Live data from Hacker News

Major Linux Problems on the Desktop, 2016 Edition

linuxfonts.narod.ru

241–250 of 384 posts

Re: Major Linux Problems on the Desktop, 2016 Edition

#241
post #71
post #62

He's right. Many of the driver problems come from the fact that Linux finally worked on the desktop about the time desktop machines were replaced by laptops. Desktops with slots tended to have relatively well-defined hardware, and plugging in third party hardware was normal. This is much less true for laptops. OS development for laptops requires that laptop. It needs a Q/A organization which has one of everything you…

Only a minority of the problems in the list are laptop-specific. The hybrid graphics mess is an unfortunate one, though most people are well served by laptops with integrated-only video. People who want to play 3D games on laptops get the short stick.

> though most people are well served by laptops with integrated-only video

You're right and it's amazing. I use Linux exclusively on my laptops and had stuck with dedicated GPUs running Nvidia binary drivers since 2009. But this summer I bit the bullet and got a new Broadwell laptop, and I honestly do not miss a single thing about the Nvidia graphics. My Intel 5500 can push well over 10 million pixels across three displays, 3D-accelerated, drawing minimal power.

Re: Major Linux Problems on the Desktop, 2016 Edition

#242

I don't get articles like these. First of all this website is worse than any OS environment I've ever used. So right from that standpoint I sorta gulped a bit before reading on. Graphics driver issues in linux are nothing new, Nvidia a few years back started officially porting drivers to linux but that doesn't solve all the problems. There's also projects like Nouveau; so if you're complaining about linux desktop fro…

Tell me how one can update a Windows system (incl. all installed applications) in a straightforward manner. Windows comes with no package manager, as far as I know.

Yes, Windows doesn't come with a walled app repository. That's one of the benefits -- I don't have to ask Ubuntu and Debian and RedHat and god knows who else, "mother may I" before I write a program. I just do it. Though I do know people who now do get most of their apps from Microsoft's package manager these days.

Re: Major Linux Problems on the Desktop, 2016 Edition

#244
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually the reason windows is and will stay my main desktop system. Former Windows 7, now an "unfucked" Windows 10 Enterprise. It's just smoother than OSX or Linux Desktop and I always test some linux distros if I get new Hardware. Last time in novembre I upgrade to i7-6700k, Titan X, Samsung 950Pro 1TB. Of course it's necessary to have always at least one linux based server vm running I use putty to connect…

Really recommend Fedora 23 - login using Wayland. You will be truly surprised. FYI - you can try it out without installing (as a livecd)

I was surprised by Fedora 23 when it asked me to reboot in order to apply patches. And these were not kernels that were updates. Huge step backwards.

Re: Major Linux Problems on the Desktop, 2016 Edition

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The monolithic Linux kernel is just too big. What is it now, 20,000,000 lines? There's no hope of debugging that. It shows. The Linux kernel is about 20MSLOC. The Windows kernel is about 50MSLOC. IIRC, OS X used to be ~80KSLOC. Problems with debugging are endemic to any monolithic kernel. Neither Windows nor OS X is easier to debug technologically , but Microsoft and Apple both have many employees and lots of money…

Kernel debuggers exist. Of course, we're all aware of Linus' opinion on the matter.

Not all debug tools are single step debuggers. There are memory verifiers, formal proof techniques and self testing frameworks that Linux uses that are very, very useful

Re: Major Linux Problems on the Desktop, 2016 Edition

#246
post #62

He's right. Many of the driver problems come from the fact that Linux finally worked on the desktop about the time desktop machines were replaced by laptops. Desktops with slots tended to have relatively well-defined hardware, and plugging in third party hardware was normal. This is much less true for laptops. OS development for laptops requires that laptop. It needs a Q/A organization which has one of everything you…

> Microsoft got drivers under control with the Static Driver Verifier, which uses automatic formal proofs of correctness to determine whether a driver can crash the kernel. ... Linux has no comparable technology.

That's a pretty cool idea (also similar to the static verification in NaCl.) Is there a reason one couldn't implement a static verifier for Linux drivers? Would the problem be harder in any sense for Linux, because of e.g. number of exposed kernel APIs? Or could a static verifier "read off" the kernel's API with no manual annotation required?

Re: Major Linux Problems on the Desktop, 2016 Edition

#247
post #235

Linux users often take the idea of 'self-examination' way too far and it turns into 'self-disparagement'. The fact is, if you vet your hardware and use a major distro (Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Fedora) you'll wind up with a perfectly functioning Linux desktop or laptop. You think about it, OSX only runs on a few laptops. Linux runs perfectly on more laptops than exist for OSX. Windows run on many laptops, more often than not…

I don't think this is about self-disparagement, but about holding ourselves to a high standard. I love Linux, and have been using it without major problems for some time now (mainly Ubuntu-based distros). Especially if you are into programming, I'd say it beats MS hands down. However, I do acknowledge that there are still many problems that bar Linux from being an operating system "for the masses" (i.e. all those peo…

> But let's not pretend that "it just works, right out of the box!"

It does though. Get an Ubuntu laptop from Dell, it works. Get a Chromebook from Google and friends, it works.

Yes, install Linux on a random 5 year old laptop, and you may have problems. Ever built a 'hackintosh'? Same deal. Ever install Windows? It's a pain.

As for shell commands, Windows has that. So does OSX. Linux also has GUIs that can install packages, that can change settings. The shell is quick, but it's not the only way.

You have to compare apples to apples. And the fact is, if you install a popular distro on popular, well supported hardware, it does work. If you buy a laptop/desktop/server that comes with Linux, it works.

Re: Major Linux Problems on the Desktop, 2016 Edition

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No" would be an understatement: https://lwn.net/2000/0914/a/lt-debugger.php3

He apparently softened somewhat on the issue and did eventually (2008 / 2.6.26) merge a debugger into mainline. I don't think he ever really had a good answer to Alan Cox pointing out that you can't always reason your way through hardware misbehavior.

His argument also necessarily presupposes that you're never going to use a debugger to root out latent bugs, that is, you're only using a debugger because you've just written some buggy code and and you're trying to figure out where the problem lies. Which is silly. There are bugs in the kernel right now, there were bugs when that was written (he even alludes to it, but seemingly fails to understand the implication of it), there will be bugs introduced in the future, and someone at some point might like to find those bugs.

Some of the best "What is the worst bug you ever encountered?" war stories are cases where people end up narrowing things down to a bug in what they were previously treating as bedrock.

Re: Major Linux Problems on the Desktop, 2016 Edition

#250
Linux' philosophy (generally open source') is to create a paradise for hackers and it has accomplished that and it should be content at it. GUI desktop is for consumers who are opposite to hackers. Trying to meet both ends are silly ambitions. I am not saying Linux cannot meet the consumer ends, but it need adopt an opposite philosophy from what it starts with. When that happens, some may be happy but hackers would weep (or would they? Wouldn't they just start another paradise?)

EDIT: on second thought, Google's android demonstrates my point.

Post reply on HN