linux is that it’s not controlled by a single company, there are many components developed by different contributors which have different interests. There is no single gui framework, no design guidelines so even the out-of-the-box software you get with any mainstream distribution doesn’t look cohesive. It simply lacks the polish of macOS. Hardware wise I think if you use modern (i.…

Linux is not for consumers, it needs nothing from them.

Android and chrome os (hell, even Darwin if you squint) all demonstrate that taking things away is the path to consumer happiness.

I am a professional user, I don't want a lobotomised system. An airplane cockpit is not like a car dash.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?

#67

Post by yokoprime »

gregopet wrote: post #39

Please stop using "it just works", you're not Apple's marketing department. Sure it just works for some people, but Linux distros and Windows also just work for some people. I've had and I've experienced a fair share of Apple WTFs and some stuff I could never get working properly. Computers are hard, "It just works" is a marketing slogan, nothing more.

Im currently a mac user and I can't say I've heard many saying macOS "just works", but it's less hassle to set-up and use day-to-day than Windows, and I don't really find comparing it to Linux is entirely fair. It's like comparing a high end drone with a custom made drone. Both are incredible powerful, but the latter requires more work and you have to mostly maintain it yourself. Linux is fantastic when you've found a configuration which works for you.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?

#68

Post by jokethrowaway »

Not many ux savy people in OSS and there is no single vision being implemented. It's a bunch of people with different ideas trying to agree with each other.

I would say the main problem is that people are mostly Devs and they care more about implementing "this one thing" for themselves instead of thinking about users. It makes sense, it's OSS, you can't expect people to work for free.

KDE somehow gets a lot of things right functionally but the design of the default theme contains very basic mistakes (eg. padding) and several interactions are cumbersome and seems to be there solely to justify tech work that someone wanted (eg. activities widgets and panels on the desktop). I think the pinnacle was KDE 3.

Gnome 2 actually got a lot of things right but was very low on features. They threw away a lot of it with Gnome 3.

That said, I find Mac OS to be pretty bad, UX wise, I generally install Arch Linux + KDE on my Mac devices.

In terms of functionality, if you have supported HW you won't have many problems. Distro take a bunch of terrible decision for political reasons (eg. adopting pulseaudio and systemd as standards) and those are generally the things that will hurt you - but that won't be that much worse compared to your typical Mac OS upgrade (eg. removing python2 in Monterey - who the f approved that?).

I wish there was a company developing a paid OS that works with a custom UI, I would definitely pay for that. Maybe one for the system76 people or similar.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?

#69

Post by Saphyel »

I bought a Dell XPS 13 with Ubuntu it works fine out of the box, no issues in the last 3 months.

I also have a macbook Pro because my workplace forced me to. I had several problems with gpg, docker, Bluetooth, etc.. the list can go on as much as you like tbh. You can google this if you don't believe me. Not sure why people is under the spell of "MBPs just work" unless they use it as a stone it doesn't.

Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?

#70

Post by daviddever23box »

It’s not just the Linux distro itself, but firmware and hardware integration as well.

The blame for this lies with PC hardware manufacturers, and their least-effort approach to integration (which also affects Windows to a lesser degree). The degree of laziness (partly driven by low-margin, tight-deadline project timelines) can make one’s head spin.

Apple simply executes better / different.

Post reply on HN