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

What killed the Linux desktop

tirania.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 385 posts

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#301

Post by mbell »

kmm wrote: post #106
mbell wrote: post #2

Arguing about the niceties of the UI is all well and good but the actually problem is far more fundamental. What killed the linux desktop? Drivers. Mostly graphics drivers but some others as well. Who cares if the UI isn't ideal if the damn thing can't sleep and wake up properly, or if it spazs out every time I plug in an external monitor.

When have you last used Linux? Drivers haven't been an issue anymore for years now. I don't actually see any problems with Linux. It's just not meant to be.

As a desktop OS, tried it again 3 weeks ago. Fairly standard setup, Asus motherboard, core i7 3770, 32GB of ram, one dell display@ 2560x1440 one at 1920x1200 in portrait, base AMD 7xxx series gpu, newest ubuntu with AMD binary drivers. First the graphics driver locked up on rotating a screen, that required reboot, even switching to a non graphical tty didn't work, then it took but z-sync was completely disabled on the portrait display and by completely i mean it was unusable with 2-3 inch tears on moving content. This of course is a known issue with Xorg being archaic.

I'm sure you'll blame this on AMD's drivers or shoot out some other random technical reason. While i understand the technical issues, I just don't care, I have far better things to do than care about this shit. It flat out doesn't work and I don't care why.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#302

Post by joe_the_user »

tsahyt wrote: post #103
untog wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even windows, crappy as it may be, has it. [...] Apple's work looks pretty-- because it is designed to function well. Actually, I'd say the same of Windows, if not more so. I far prefer the Windows 7 interface to OSX, it's just stuff like the terminal/command prompt that really lets Windows down.

I heard Windows PowerShell was decent. No first hand experience though

The thing about the Unix shell is that not only is it extremely power and flexible, it is designed to work with pure ascii so it can used on many remote, bare bones machines and it really is there running on many remote, bare bones machines. And given all this there are many people with strong skills in that shell and a strong attachment to that shell (for rational and irrational reasons imho). With all this, it would be hard to replace this shell even with something that's better. That actually makes me sad since actually dislike using it since for all its power, much of it is annoying and bass-ackwards imho again.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#303

Post by heyrhett »

cletus wrote: post #97

This is the money quote: > The second dimension to the problem is that no two Linux distributions agreed on which core components the system should use. Linux on the desktop suffered from a lack of coherent, strategic vision, consistency and philosophy . Every engineer I know likes to do things a particular way. They also have a distorted view on the level of customization that people want and need. I like OSX. Out o…

relevant (and funny cause it's true): http://xkcd.com/963/

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#304

Post by lazerwalker »

_delirium wrote: post #104
cletus wrote: post #97

This is the money quote: > The second dimension to the problem is that no two Linux distributions agreed on which core components the system should use. Linux on the desktop suffered from a lack of coherent, strategic vision, consistency and philosophy . Every engineer I know likes to do things a particular way. They also have a distorted view on the level of customization that people want and need. I like OSX. Out o…

Among non-ultra-geeky Linux users I know (mostly part-time users), "Linux" does seem to be reasonably standardized as far as desktop components go, because by "Linux" they mean "Ubuntu". It's possible the Ubuntu desktop dominance came a bit too late, though, and still isn't entirely complete. My own experiences aren't great with Windows, though they're smoother on OSX than Linux. The problem I have with Windows is th…

I really haven't found that that be the case at all with package management on OS X. Homebrew is almost always a joy to use, and on the few occasions I've had build errors using it I've found the Homebrew community connected to the official GitHub repo issues page to be one of the most responsive, friendly, and genuinely helpful open-source communities I've ever encountered. I agree things were a lot rockier back when the only package management choices were MacPorts or Fink, but Homebrew's a monumental step forward.

I can't say I've really touched Python at all, but as a relative newcomer to the Ruby world I found getting RVM set up and functioning properly on my Mac to be a complete non-issue.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#305

Post by philwelch »

zerostar07 wrote: post #244
nirvana wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because the people who use linux don't understand what design is. Look at the responses to my comments-- almost all of them defending linux make comments that show they don't understand what design is. They think it is how it looks. >OSX is not easier to use either, it has many nonintuitive quirks but they stick to their design and improve it instead of overhauling it. I suspect you simply haven't used OS X mu…

I said there are some quirks , OSX is very usable in general although first time users do have to learn the ropes. For example, maybe everyone likes the fact that the maximize window does different things depending on the app or hate using keyboard shortcuts but i don't. I didn't mean to be anyone's advocate, as you seem to do.

"For example, maybe everyone likes the fact that the maximize window does different things depending on the app"

It's not a maximize button, it's a zoom-to-fit button. If you want maximize, there's full-screen mode.

"hate using keyboard shortcuts"

Macs have lots of keyboard shortcuts.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#307

Post by zanny »

cletus wrote: post #97

This is the money quote: > The second dimension to the problem is that no two Linux distributions agreed on which core components the system should use. Linux on the desktop suffered from a lack of coherent, strategic vision, consistency and philosophy . Every engineer I know likes to do things a particular way. They also have a distorted view on the level of customization that people want and need. I like OSX. Out o…

> Linux can't do this. Or maybe there's been no one with the drive, conviction and gravitas to pull it off? Who knows?

I say Mark Shuttleworth is doing this, and no one is paying attention. Unity was a unified vision, it was just different and no one wanted different. And that is fine for a new target audience he wanted for the OS, which was everyone else in the world. Look at what they are doing now, Ubuntu on tablets, Ubuntu TV, they are pushing a unified vision, and nobody is getting behind it en masse in the Linux community because it isn't everything they wanted. They want Cinnamon, they don't like Gnome 3, where is my Gnome 2, etc. The inherent strife is the proble, not a lack of visionaries.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#308

Post by rbanffy »

Seriously... Is this discussion still relevant?

Anyway, my bet on what "killed" the Linux desktop would be the Windows OEM licensing terms. Nothing really killed it because it was always a very specialized product.

Do we always have to see a problem when someone doesn't make the same choices we do?

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#309

Post by wpietri »

graue wrote: post #134
wpietri wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I like Unity. Or more accurately, I like where they're going with Unity. And I would like the thing itself if it actually worked reliably. But here I am, running the stock version of the biggest Linux distro on popular hardware, and I have to log out and in or reboot roughly daily. I don't really believe developers are moving to Apple gear because of HN. I believe it because last time I went on a hiring spr…

> I like where they're going with Unity Fair enough, but why not wait to use it until they get there? Daily reliability problems seem like a lot to put up with just for some cool ideas. Also, I'm not sure how your interviewing experience supports the conclusion "Linux is dead/dying". What it does seem to suggest is "Linux is unpopular", but that has never not been true (on the desktop).

I'm using it because that's part of the default install. At one point I had the time and inclination to spend futzing with stuff to get it to work, but that's not where I'm at. If something isn't ready to use on a desktop OS, they shouldn't ship it.

My previous interviewing experience wasn't like that say, five years ago.

Re: What killed the Linux desktop

#310

Post by georgemcbay »

nirvana wrote: post #201
diminish wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To stress out again; OS/X has the poorest hardware support for 3rd parties; even compared to Linux. Just "think different" and buy some hardware and you ll see what I mean..

I've been using OS X going back to the betas. I've never seen OS X have problems with third party hardware that conformed to standards. I have seen problems with third party hardware that required its own driver (poorly written generally) or that was half assed crap that was designed to work with windows but marketed as supporting standards like "USB". Meanwhile, Linux has trouble dealing with the computer itself, le…

"Currently I'm in a country in a different hemisphere from the USA. I walked into a store and bought and off the shelf no-name brand displayport to HDMI adapter. Worked no problem."

That really has nothing to do with the OS you're running. The OS isn't driving the DisplayPortHDMI protocol conversion in any way (your 'no-name' brand adapter is probably relying on DP++ and just passing through the HDMI signal anyway).

This is like saying your VGA cable is compatible with Macs with a VGA port. Of course it is.

Post reply on HN