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

Is Linux ready for desktop? tl;dr – NO

itvision.altervista.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

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

#21

Post by phireal »

IshKebab wrote: post #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 worka…

All that sounds more like PEBKAC than anything else. I've had multiple VNC servers running on headless machines for longer than I can remember.

Using x11vnc to connect to a VNC server is like SSHing into localhost instead of just opening up a terminal. You're approaching the task the wrong way around.

Wifi not reconnecting sounds like your system has a graphical widget handling the network connections. No X = no graphical programs = no network connections.

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

#22

Post by secstate »

yitchelle wrote: post #10
crncosta wrote: 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 laptop are you using to get such great compatibility match?

I'm not the parent, but I have the same experience with Ubuntu 15.10 on a Lenovo T440s. And I know, I know, Lenovo and their spyware are awful. All the more reason to dump their stock Windows install for linux ;)

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

#23

Post by mojuba »

downtide wrote: post #19
mojuba wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, to be fair Bluetooth itself is incredibly difficult to deal with on all levels, just like any other committee-driven thing out there. It's a mess that I doubt can ever be fixed.

As for WiFi, my experience with Apple devices is mostly positive, or definitely better than on any other platform. So WiFi is quite possible to get right.

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

#24

Post by suvelx »

yitchelle wrote: post #10
crncosta wrote: 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 laptop are you using to get such great compatibility match?

I bought the new Dell Precision 5510 (Business version of the new XPS 15) this week.

With a 4.4 kernel, Everything seems to work more-or-less fine. There's one or two issues with the graphics stack (HiDPI display, Nvidia Card), but these have workable solutions.

Heck, my last laptop (Sony Vaio Z), more-or-less worked too.

I think you've just got to follow one rule: Intel, Intel, Intel.

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

#25

Post by mojuba »

restalis wrote: post #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.

That's not entirely correct. Linux kernel is Linux kernel; what we call "Linux" usually also includes the GNU userland. And then there are "Linux flavours" that only differ in the way they screw up packaging and updates of the kernel and the userland.

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

#26

Post by downtide »

mojuba wrote: post #23
downtide wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, to be fair Bluetooth itself is incredibly difficult to deal with on all levels, just like any other committee-driven thing out there. It's a mess that I doubt can ever be fixed. As for WiFi, my experience with Apple devices is mostly positive, or definitely better than on any other platform. So WiFi is quite possible to get right.

As a consumer you still get that sinking feeling of something that doesn't quite work. it's all glitchy.

Has Bluetooth been bettered? I was hoping V4 would iron out wrinks. Wireless applications that are simple to use could be really, really great. That's what I thought the initial promise of Bluetooth was. I have some simple wants, like file exchange, control a media player remotely etc. Send audio output to another device etc.

The last office I worked in, a colleague had a modern Apple laptop, and he had connection issues with the wireless router. It wouldn't connect. Lots of fudging about with it. A fix was falling back to a slower speed to get it to work. There are issues with most hardware and software.

The wireless issues/fixes suggested for my HP are pretty ridiculous, removing drivers, installing in a certain order, barring updates etc. Very technical.

I don't think I've ever owned a machine/OS that hasn't had some problem, including an old Apple.

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

#27

Post by dagw »

suvelx wrote: post #24
yitchelle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What laptop are you using to get such great compatibility match?

I bought the new Dell Precision 5510 (Business version of the new XPS 15) this week. With a 4.4 kernel, Everything seems to work more-or-less fine. There's one or two issues with the graphics stack (HiDPI display, Nvidia Card), but these have workable solutions. Heck, my last laptop (Sony Vaio Z), more-or-less worked too. I think you've just got to follow one rule: Intel, Intel, Intel.

"more-or-less worked" is the story of my 15+ year history with Linux as a desktop. Unfortunately these is always one or two small but important thing which doesn't quite work which always eventually sends me back to windows/OS X.

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

#28

Post by exDM69 »

IshKebab wrote: post #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 worka…

> In fact does X even support monitor hot-plugging?

Yes, it does. It's called XRandR.

Not sure how your desktop system handles it, is there a pretty graphical widget or how you configure it, I don't use a desktop GUI, I set it up with the xrandr command line tool (which is more easily repeatable than a GUI, albeit less discoverable).

> I assume this is because the thing that does the reconnecting is a GUI tool of some sort.

You're probably using network-manager, which is a graphical widget in Gnome (KDE has something similar). There are other methods of setting up Wifi (I use wifi-menu on Arch Linux).

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

#29

Post by laumars »

IshKebab wrote: post #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 worka…

In fairness to Linux, you're not actually building a "server" there. A typical server would be running on over ethernet rather than WiFi and on server board with support for remote management (eg IPMI or iLO) which would have mitigated the VNC issues you were having (though anecdotally I've never had any problems running X + VNC on a headless Linux box on the rare occasions I've needed to)

But arguments about VNC aside, the vast majority of the time you don't want nor need a GUI running on a server to begin with. Aside maybe some game servers, any Linux server daemon is command line configurable so you're better off saving your RAM and managing your server via SSH (or better yet, Vagrant / Puppet / equivalent)

In my experience, Linux is actually very good on servers. But by this I mean "proper" servers. Personally I'd still rather run FreeBSD, but many of the same arguments for and against Linux are applicable for FreeBSD as well.

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

#30

Post by loudmax »

yitchelle wrote: post #10
crncosta wrote: 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 laptop are you using to get such great compatibility match?

In my case, a Lenovo ThinkPad, but there are other lines of laptops that are well supported. If you're buying a laptop to use with Linux, you really ought to do some research first because not all vendors make provide enough documentation for drivers to be developed. If you go to install Linux on random hardware, there's a chance you'll uncover weird driver bugs like wireless or audio not working after resume from sleep. Even so, there may be a workaround (eg. reloading kernel modules) if you expend some effort.

If you're buying something new, you should use Linux's 1% or whatever puny desktop market share to reward hardware vendors that support open source. If you're installing Linux on whatever's lying around, be prepared to spend some time tracking down strange bugs.

Post reply on HN