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

What killed the Linux desktop

tirania.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 385 posts

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#201

Post by nirvana »

diminish wrote: post #112
wheels wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have two monitors on my Linux desktop. A month ago full screen on video stopped working. [...] In this regard, both Windows and OSX just work. Just because it's never happened to you on OS X or Windows doesn't mean it doesn't happen. OS X 10.6.7 broke the output on my 13" Macbook for either of the two external displays I own. Both worked fine previously, when booted from the install CDs, or from Linux on the same…

To stress out again; OS/X has the poorest hardware support for 3rd parties; even compared to Linux. Just "think different" and buy some hardware and you ll see what I mean..

I've been using OS X going back to the betas. I've never seen OS X have problems with third party hardware that conformed to standards.

I have seen problems with third party hardware that required its own driver (poorly written generally) or that was half assed crap that was designed to work with windows but marketed as supporting standards like "USB".

Meanwhile, Linux has trouble dealing with the computer itself, let alone getting hardware attached to it. Constant pain in the ass.

Currently I'm in a country in a different hemisphere from the USA. I walked into a store and bought and off the shelf no-name brand displayport to HDMI adapter. Worked no problem.

I've gotten used to being able to do that... and haven't had much trouble getting things to work with OS X in years.

Course, I also stopped buying things that require custom drivers-- that's a clear sign you're not going to have a good time.

To claim that Linux is better in this regard is, quite frankly, asinine.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#202

Post by nirvana »

snitko wrote: post #170
atirip wrote: 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.

This is samsung not following USB standards.

OS X has perfectly find support for media devices, and has worked fine with every digital camera, SD Card or other card reader, etc, that I've attached via USB in the past decade!

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#203

Post by icebraining »

Derbasti wrote: post #138
masklinn wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I actually prefer the graphical shell of Windows 7 to the one of OSX Lion. Explorer? Versus finder? That's a pretty low-hanging fruit, I can't remember ever preferring finder to explorer and I've been using OSX as my main dev machine (and Windows mostly for the game box) for 6 years now. I prefer OSX overall, but the finder still isn't a good shell.

I was going to leave a snarky comment with just a list of awful OSX applications here. But then I looked at a list of the applications I have installed and... Well, while many of them might be bad, their usual alternatives on Windows aren't exactly better. But Finder really is bad. Then again, I wish ANY other OS would implement the column view Finder has. As bad as Finder is, column view is awesome. But many of the…

Then again, I wish ANY other OS would implement the column view Finder has. As bad as Finder is, column view is awesome.

Hmm, Wikipedia lists a bunch of file managers with column view support[1]. Here's it in Konqueror: http://www.konqueror.org/pics/konqueror-file-manager-col-vie...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_managers#Ma...

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#204

Post by MatthewPhillips »

flatline3 wrote: post #185
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got me on workspaces, I wasn't aware of the Xerox implementation. I didn't mean packaging, I meant app stores, see Lindows and CNR.

Wasn't CNR just an subscription-based package repository service?

No, it was an app store like we know them today. Here's article from the founder (also the founder of MP3.com):

http://www.michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=340

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#205

Post by jiggy2011 »

imperialWicket wrote: post #78

This flame ignites periodically, and I'm always left wondering when exactly the Linux desktop died? Some have noted similar aspects already, but here's my 2 cents: I'm on Linux now (GNU/Linux, maybe lump BSD in there too, I'm using "Linux"). I know plenty of users on Linux. I know plenty of users of Windows and OS X who run virtual Linux Desktop distributions for testing/development/security. I'm sure some of HN are…

As someone who previously worked doing Windows support, actual "troubleshooting" on desktops is pretty rare apart from a handful of common cases.

Most of the time all that happens is virus scan -> backup -> reinstall.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#206

Post by nirvana »

nuclear_eclipse wrote: post #198
nirvana wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sorry that you consider citing the science behind the decision "arrogance", but I suspect its just desperation to engage in ad hominem.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#207

Post by jvm »

nathanb wrote: post #27

I think the article does a great job of explaining the problem, but doesn't explore the ramifications far enough. Let me give an example: a few months ago, a new version of Skype was announced for Linux. I was excited, since I used Skype 2 for Linux but then it stopped working for me and I couldn't be bothered to fix it. But if you go to the Skype for Linux download page, you will find a few downloads for specific di…

What distro are you running? It must be sort of out there that you're having such difficulties. I'm running Arch which is not widely supported, but user submitted build recipes (think brew on OSX but with way more options) work 95% of the time (e.g., no trouble with Skype, Spotify, etc.)

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#208

Post by imperialWicket »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #205
imperialWicket wrote: post #78

This flame ignites periodically, and I'm always left wondering when exactly the Linux desktop died? Some have noted similar aspects already, but here's my 2 cents: I'm on Linux now (GNU/Linux, maybe lump BSD in there too, I'm using "Linux"). I know plenty of users on Linux. I know plenty of users of Windows and OS X who run virtual Linux Desktop distributions for testing/development/security. I'm sure some of HN are…

As someone who previously worked doing Windows support, actual "troubleshooting" on desktops is pretty rare apart from a handful of common cases. Most of the time all that happens is virus scan -> backup -> reinstall.

Exactly - that's much more succinct than I put it. Comparatively, it's not often that a Linux issue is solved by those same steps (or any given set of steps - there's just more variation).

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#209

Post by nirvana »

icebraining wrote: post #190
nirvana wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Measured scientifically just means it's better for the majority of users; it doesn't necessarily mean it's better for me as a single individual. Not that I'm arguing against the bar on top; in fact, I'll use the keyboard shortcuts anyway, so I don't particularly care.

I submit that we are talking about a physiological issue, not a preference.

Attempting to hit a target in the middle of the screen is more difficult for humans than hitting a target at the very top of the screen.

When you overshoot the target in the middle of the screen, you have to come back around to click on it.

When you overshoot the target at the top of the screen, the pointer is stopped by the border of the display. Stopped right on the target, and you can just click.

It may not feel faster to you-- that's perception.

My point is that it is faster. And I haven't seen an argument for why the two things would be reversed for any specific person.

It's the nature of the latency between our eyes, mind and muscles.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#210

Post by jiggy2011 »

thiderman wrote: post #18

I never understood this. Why would market share of Linux on the desktop matter? I've always viewed Linux on the desktop as something for power users and developers, and thousands of said power users and developers are continually developing and maintaining multiple distros and thousands of applications. It's not like it's a stale and abandoned paradigm that's left to die.

I think it's because even power users enjoy doing "regular user" stuff sometimes and it's nice to be able to do it all on one machine without resorting to dual boots or VMs.

Having a bigger market share means that hardware/software vendors are more likely to consider supporting Linux to at least some degree.

For example I like to listen to music while programming, so it's nice that Spotify is available on my dev machine.

Post reply on HN