Live data from Hacker News

Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks (2014)

youtube.com

11–20 of 116 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks (2014)

#11
post #6

it'd be interesting to try to make a hybrid static/dynamic library program. assume you can find the libraries you want on the system, but have a fallback where you go download some Debian packages & install them into your XDG_CACHE_DIR & load libraries from there, when the system (whatever os it is) didn't have it. part of the trick would be making this code significantly smaller than doing a static build.

I think you'd like Nix.

Re: Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks (2014)

#12
My family and I have used Linux desktops since 2008, when Windows Vista failed to run full screen video with BSOD.

There was a learning curve for a few months, but I've never regretted the shift and it has made for significant contributions to my career.

YMMV.

Re: Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks (2014)

#13

Worth watching. But if you don’t... [Linux desktop sucks because application writers don’t make binaries that “just work”, pushing the user to always just have to recompile for their system, they try and address this in the kernel by not breaking things, but the distributions to and screw it all up, because breaking is fine so long as it’s “improving”] Tons of contrary points I’m sure, but duh. It’s really nice to be…

> Windows 3.1 code on a Windows Server 2019

Can you? I was under the impression 64bit windows dropped support for 16bit windows.

Re: Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks (2014)

#15

Shouldn't this be marked with (2014) as it was made at DebConf 14?

Right, 2014. Although I’m not sure anything has improved on his main complaints. There is no possibility of compatibility between binaries for the end user which means the experience will rarely be download and run. The distorts will always be incompatible, the package managers don’t care about you, and the core system components will break things in the name of progress (for them, hope you can come along!).

Things like Flatpak or Snap try to solve this problems. Do you think they don't succeed?

Re: Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks (2014)

#16

This has improved a lot. Hardware support has caught up. I'm using a 1 year old laptop with hard to support hybrid graphics (AMD integrated, NVIDIA dedicated). In Fedora, it all worked out of the box. And you get an extra 50% battery life over Windows. In 2010, when I last ran a laptop with hybrid graphics, setting up Bumblebee was a disaster. The only line I had to type into a terminal in Fedora 34 to make it a GUI-…

I've no idea how people manage to flawlessly run their nvidia GPU. Prime is OK but having to open apps with prime-run like sudo is such a drag. Does your laptop have a BIOS switch?

Re: Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks (2014)

#17
post #12

My family and I have used Linux desktops since 2008, when Windows Vista failed to run full screen video with BSOD. There was a learning curve for a few months, but I've never regretted the shift and it has made for significant contributions to my career. YMMV.

I switched to Linux around the same time as you. Before that I was a Windows user from 1997 until ~2008. In the late 1990s and early 2000s people just accepted that Windows crashing everyday was a normal feature of that software, and they blamed every crash on user error, eg: "your drivers are bad", "you're running buggy software", etc. My Windows 98 install couldn't run for more than ~4 hours without crashing, it was infuriating. Windows 2000 did better, but it would still crash once every couple of days.

Linux was a million times more stable and much more pleasant to use as a programmer (no SDKs to download with complex installation instructions). It also had a package manager which made installs/reinstalls a breeze. You could actually write a bash script to redo your setup automatically, wow! Never looked back.

I recently installed Windows 8 on an older computer I was setting up for my mom (she didn't want Linux, understandably). It was my first time using Windows in two years or so. Windows Update was broken out of the box. It wouldn't run. You had to manually download a patch to get it to work. I don't really understand why desktop Linux gets so much hate when commercial software is this bad.

Re: Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks (2014)

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, 2014. Although I’m not sure anything has improved on his main complaints. There is no possibility of compatibility between binaries for the end user which means the experience will rarely be download and run. The distorts will always be incompatible, the package managers don’t care about you, and the core system components will break things in the name of progress (for them, hope you can come along!).

Things like Flatpak or Snap try to solve this problems. Do you think they don't succeed?

In my personal opinion it's not very advisable to run binaries "from somewhere". Some views regarding flatpak: https://www.flatkill.org/2020

Re: Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks (2014)

#19
What he's saying is true, but also i think the app-store type approach that apt-get provides is a major benefit.

With windows i have to find some random program, hope its not malware, possibly pay for it, etc. With linux, i have reasonable assurance that packages (from main repos) aren't evil, they are free (as in beer), and i can easily search through and find something for my usecase. I can't really do that in windows.

Post reply on HN