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

141–150 of 472 posts

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

#141

Post by gjsman-1000 »

acaloiar wrote: post #137
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

I’ve used Linux since 2011; I know all about it; and I would recommend it to nobody because the community can hear no criticism, bear no criticism, and self-rationalizes everything. Sometimes it takes a bold stance to make a point against one of the most toxic, delusional, and self-righteous communities online.

For my part, I’m back on Windows and Mac. Screw the community’s arrogance more than the project. The community, as even the comments here show, does not deserve a victory.

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

#142

Post by ryao »

foobiekr wrote: post #140
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 relea…

OpenSolaris still lives in illumos:

https://illumos.org/

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

#143

Post by talldayo »

kelnos wrote: post #115
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 practically impossible for "Linux developers"—whatever that means—to ensure that a change they make doesn't break something downstream. Unlike proprietary operating systems... That's exactly the point, though. Linux will "never be ready for the desktop" because of the problems that this causes. Developers of software for Linux, not to mention kernel developers themselves, do not have the kind of funding that M…

> they don't have the luxury of supporting a comparatively small set of hardware combinations like Apple has.

And even then, Apple has never been able to promise that you can keep the software features your computer shipped with across system updates. If a feature is removed, your only path of recourse is to treat your current patch like an LTS release.

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

#144

Post by imiric »

kelnos wrote: post #115
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 practically impossible for "Linux developers"—whatever that means—to ensure that a change they make doesn't break something downstream. Unlike proprietary operating systems... That's exactly the point, though. Linux will "never be ready for the desktop" because of the problems that this causes. Developers of software for Linux, not to mention kernel developers themselves, do not have the kind of funding that M…

> Linux will "never be ready for the desktop" because of the problems that this causes.

These problems can be mitigated, though. All it takes is a company willing to lead the effort and maintain a stable, limited and tested ecosystem of software built on top of a stable, limited and tested version of Linux. And/or maintain a secure runtime environment like Google has done with Android.

The problem with this is that it invariably takes away some of the freedoms Linux users expect. Personally, if I'm not allowed to run any software I want, how I want to, and terms like "sideloading" and "jailbreaking" are thrown around, it's not Linux and I don't want it. At that point you're no longer using a general purpose machine, but a machine that someone else decided how it must be used.

Besides, like a sibling comment mentioned, bugs do happen even on Windows and macOS. This is an inescapable fact of software development. I was simply pointing out how harder it is to manage this on Linux, and yet it remains usable for many people despite of it.

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

#145

Post by foobiekr »

edoceo wrote: post #89
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…

And if the assertion was true, I'd be feeling those regressions at least monthly on my leading edge, unstable (~amd64), Gentoo box, that is my daily driver desktop I use at $DayJob. This box has been stable enough to make money. But not as stable as my backup (also Gentoo) which runs stable and updates weekly. Edit: my biggest source of stability issues are Nvidia drivers mis-matched from kernel. Takes a whole reboot…

No coder should ever, ever be shocked that broken code mostly kind of seems to work, especially if you don't notice things like file corruption because you're not looking, or memory corruption that doesn't happen to matter at the moment. A lot of the failures and bad code are in the unexpected path.

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

#146

Post by wrasee »

I'm a big linux fan. Use it every day. I even use linux on the desktop to develop Windows software that isn't even distributed on linux.

But am I really that alone in recognizing a lot of truth in this article? It's sad to see so much hostility within some of the other comments, even here on HN, quickly coming to linux's defence rather than having at lest some degree of reflection and acceptance towards what are almost undeniably the very common experiences of many linux users.

It somewhat proves point 7 that while not exactly to the letter of the examples given, support the point that until there is wider acceptance of the problem we are far far from a solution.

It's possible to think very positively of linux yet still recognize so many of the challenges that make linux hard to use on the desktop. This very day I can't suspend/resume my desktop because the kernel crashes on resume, a pretty basic feature of a computer in 2024. I put up with it, because Linux is still a great choice for a technically-minded user. But there are other software orgs out there that simply wouldn't tolerate this level of lived experience of any end user. But linux does, and we are where we are.

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

#147

Post by ryao »

IgorPartola wrote: post #57

The 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 “go to a website, download a binary, install it, and it runs” model has significant security issues.

The security issues are twofold. One is that you could easily be tricked into installing malware. Two is that you will never be able to keep up with security updates, leaving yourself vulnerable to being compromised by flaws in network applications.

Making that model of software distribution difficult is a feature, not a bug.

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

#148

Post by anothernewdude »

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 don't even bother to check now before buying games.

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

#149

Post by dismalaf »

Here's how you have a good experience:

Use one of the following:

- Fedora

- Fedora Silverblue

- Ubuntu

- openSuse Aeon or Micro Leap

Next, don't modify anything. Use the DE it comes with, never open the terminal, treat it like it's MacOS or Windows and you're your grandma. Then you'll have a good, solid desktop.

The problem people have is using hobbyist distros like Mint, some flavour of Arch that's just a buggier Arch, some terrible DE that's riddled with bugs, or using distros that I'd only recommend to actual developers, like Debian or (real) Arch.

Or they modify shit because they saw it on some YouTube or blog. Then they break things and don't know how to unbreak them.

Lots of distros are poorly funded and buggy. That's a thing. But the big, corporate money distros are ultra stable, especially in their default configuration.

Also the thing about games, just look at the Steam deck catalogue... That's not an excuse anymore in the current year.

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

#150

Post by zahlman »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #106
kube-system wrote: post #36

These are a bunch of reasons why the top 1% of the most technical users in the world might not use Linux on their desktop. For everyone else, the reason they don't use Linux on their desktop is because it didn't come installed on it. If somebody does to desktops like what Google did for smartphones, then Linux will finally have its moment.

> For everyone else, the reason they don't use Linux on their desktop is because it didn't come installed on it. My experience lines up with this. Both my elderly parents run Zorin OS on their separate laptops for the past 6 years, they understand as a kind of 'free windows'. They don't care about the inner workings, they go online, check email, do shopping, make travel arrangements, print a ridiculous amount of pape…

Hold on, they're having a better experience with CUPS than with the Windows printer system?
Post reply on HN