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

211–220 of 472 posts

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

#211

Post by gary_0 »

actuallyalys wrote: post #167
wrasee wrote: post #146

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 almo…

There’s truth in broad strokes (e.g., the lack of a stable ABI is a genuine problem) that I wish people would acknowledge. I think your attitude is a healthy one! However, I don’t think this article is written very charitably. It seems unfair to Linux developers to suggest that they spend “very little to no time” testing their changes for regressions, for example. And while AppImage, snaps, and flatpacks are imperfec…

> I don’t think this article is written very charitably

It definitely isn't, but honestly Linux could use more of a drill-sergeant treatment. It's either that or we keep doting on our little pet OS and give up on the idea of desktop Linux being at all a viable competitor to the goliaths of Microsoft and Apple. Maybe we never stood a chance?

Keep in mind, I'm pretty much committed to Linux myself, as I'm not willing to compromise with Microsoft and Apple's user-disrespecting, locked-down, enshittified software. But I have no illusions about the inconveniences and sacrifices of that decision.

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

#212

Post by itvision »

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…

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues

Just check this bug tracker. Just this one. Bug report on top of bug report caused by a fix which was caused by another fix.

Sadly it's not just one bug tracker, I keep an eye on many of them.

Of course in the magical Linux land if "It works for me", then the author is lying.

Never mind that the author of this "click-bait" article is a ... Linux kernel bugzilla maintainer. Yeah. I can vouch for every letter in the article. It's written with my blood.

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

#213

Post by ryao »

edoceo wrote: post #175
foobiekr wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When this box does have issue (rare), it's right after I've done some upgrades to packages that the distribution has told me aren't ready. I know I'm standing on the edge (of glory!). Also, I use ext4 since like forever, ext3 before that and have never had issues. To be clear, my point is that these open source devs (I'm one too) are very careful to not regress. I think the software quality is very high.

When I used ext4, I had unexplainable ccache corruption about once per year when compiling updates for my Gentoo Linux machines. Since switching to ZFS about 12 years ago, ccache has not become corrupted once.

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

#214

Post by itvision »

actuallyalys wrote: post #167
wrasee wrote: post #146

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 almo…

There’s truth in broad strokes (e.g., the lack of a stable ABI is a genuine problem) that I wish people would acknowledge. I think your attitude is a healthy one! However, I don’t think this article is written very charitably. It seems unfair to Linux developers to suggest that they spend “very little to no time” testing their changes for regressions, for example. And while AppImage, snaps, and flatpacks are imperfec…

> I don’t think this article is written very charitably

Why would it be? It's about Linux on the _desktop_ where it sucks a$$.

Open Reddit, open any distro related forum, open unix stackexchange - hundreds of support messages daily from a tiny Linux community. That should speak volumes about how ready it is and I didn't even touch on individual issues. The article is called "Final", I will not be actively updating it. The previous one existed for over a decade and I'm done with it.

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

#215

Post by tapoxi »

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…

> 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

Build a Flatpak, you're done. Your application can depend on a stable runtime and work on any Linux distribution.

> Linux is fundamentally not ready for anyone who has needs more than a Chromebook (which also runs Steam, by the way).

Chromebooks now cover 85% of the U.S. education market, that's most workloads. The Steam Deck is also Linux (SteamOS).

What's left in the world of Win32 apps? Specialty commercial applications like Photoshop, first person shooter games that require an anticheat kernel driver. If you don't need those, a system like Bazzite is much less user hostile than what Windows has become in the era of Windows 11.

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

#216

Post by gary_0 »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #180
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…

> 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 fit in. As opposed to, say, Windows, where there is only one GUI and one theme by one company so everything is perfectly match- wait, no, they have bits and pieces running every GUI they've every invented all the way back to the 90s ( https://www.dvhardware.net…

Android apps are the same way; most of the apps I use each have somewhat different look and feel.

And people are also used to web apps, which vary widely. The web has no standard UI toolkit.

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

#217

Post by itvision »

devops99 wrote: post #127
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…

> For macOS and Windows you basically have a model where you can go to a website, download a binary, install it, and it runs. We have already had this on Linux for years, it's called AppImage.

You mean exceedingly rare apps that use it? Yeah.

And they weigh in hundreds of megabytes, right, because they come with all the dependencies starting with glibc.

Yeah, that will totally work and has been a smashing success. Except it never has.

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

#218

Post by ryao »

do_not_redeem wrote: post #186
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Good enough" is highly subjective. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but millions of people also think otherwise. Ironically, I might as well point out that billions of people think otherwise of Linux. In some countries, a few trees is “good enough” as a bridge. The IRS, of course, says COBOL is “good enough” to use as a web backend for the moment. The weirdest thing is how people complain that engineeri…

> Oregon Trail, a game made for Windows 95, still runs on Windows 11 Fatal error: MSVCRT70.DLL could not be found. But that's easy enough to fix, right? Just dig through Windows's package manager (sorry, I meant MSDN) trying to guess the right vcredist, and try a few and hope for the best.

Alternatively, look it up by reading winetricks’ source code. Wait, would that be cheating considering that winetricks is a UNIX tool? Linux and UNIX systems in general are supposed to be harder, not easier, in comparison to Windows, right?

For those unable to tell, I am using sarcasm in that last part.

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

#219

Post by itvision »

Karellen wrote: post #112
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…

> 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 fit in. Most apps/DEs/etc. use either GTK or Qt. If your application uses GTK or Qt, it will use the user's preferred GTK/Qt theme by default, and fit in with all the other GTK/Qt apps on their system. Sure, you might get unlucky, and your GTK app won't look gr…

> Most apps/DEs/etc. use either GTK or Qt.

Which version of GTK? 2, 3, 4?

Which version of Qt? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6?

What about X11/Wayland/Win32 compatibility? Oh, it's a$$.

And who will maintain/rewrite the source code?

Win32 on the other hand? Except for the introduction of Unicode friendly functions it's remained the same for almost 30 years.

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

#220

Post by LooseMarmoset »

Klonoar wrote: post #165
LooseMarmoset wrote: post #68

1: I just don't see who these articles are written for. Linux is on the desktop, it's called Steam Deck, and millions are are using it. So, the author is wrong here in the spirit of the question, and the truth of the question. 2: The statement "Linux developers spend very little to no time checking that their code changes don't cause regressions or breakages" cannot be applied to all or possibly most developers. What…

The Steam Deck is not the desktop and it’s really amazing that this line gets trotted out in defense of desktop Linux every time a criticism gets posted. It’s like saying that FreeBSD is on the desktop just because Sony used it as the base for the PS5. These are specific scenarios with specific hardware optimized for each use case. Desktop Linux encompasses the sheer amount of available PCs and laptops that one might…

The Steam Deck literally has a desktop mode, and you can connect a keyboard, mouse, and monitor to it, and play games that way. Both my son and I play games using this method. The Steam dock was designed to allow users to take advantage of this mode, among other things.

You can install regular Linux applications in Desktop mode, including Libreoffice and Firefox.

It's probably fair to say the majority of users don't do this, but it's a completely accessible, usable, and supported Linux desktop. So, yes, the Steam deck is a Linux desktop.

Even gaming mode is a usable "Desktop" environment, usable with a virtual or actual keyboard, touchpad or regular mouse.

You can even install SteamOS on a regular PC! You might have to tweak it a bit to get your particular hardware supported, but you'll end up with...a Steam Linux desktop.

Post reply on HN