Live data from Hacker News

What killed the Linux desktop

tirania.org

191–200 of 385 posts

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#191
Compare Linux to OSX makes no sense to me. Linux has always been missing features when compared to alternatives; the GNU system was actually written to emulate the alternative.

But the GNU/Linux project had a very different objective. Fighting for freedom. If it is still freedom the driving force, then we should encourage the enthusiasts and get back to work on improve Linux, as it has been done for the past years. By doing so Linux already reached the excellence in some fields.

If you're just competing on features, you'll be missing some great benefits and enjoyment. And to be honest, in terms of features OSX isn't that good either as Windows is still used by the majority for one reason or another.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#193
post #103
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even windows, crappy as it may be, has it. [...] Apple's work looks pretty-- because it is designed to function well. Actually, I'd say the same of Windows, if not more so. I far prefer the Windows 7 interface to OSX, it's just stuff like the terminal/command prompt that really lets Windows down.

I heard Windows PowerShell was decent. No first hand experience though

It's unbelievably verbose and the documentation sucks hard. Also, working on remote machines is unreasonably annoying. It is decent at manipulating structured data though.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#194
i guess if you don't mind that osx used 5% active cpu just for flashing bubbly buttons that's alright.

i like osx, I think it does have a good ecosystem for GUI APPS. but at pretty much everything it fails. It's a performance nightmare and the filesystem makes me want to punch a kid in the face(yes sorry, I also don't think you should be doing opengl in javascript, but hey) everytime it kills the cpu.

Now, with all the mentioned above I do wish there was a better ecosystem for app development. I mean something like xcode 3 not 4. Yes we have QT, yes we have glade, but build an app with the interface designer and bindings, mvc concepts and it just helps a lot.

You can do most of it with Vala, granted, it's just shittier documented and not as "round", there are no standard concepts to follow, etc. And yes, I do like my linux customizability, but we have stuff like CERT best practices for secure C coding. Why can we not get something like that for linux gui programming.

ps. gnome3 can go right where it came from

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#195
post #170
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardware? What hardware? Frankly, I havent bought nothing over last 10 years. I have laptop, you see...

I bought Samsung Galaxy S3 recently, plugged it in via USB and was not able to browse it because, as far as I understood, MacOSX has no support for "media devices" whatever that is. I had to download some obscure Samsung "Kies" software through which I was able to get to the filesystem and upload some files. Wasted hours.

That's the thing about samsung. They copied the bad stuff as well: weird connectors, itunes / kies.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#196
post #25

I think he's right, but I think he's missing a key point. Design. Design is what killed the linux desktop. It never had it. OS X has it. Even windows, crappy as it may be, has it. Before I go on, let me say that Design is NOT "making it look pretty". In fact, thinking that this is what design is, is what leads many linux advocates to reject the needs of design. Apple's work looks pretty-- because it is designed to fu…

I would bet if you ask people what they don't like in their linux setup design would come last. The main issues i hear seem to be compatibility and missing obvious functionality (oh clipboard). In fact , most desktops are so configurable you can actually make them look great. If you want to make a system popular, start with the people who are actually using it. Linux is used by technical people, so why are they putti…

Right, because the people who use linux don't understand what design is.

Look at the responses to my comments-- almost all of them defending linux make comments that show they don't understand what design is. They think it is how it looks.

>OSX is not easier to use either, it has many nonintuitive quirks but they stick to their design and improve it instead of overhauling it.

I suspect you simply haven't used OS X much. It was designed correctly and is intuitive. The reason you think its "unintuitive" is likely you've been trained to use a broken system that was not designed correctly and thus what feels "natural" to you-- which is actually learned behavior-- feels wrong on OS X.

Meanwhile, Apple has continued to improve their design, and in the rare case where they got something wrong, they fix it -- for instance, they reversed the direction of scrolling to make it more intuitive... move the finger up on the trackpad and the page moves up on the screen.

They don't need to overhaul it because they have been improving it for 3 decades....

They've done such a good job at it, that you think they havent' done anything!

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#197
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I meant "platform fan" in the advocacy sense: he has a tendency to "fall in love" with favorite products. Well, for one, C#/CLR was not a favorite product when he fell in love with them, were they? At the time lots of people thought MS was foolish to try to overtake Java, and it took a couple of years for people to accept and like .NET. > But to claim that these were innovative new projects is silly. Sure, they…

> Sure, they weren't, but it's not like Linux in general has given us much innovative things in the desktop space. O.o Two off the top of my head: workspaces, app stores.

You can't name innovative things amongst a crowd that rejects that innovation can happen. They'll tell you someone else did it earlier, even when they didn't.

For instance, cars were not an innovation according to hacker news, because Horses!

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much like the Mac OS menu bar; drove me nuts stuck at the top of the screen like that, but a lot of people like it and I can understand that...

That's my point. It's not that a lot of people like it. In fact, whether people like it or not isn't really relevant. It's that this is the correct way to do it. When the menu bar is at the top of the screen, the user is much faster at getting the mouse over a menu item and clicking to open the menu. It works better. This isn't opinion, it's measurable scientifically. When the menu is on a window, you overshoot with…

> It's that this is the correct way to do it.

Except when you have multiple monitors. How is it the correct way to do it to force me to mouse 4000 pixels to the left or right to get to the menu for an application that isn't on the same screen as the menu?

There's never just one correct way to do things. Your arrogance towards other implementations is overwhelming.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#199
post #97

This is the money quote: > The second dimension to the problem is that no two Linux distributions agreed on which core components the system should use. Linux on the desktop suffered from a lack of coherent, strategic vision, consistency and philosophy . Every engineer I know likes to do things a particular way. They also have a distorted view on the level of customization that people want and need. I like OSX. Out o…

I'm experiencing similar frustrations after having returned to using Linux (Ubuntu) at work recently. I've spent a fair bit of time having to customise a window manager (awesomewm), just to get a somewhat usable desktop environment. I work at a university with centralised mail handled by Exchange and struggle every day with flaky, buggy mail clients Evolution/DavMail+Thunderbird. Under linux my macbook air only sleeps reliably half the time, and occasionally I find that unbeknownst to me some process has woken the laptop (with lid closed) in my bag, with the battery near critical. The latest apt-get update broke my sound. Empathy hangs for a good 2-3 minutes on load, but eventually recovers. Something mysteriously reverts my xmodmap keybinds mid-session. Other little things such as LightDM not starting until I hit enter at a black screen post boot contribute to an overall experience that feels frustratingly incomplete.

I know that many of these are trivial complaints and that all of these things can be fixed. I no longer want to have to do this however. In my teens I loved tinkering with the linux desktop, designing 'awesome' Enlightenment themes and enjoyed tracking down and fixing these little problems. Now in my 30s I really just want the OS to get out of the way and let me code. OSX does this well, linux really does not. I say this with a fair bit of sadness as there are many things that I like about linux a great deal - the cli, the excellent package management, the ethos behind the OS and the open source community.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#200
There never was a "Linux desktop". Linux is a kernel. GNU is a set of utilities. And X11 is a mess.

Did you know that X11 is why we have shared libs (the UNIX version of "dll hell")? If not for having to run X11, shared libs really would not have been needed.

There are many window managers. Maybe too many. Too much choice for a noob. That selection or the pre-selections Linux distribution people make does not equate to "the" Linux Desktop. It equates someone else's configurations and choice of applications. It equates to having to fiddle with X11, whether you are just configuring it or developing programs to run in it. And that has always been extremely frustrating for too many people- constant tweaking; it never ends. This is like a brick wall to people who might want to try Linux, coming from Windows. You are inheriting a system that's been configured to someone else's preferences. (Same is true with Apple, but they have a knack for making things easy.)

I skipped Linux altogther and went from using Windows to using BSD. I've also been a Mac user. And BSD is way better than OSX, or any of the previous MacOS's for doing most everyday things: email, internet and secure web (ramdisk). Moreover it's flexible - you can shape into what you want - without this being an overwhelming task of undoing someone else's settings.

If you want a citation for the shared libs thing I will track it down, but honestly anyone can do it on their own. The historical research will do you good. Educate yourself.

Post reply on HN