Live data from Hacker News

Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

itvision.altervista.org

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

#11
post #2

Most of points there make sense for power users only. If you need just basic internet station (no gaming, professional video/audio editing etc) then linux works almost perfectly.

Just by skimming the article:

> Serious bugs which impede normal workflow can take years to be resolved. A lot of crucial hardware (e.g. GPUs, Wi-Fi cards) isn't properly supported.

> Both Linux 4.1.9/4.1.10, which are considered "stable" (moreover this kernel series is also LTS(!)), crash under any network load.

> Under Linux many devices and devices features are still poorly supported or not supported at all. Some hardware (e.g. Broadcom Wi-Fi adapters) cannot be used unless you already have a working Internet connection.

> you are constantly bombarded with changes you don't expect or don't want.

> Another show-stopping problem for LTS distros is that LTS kernels often do not support new hardware.

> Neither Adobe Flash, nor Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome use video decoding and output acceleration in Linux, thus youtube clips will drain your laptop battery a lot faster than e.g. in Windows. Adobe says they are fed up with video decoding acceleration bugs under Linux and refuse to re-add support for this feature

> Keyboard shortcuts handling for people using local keyboard layouts is broken

> Keyboard handling in X.org is broken by design - when you have a pop up or an open menu, global keyboard shortcuts/keybindings don't (GTK) work (QT).

> Too many things in Linux require manual configuration using text files: (...) USB 3G/LTE modems, (...) to name a few.

Re: Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

#12
post #2

Most of points there make sense for power users only. If you need just basic internet station (no gaming, professional video/audio editing etc) then linux works almost perfectly.

If only that were true. Everytime I go to flash a fresh install, the next few weeks are invariably spent fixing trivial inconsistencies or plain defects in the UX (looking at you x/k/l-ubuntu) or trying to patch up library xyz only to fall into dependency hell. This goes for Arch, Debian... I'm not complaining about doing these things, mind you, I love tinkering and bricking my install. It's just that somedays you'd like X to behave, your packet manager to understand what you want to do... Without spending the afternoon scouring forums for why the audio jack isn't recognized or the touchscreen [x1.2 y1.5]s your inputs

Re: Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

#13
post #9

I am using Debian as my main desktop (laptop in this case) for the last 8 years... sure I am not the only one. I have suspend/hibernate, great Gnome experience, no issues to run presentations or use public printers, really stable and very fast experience, and I did not configure any system aspect to make it work, just installed the distribution and that works out of box. Well, I am very happy with Linux desktop. Just…

What are the chances your system will survive the next upgrade?

Re: Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

#14
post #2

Most of points there make sense for power users only. If you need just basic internet station (no gaming, professional video/audio editing etc) then linux works almost perfectly.

Any OS is good for a "basic internet station". Today, a school-age hacker can probably hack together a rudimentary desktop OS for running Chrome and Firefox with no advanced audio/video codecs. But Linux is no school project, in fact as an OS it's almost as mature as Windows in terms of their age. And we all know Linux is quite good, almost unbeatable on the server side.

But for the desktop side, there is no excuse for not having your video, audio and networking sorted and polished to death. Improving your battery life or saving internet traffic while on cellular data is not "professional video/audio", it has become pretty much standard computer experience today.

Re: Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

#15
post #9

I am using Debian as my main desktop (laptop in this case) for the last 8 years... sure I am not the only one. I have suspend/hibernate, great Gnome experience, no issues to run presentations or use public printers, really stable and very fast experience, and I did not configure any system aspect to make it work, just installed the distribution and that works out of box. Well, I am very happy with Linux desktop. Just…

http://itvision.altervista.org/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.th...

Re: Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

#16
post #9

I am using Debian as my main desktop (laptop in this case) for the last 8 years... sure I am not the only one. I have suspend/hibernate, great Gnome experience, no issues to run presentations or use public printers, really stable and very fast experience, and I did not configure any system aspect to make it work, just installed the distribution and that works out of box. Well, I am very happy with Linux desktop. Just…

[deleted]

Re: Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

#17
I'm not sure it's even "ready for the server".

I have a server without a monitor I'd like to VNC to. Unfortunately X doesn't start without a physical monitor plugged in because it uses it for autodetection. It's such a silly problem that you can even buy fake "monitor" dongles to plug in to trick X into thinking that there is one.

I don't feel like spending money on a software problem so I followed the standard workaround - create a static xorg.conf file. This is very suboptimal because what happens if I later plug in a real monitor?

Ok so now X starts. Sort of. Actually lightdm starts and I still can't get X11vnc to connect to the `:0` display. Apparently there is a workaround involving the MIT magic cookie but at this point I've given up.

In fact does X even support monitor hot-plugging?

Oh and also, if the wifi connection goes down and X isn't running it doesn't automatically reconnect! Wtf? I assume this is because the thing that does the reconnecting is a GUI tool of some sort.

Madness.

Re: Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

#18
post #13
post #9

I am using Debian as my main desktop (laptop in this case) for the last 8 years... sure I am not the only one. I have suspend/hibernate, great Gnome experience, no issues to run presentations or use public printers, really stable and very fast experience, and I did not configure any system aspect to make it work, just installed the distribution and that works out of box. Well, I am very happy with Linux desktop. Just…

What are the chances your system will survive the next upgrade?

Given my experiences with Debian (and I believe crncosta has the same), the chances are very, very high. I've never had any problems at all on my desktops, and just once or twice on my servers.

Re: Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

#19
post #14
post #2

Most of points there make sense for power users only. If you need just basic internet station (no gaming, professional video/audio editing etc) then linux works almost perfectly.

Any OS is good for a "basic internet station". Today, a school-age hacker can probably hack together a rudimentary desktop OS for running Chrome and Firefox with no advanced audio/video codecs. But Linux is no school project, in fact as an OS it's almost as mature as Windows in terms of their age. And we all know Linux is quite good, almost unbeatable on the server side. But for the desktop side, there is no excuse f…

I've a HP Windows 8.1 machine, added an Intel wireless card with Bluetooth. Bluetooth pretty much disappears after a suspend. And networking can sometimes die and only recover after a reboot. The control panels/diagnostics for both networking and bluetooth are also really sucky (and admin in general on 8.1 is pretty horrible). So don't be under the illusion that Windows is any better.

Bluetooth, how it works, how to use it on Linux is also an Enigma. And that's been patchy on my Thinkpad, but I haven't had that much of a joyous experience using Bluetooth on any device.

In short: 'they' could all try harder.

Re: Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

#20
"Android contains the only Linux component - the kernel"

Well, only the kernel IS actually Linux. A Linux-kernel based *nix OS in itself, which is usually wrongly assumed as Linux, is not in fact Linux (or not quite). In this regard Android is just like a lot of other Linux-kernel based distributions, no mater that it runs on an older/modified kernel.

Post reply on HN