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

Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition

itvision.altervista.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 472 posts

Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition

#131

Post by gjsman-1000 »

perihelions wrote: post #4

- "The vast majority of applications exist only for Windows, and speaking of games, Linux hasn't seen any AAA titles for many years now," The vast majority of AAA titles run seamlessly on Linux. Per protondb[0], ≥80% of the top 10, top 100, and top 1000 are rated "platinum" or "gold" for Linux functioning (by users). [0] https://www.protondb.com/

Steam also runs on Chromebook; which is easily showing that this is a very shallow victory for Linux on the desktop as a platform.

If you can survive with Proton, LibreOffice, and GIMP; you can much more comfortably survive with Proton on ChromeOS, Google Docs, and Photopea. Just hating Windows is not enough of a reason to be a Linux user, and as long as that is the case, Linux will remain niche.

Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition

#132

Post by devops99 »

throwup238 wrote: post #122
graemep wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I’ve been using Linux on the same timeline starting with RHEL3, then Gentoo, Ubuntu, and finally ArchLinux and I’ve had to arch-chroot from a live usb several times over the last five years to fix broken upgrades*. It hasn’t been more than an hour detour each time but it’s been far from painless. I just recently had to nuke and pave a Thinkpad X1 extreme to reset KDE/Plasma to a configuration that didn’t crash Plasma…

Arch is not for consumers, Arch is for people who think they are "power users" or something like that.

Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition

#133

Post by remir »

The reality is most people are well served by either Windows and/or macOS.

Both platforms have received billions of dollars in developpment by MS and Apple over the years and both have an extremely rich and mature app ecosystems. For most people, there's no real need or desire to use anything else.

That's it.

It's not an issue of drivers, games or app compatibility. If there were serious demand for Linux on the desktop, there would be good money to be made there and these issues would get fixed pronto.

Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition

#134

Post by ChrisArchitect »

Some discussions on previous iterations:

2022: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33951719

2021: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28960330

2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23368115

2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19241394

2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10812214

Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition

#135

Post by scarface_74 »

pr337h4m wrote: post #88

The main reason why Linux on the desktop has never gone mainstream is that it is extremely difficult to find a good laptop that comes with Linux preinstalled, where the OEM is responsible for ensuring a seamless experience, as any bugs in WiFi, audio, drivers, peripherals, etc. is the OEM's responsibility, not the consumer's. 99% of computer users will never consider replacing the operating system that came installed…

The other question is why should any normal person want to run Linux as their primary OS except for philosophical reasons?

I was forced to use Windows for a year as a developer. I threw WSL2 on it and it was fine. I installed Docker desktop for Windows and it worked fine for Linux.

But especially on the Mac, while I have to download updated commands, it is genuinely certified UNIX.

On both Macs and Windows I also get mainstream software support and on Macs, I get a laptop that can run 14-20 hours on a battery and runs cool and quiet.

Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition

#137

Post by acaloiar »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #123
imiric wrote: post #81

> 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's a miracle of modern software engineering and a testament of the power of collaboration and the free software movement that the Linux ecosystem works as well as it does” 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…

> this hobbyist toy. Linux is fundamentally not ready for anyone who has needs more than a Chromebook

Wow, piss right off you to you, too.

Linux is ready for me, and has been for decades. By your logic, I need nothing but a Chromebook.

Linux is imperfect, like you, but it's never been an ass.

Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition

#138

Post by geokon »

perihelions wrote: post #4

- "The vast majority of applications exist only for Windows, and speaking of games, Linux hasn't seen any AAA titles for many years now," The vast majority of AAA titles run seamlessly on Linux. Per protondb[0], ≥80% of the top 10, top 100, and top 1000 are rated "platinum" or "gold" for Linux functioning (by users). [0] https://www.protondb.com/

I mean it's maybe "seamless" if you use a system provided by the top DRM platform. Using wine directly it's unfortunately not very seamless. I don't really play games much but my recent experience hasn't been great.

Last week I tried to run Witcher 3 using wine and it took a while to debug. The installer runs immediately and seemlessly - but then it got messy

It involved installing `winetricks` which seems to be some service that installs a multitude of driver, libs and software through a clunky unresponsive UI. (not clear where it's being installed from, but #yolo) The necessary libraries I had to deduce from reading forum posts and the errors I got on launch. You then had to go in and make sure to launch the directx 11 version of the game (ie the .exe) buried in a hidden directory (~/.wine/)

Is this was "Platinum" means.. i don't want to image what Gold entails

Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition

#139

Post by jrm4 »

"Linux is not ready for the desktop" -- from a usability or technology point of view -- is an idea with zero fundamental merit and it's rather brain-rotty to look at what Linux can do on a desktop through this particular lens.

There are already many Linux "desktops."

A question with merit would be: How can we collectively best bring the advantages of Linux to broader audiences.

Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition

#140

Post by foobiekr »

imiric wrote: post #81

> 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…

Working for a vendor that ships Linux code, we find regressions all the time. Because we actually test things. We do try to be good citizens, and Linux is the right answer, but it isn't a false assertion on the part of the author at all.

In a previous job, 20 years ago, we found that the Linux USB stack was so bad that it was full of deadlocks and unprotected shared memory on 2.6. Just atrocious. And subsequent releases broke it again and again.

About 5 years after that, working for a different company, I had a well-known kernel developer tell me point blank that as long as we release our code to the kernel, they will "keep it working." When I probed what that meant, he genuinely saw no difference between "compiling" and "working."

There are various efforts to add testing/tests. Those are good. But we lost a lot when Solaris, Irix, etc. all died, and Linux has never quite gotten there, and I doubt it ever will.

Post reply on HN