Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

91–100 of 157 posts

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

#91
There are hardware and software reasons.

In the case of macOS, the company developing it only have to worry about a limited set of possible hardware devices, that they are even designed by them, or tightly approved what components have them on (like sound or wifi chipsets). In the case of Windows, the manufacturers of the devices, usually not Microsoft, are the ones that should make the drivers for their own components, knowing all of internals, and of course, the makers of the computers/laptops being sure that everything works well. And in those cases, usually the OS is already installed by the time it reaches the consumer. But in the case of Linux, you have independent developers trying to reverse engineer, figure out how to interact using sometimes incomplete or outdated specs, and the mix and match of devices in a model of computer may not be all covered. And you have to install linux on it.

Unless, like with Windows and MacOS, you buy a computer designed for and builtin around Linux with it preinstalled, where everything "just works" (depending on how serious about it is the manufacturer, at least).

Regarding software, instead of an homogeneous set of core libraries, rules of user interaction, ways to interact between core applications and so on, you have independently developed applications, frameworks, versions, redesigns and so on, it gives you far more choices, more ways to mix and match the components to make a solution for you, but it may not be consistent, not the same development rate, and you may hit some compatibility issues between versions. Distributions do some work around this, at least for their core apps, but you have too much options, and the applications may not be aware of others or meant to be run in just one distribution and way to do things.

Also, the traditional profile of the user used to be more technically minded one, so the design of a lot of components allow more fine tuning and configuration, at the cost of the usability of having just a few ways to behave. But that mix and match leaves space for misbehaving too. There had been some developments to avoid i.e. libraries conflicts, like snaps, but consistency and interaction between apps and frameworks of different developers may not be always perfect.

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

#92
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's....not even remotely true. First of all, they are by definition not vertically integrated, because the same company doesn't create the hardware and the OS. Second of all, have you actually compared the selection of hardware between Apple and any of these brands? I'll admit it's been a little while since I tried to give someone recommendations on a Windows machine, but the selection is just dizzying, and not in…

>First of all, they are by definition not vertically integrated, because the same company doesn't create the hardware and the OS. What matters is that they put the combined product through mostly the same testing. While the PC OEMs have only some to say about Windows' direction, they have the same experience picking components and integrating for Windows as Apple has for macOS.

> What matters is that they put the combined product through mostly the same testing.

No. Not even close.

You'd be surprised at the level of testing most OEMs do. It is not zero but at the same time it is not at the same level as Apple.

Apple controls the SMC and Firmware/UEFI. Dell, HP, etc buys the one that comes with the board.

Apple "hand picks" most of the components. Few PCs are custom designs, most are OEM designs.

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

#94
I don’t know about your experience, but MacOS doesn’t “just work” either. What about a buggy daemon that read-writes terabytes of data, chrome forgetting gained permissions on I guess version updates, randomly high CPU usage, oh and my favorite, during reboots I get a flickering purple screen, quite reminiscent of Ubuntu etc.

Linux comparatively works in a very very stable and reliable manner. Sure, low-end laptop with low-end hardware will likely cause trouble but it wouldn’t work well with Windows either.

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

#95

It really depends on what exactly you're looking for in the "it just works" experience, but since you mention "screen recording" and "external devices" I'll assume that you're specifically asking about the modern gamer-streamer (w/ mic, hardware-based sound control, multiple inputs, ViV, etc...) setup and not a basic-browser-and-mail setup. Linux, as in "in the desktop environment", has a HUGE (a can't highlight and…

You can’t really claim that Wayland has been in the works for x and x years, when such a hugely critical piece of the ecosystem needs network effect to strive. And I believe wayland has just recently got the critical mass to become the next X, but not getting it sooner is not due to its lack of technical merit.

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

#96
Well, personally *my distro* (custom NixOS, just a small set of configs and an oneliner to build the custom iso) just work OOB, OSX for me do not work at all, certainly not with the default setup.

It's empty, it completely miss tools I use, and makes automated deploy of them not much easier, so...

IMVHO "just work" means: "i know a certain environment and I'm lost outside it so I ask why others are not equal" like you go to another country and ask why people there talk another language, differently written and so hard to use (for you, of course)...

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

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>First of all, they are by definition not vertically integrated, because the same company doesn't create the hardware and the OS. What matters is that they put the combined product through mostly the same testing. While the PC OEMs have only some to say about Windows' direction, they have the same experience picking components and integrating for Windows as Apple has for macOS.

> What matters is that they put the combined product through mostly the same testing. No. Not even close. You'd be surprised at the level of testing most OEMs do. It is not zero but at the same time it is not at the same level as Apple. Apple controls the SMC and Firmware/UEFI. Dell, HP, etc buys the one that comes with the board. Apple "hand picks" most of the components. Few PCs are custom designs, most are OEM des…

Please stop making this sound like OEM PC laptops are "in the wind" and almost to the point of just getting lucky with the final platform. It's an absurd discrediting of the decades of experience and work going into them.

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

#99
post #94

I don’t know about your experience, but MacOS doesn’t “just work” either. What about a buggy daemon that read-writes terabytes of data, chrome forgetting gained permissions on I guess version updates, randomly high CPU usage, oh and my favorite, during reboots I get a flickering purple screen, quite reminiscent of Ubuntu etc. Linux comparatively works in a very very stable and reliable manner. Sure, low-end laptop wi…

Definitely reflects my experience working at a Mac-only shop that's struggling with the problem of testing on M1 Darwin and deploying to x86 Linux. We've gotten to a point where local development simply isn't worth the hassle...

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

#100
post #95

It really depends on what exactly you're looking for in the "it just works" experience, but since you mention "screen recording" and "external devices" I'll assume that you're specifically asking about the modern gamer-streamer (w/ mic, hardware-based sound control, multiple inputs, ViV, etc...) setup and not a basic-browser-and-mail setup. Linux, as in "in the desktop environment", has a HUGE (a can't highlight and…

You can’t really claim that Wayland has been in the works for x and x years, when such a hugely critical piece of the ecosystem needs network effect to strive. And I believe wayland has just recently got the critical mass to become the next X, but not getting it sooner is not due to its lack of technical merit.

The issue is that Wayland isn't a replacement for X. It's become it's own thing entirely, with it's own goals and conflicts with the xorg ideology. On top of that, it doesn't have feature parity with the window server on Windows and certainly doesn't approach the capability of Quartz (and likely never will, judging by it's core values). This puts it in an awkward spot: certain developers are begging users to switch to Wayland despite the fact that it only works with two and a half DEs, while other developers are pledging to never transition their software in the first place. Wayland's own development is constantly taking forwards and backwards steps in ways that are scaring users (like myself) away from using it. This is the part where I'd usually give credit to the developers for not turning it into a GNOME-first utility, but even that's untrue as the only "complete" implementation is Mutter.

At this point I've conceded that I will use x11 until I die. I will write software for x11 until I stop writing software. Yes, it is miserable, but it's never failed me and there has never been any "politics" ruining it. There's no wlroots to fuck around with to get certain basic features working. There's no xWayland to scream at when my software doesn't "just work". The whole thing is so disappointingly ironic that I can't help but ignore it's development.

Post reply on HN