Linux is now the best desktop OS. Not necessarily because it got that much better, but because Windows & Mac have gotten that much worse.
Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
121–130 of 472 posts
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#122I've been patiently trying a distro of Linux every other year for the past 20... Someday. The general trend: Things work well from a native install. When you start installing software and drivers, the OS gets totalled , sooner or later. > What's worse is that software compiled for the current version of Linux X will not necessarily work for the current version of Linux Y. Linux distros insist that all the software mu…
> When you start installing software and drivers, the OS gets totalled I have been using multiple Linux distros for over 20 years (and supporting other people) and this has simply never happened to me. Not even since I started using a distro that is supposedly less stable (Manjaro). > Forcing a user to compile C code is a bad user experience That is why very few distros expect users to do it. Are you thinking of Gent…
A significant fraction of the software I use is installed through yay’s extra packages which do frequently require building from source so it’s not just a Gentoo thing. It’s far from as seamless (or as limited) as Android/iOS app stores.
* and not even half of them can be blamed on NVIDIA
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#123> Regressions are introduced all the time because Linux developers spend very little to no time checking that their code changes don't cause regressions or breakages outside of the problems they're trying to fix or features they're implementing. Wow. Such sweeping generalizations make me not want to pay attention to anything this article has to say. But let's entertain the possibility that parts of that statement are…
It can be a miracle, and yet still not be good enough. Even as a business user, knowing that if I build an app and it probably won’t work in 5 years, is all I need to know about this hobbyist toy. Linux is fundamentally not ready for anyone who has needs more than a Chromebook (which also runs Steam, by the way).
It’s like pointing to a skyscraper made out of sand. Sure, it collapses every time the tide comes in, but your robots can rebuild it in 5 minutes flat, so it’s clearly ready for tenants.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#124Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#125The main criticism I see as valid here is first point: software distribution is tricky. For macOS and Windows you basically have a model where you can go to a website, download a binary, install it, and it runs. Most Linux distros won’t jive with that very well. And because every Linux distro uses a different theme and one of a dozen UI libraries/DEs/etc. the downloaded GUI application will look bad because it won’t…
The fact that there’s flatpak AND snap (and the distro’s packages) just points to another nail in the coffin — there are just too many standards. If people could at least rally around snap OR flatpak, then we’d have more of a fighting chance.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#126Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#127The main criticism I see as valid here is first point: software distribution is tricky. For macOS and Windows you basically have a model where you can go to a website, download a binary, install it, and it runs. Most Linux distros won’t jive with that very well. And because every Linux distro uses a different theme and one of a dozen UI libraries/DEs/etc. the downloaded GUI application will look bad because it won’t…
We have already had this on Linux for years, it's called AppImage.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#128The author mentions non technical people and I will happily say that I'm a computer engineer designing semiconductors. Linux may not be the right OS for billions of people out there but it works perfectly fine as a desktop for a few million.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#129Again? I’ve been using Linux on my desktop since 2004 or so. And lack of games is always brought up as if gaming was one essential feature of a computer. That’s what consoles are for.
They are, that's why I have to dual boot. If my games worked on Linux, I would never run Windows. DirectX is their lock-in.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#130> Says you should run Linux programs via WSL
Okay