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

Linux on the (consumer) Desktop

people.gnome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: Linux on the (consumer) Desktop

#21

Post by pyre »

shmerl wrote: post #15

I think all of this is close to be pointless, when there is an abundant and sickening Windows bundling problem which persists until present day. End users don't care about any ISVs, ABIs and other such matters, and some even don't have a clue about OS names. They buy a computer with an OS preinstalled. And guess what that OS is? That's the problem which needs to be solved first. The rest as the author admits, will be…

Unless the "Linux Desktop" provides what costumers want, no OEMs will pre-install it (or those that do will lose money / go out of business). While "what costumers wants" might not be as complex as power users might imagine, it is not something so easily swept under the rug as "no big deal."

Re: Linux on the (consumer) Desktop

#22

Post by shmerl »

pyre wrote: post #21
shmerl wrote: post #15

I think all of this is close to be pointless, when there is an abundant and sickening Windows bundling problem which persists until present day. End users don't care about any ISVs, ABIs and other such matters, and some even don't have a clue about OS names. They buy a computer with an OS preinstalled. And guess what that OS is? That's the problem which needs to be solved first. The rest as the author admits, will be…

Unless the "Linux Desktop" provides what costumers want, no OEMs will pre-install it (or those that do will lose money / go out of business). While "what costumers wants" might not be as complex as power users might imagine, it is not something so easily swept under the rug as "no big deal."

And what does Linux not provide, that the common user needs? The most common use cases are covered by modern Linux desktop more than enough. When you are starting to go to more specialized use cases (gaming, publishing, etc.) then Linux will fall behind. But they are arguably not the majority. So the common reason not to give an option of Linux (or no OS) is not because Linux is really lacking in functionality, but because of either deals with MS (i.e. reduced Windows price), or because of lack of demand (i.e. the same "network effect"). But demand is hard to build if such option doesn't even exist as an option for an unaware customer. So it's a vicious cycle, which is of course well fed by MS to persist.

Re: Linux on the (consumer) Desktop

#23

Post by eckyptang »

shmerl wrote: post #15

I think all of this is close to be pointless, when there is an abundant and sickening Windows bundling problem which persists until present day. End users don't care about any ISVs, ABIs and other such matters, and some even don't have a clue about OS names. They buy a computer with an OS preinstalled. And guess what that OS is? That's the problem which needs to be solved first. The rest as the author admits, will be…

Have you considered that windows is good enough for the end users and represents good value?

People don't want to make a choice or have to care about what they buy. The ISVs are quite happy to ship windows as they have reusable experience and it's just plugging things together.

The reason no market share destroying competition has appeared is that people are quite happy apart from a minority of users who are quite vocal.

consider that are more windows power users than there are mac users and Linux users combined.

I'm a Linux user (heavy with 15 years' experience) but i don't have a problem with the current situation.

Re: Linux on the (consumer) Desktop

#24

Post by Steko »

shmerl wrote: post #22
pyre wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the "Linux Desktop" provides what costumers want, no OEMs will pre-install it (or those that do will lose money / go out of business). While "what costumers wants" might not be as complex as power users might imagine, it is not something so easily swept under the rug as "no big deal."

And what does Linux not provide, that the common user needs? The most common use cases are covered by modern Linux desktop more than enough. When you are starting to go to more specialized use cases (gaming, publishing, etc.) then Linux will fall behind. But they are arguably not the majority. So the common reason not to give an option of Linux (or no OS) is not because Linux is really lacking in functionality, but b…

"what does Linux not provide, that the common user needs"

Office, Outlook, most AAA games, itunes. Don't tell me that because you can run them today on your machine (well maybe) that that somehow translates to what common users have experienced over the last decade.

Re: Linux on the (consumer) Desktop

#25

Post by willholloway »

ekianjo wrote: post #17
willholloway wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the direction Android will go in. I am pretty sure that in five years most people will have one smart phone that they dock at home to have access to large screens and keyboard/mouse. The laptop as we know it will be replaced by laptop shells with a smart phone dock. And those phones will run Linux with the Android UI and drivers. I believe tiling window managers would be fantastic productivity boosters for en…

> And those phones will run Linux with the Android UI and drivers. You seem to assume Android is just another Linux distro with a different windows manager? If so, you are mistaken. An Android system is very different from a Linux distro - they basically only share the kernels and it is quite wrong to classify Android as "Linux" because it creates confusion.

The Linux kernel and Android kernel have already become one again, and I suspect that the community will narrow the gap further.

Right now they mainly just share the kernel. If the GNU tool chain is included and you can compile and run linux programs, what is the difference besides some architectural changes?

Re: Linux on the (consumer) Desktop

#26

Post by shmerl »

eckyptang wrote: post #23
shmerl wrote: post #15

I think all of this is close to be pointless, when there is an abundant and sickening Windows bundling problem which persists until present day. End users don't care about any ISVs, ABIs and other such matters, and some even don't have a clue about OS names. They buy a computer with an OS preinstalled. And guess what that OS is? That's the problem which needs to be solved first. The rest as the author admits, will be…

Have you considered that windows is good enough for the end users and represents good value? People don't want to make a choice or have to care about what they buy. The ISVs are quite happy to ship windows as they have reusable experience and it's just plugging things together. The reason no market share destroying competition has appeared is that people are quite happy apart from a minority of users who are quite vo…

Have you considered that windows is good enough for the end users and represents good value?

Same as Linux in this day and age (if user has such option).

The reason no market share destroying competition has appeared is that people are quite happy apart from a minority of users who are quite vocal.

With this logic any kind of monopoly can be justified, but it doesn't make monopoly good per se. Artificial lack of competition is bad.

consider that are more windows power users than there are mac users and Linux users combined.

Network effect is part of the problem, but the bundling issue is just a method to feed it. So one way to break it - is to remove the bundling blocker to allow fair competition.

Re: Linux on the (consumer) Desktop

#27

Post by shmerl »

Steko wrote: post #24
shmerl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what does Linux not provide, that the common user needs? The most common use cases are covered by modern Linux desktop more than enough. When you are starting to go to more specialized use cases (gaming, publishing, etc.) then Linux will fall behind. But they are arguably not the majority. So the common reason not to give an option of Linux (or no OS) is not because Linux is really lacking in functionality, but b…

"what does Linux not provide, that the common user needs" Office, Outlook, most AAA games, itunes. Don't tell me that because you can run them today on your machine (well maybe) that that somehow translates to what common users have experienced over the last decade.

Arguably, the majority of PC users don't care about heavy gaming. While gamers are an important factor, they aren't the blocker for any OEM to provide an option of Linux preinstalled. There are lot's of people who use their computers merely for browsing, reading e-mails and some minimal document editing and multimedia like audio/video. Many don't even use desktop office applications, using some web services for that. And Libre Office or Calligra are decent options as well. The age of immature office options on the Linux desktop is gone.

Outlook is a rather heavy monstrosity. There are better e-mail clients out there, including those on Linux.

Re: Linux on the (consumer) Desktop

#28

Post by willholloway »

ekianjo wrote: post #19
willholloway wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People said the same thing about Apple in the 90's when it had 5% market share. Have you noticed that Linux is taking over the mobile market?

not Linux. Android. It's NOT the same thing. At all.

I have busybox and bash on my android phone, how is it not the same at all? That's why they call it GNU/Linux. Linux is the kernel, and GNU a set of tools and libraries. Right now Android has the Linux part, and the GNU part is increasingly available.

Re: Linux on the (consumer) Desktop

#29

Post by lloeki »

vidarh wrote: post #8
elchief wrote: post #3

We already have linux on the desktop. It's called OSX. Seriously, I've been reading about dreams of linux on the desktop for 20 years. Give up. Move on.

I use OS X a lot. But my home desktop has been Linux for the last 17 years, and it will stay Linux for the foreseeable future. Maybe it will never see mass adoption. Maybe it will. For my part it doesn't matter. What matters to me is that there's nothing I have on my OS X laptop at work that I miss when I use my Linux laptop at home, but I can't say the same in reverse.

In my (just as anecdotal) case, you can literally swap OSX and Linux:

I use Linux a lot. But my home laptop has been OSX for the last 6 years, and it will stay OSX for the foreseeable future. Maybe it will never see mass adoption. Maybe it will. For my part it doesn't matter. What matters to me is that there's nothing I have on my Linux workstation that I miss when I use my OSX laptop at home, but I can't say the same in reverse.

Post reply on HN