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

351–360 of 472 posts

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

#351

Post by jitl »

itvision wrote: post #341
dqv wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a desktop OS installed on a gaming handheld. You're being unnecessarily pedantic. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/KDE_Plas... Guess which not-a-desktop OS ships with the Asus ROG Ally X.

1. How many people use Steam Deck or Asus whatever as a desktop OS for running actual productivity applications, doing work, printing and scanning, installing an removing apps, and not just running games curated by Valve? 2. Can you install an average Linux distro on the said two devices and have them work flawlessly? Nope.

All I’m saying is that a position “desktop Linux can’t into games” is very very wrong in 2024. I wouldn’t pick desktop Linux for productivity use because I need a laptop, and Linux doesn’t seem to have figured out power management or reliable sleep-to-suspend yet. Sleep power management is Steam Deck’s biggest weakness - a day asleep it will drain the battery.

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

#352

Post by jitl »

itvision wrote: post #228
jitl wrote: post #90

Rings kind of hollow because a Linux handheld (Steam Deck) is currently the gold standard gaming device.

Is it desktop Linux though? Or it's a gaming handheld? Only why would you call it a desktop OS then?

The “desktop” in “desktop Linux” to me refers to the category of software environment running on the device, not the device’s location in the physical world. The categories are “server Linux” (standard Linux kernel, traditional distro user-space, text based user interface via ssh or similar), “desktop Linux” (standard or realtime Linux kernel, traditional distro user-space, GUI login system with windowing), “embedded Linux” (similar to server Linux but almost entirely without a userspace) or “Android Linux” (Android kernel, AOSP Android user space, Android GUI and app system).

It’s running the “KDE Desktop Environment” on top of Arch Linux distro. So, that’s definitely desktop Linux in my view.

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

#353

Post by jitl »

adriancr wrote: post #309
kube-system wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but running on refrigerators, trains, or web servers doesn't make it a better or more successful consumer desktop kernel.

Sure, but it being ubiquitous should give developers a hint where future lies. Consumers will eventually follow. (see android).

Android is a repudiation of traditional “distro” Linux userspace. I think it’s Android approach that has the best chance of reaching mainstream adoption in the laptop form factor with consumers.

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

#354

Post by mharig »

itvision wrote: post #240
p0w3n3d wrote: post #15

For example, Windows or Android software from ten years ago will still work in Windows 11 or Android 15 or whatever their current versions are. For Windows, software compatibility is actually excellent: a lot of 32-bit Windows 95 software still runs perfectly on Windows 11 64 almost 30 years later. Nothing remotely close exists for Linux. I completely disagree. Android applications made for older versions DO NOT work…

I have lots of ten year old Android apps running on my Android 14 without too many issues. In Wine/Windows I run Windows applications from the 90s. In Windows 11 64 you can install and use Office 97. In Linux nothing even close is possible. People do care about old applications. They really do.

[dead]

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

#355

Post by kmbfjr »

itvision wrote: post #233
sitzkrieg wrote: post #200

linux userspace is pure garbage

Not pure garbage I'd say but too many projects are indeed lacking. glibc has worked great except there's no forward compatibility :-)

It may not be garbage, but it is pure chaos.

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

#356

Post by EarthBlues »

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…

This is a good example of a positive, necessary conversation that was almost thwarted by an engagement-optimized article. It only happened (three quarters of the way down the HN comment section) because a few users were mature enough to not take the bait and actually discuss the issues at hand. Good stuff from both you and the parent poster.

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

#357

Post by ChocolateGod »

kube-system wrote: post #202
ChocolateGod wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside of the Linux kernel, there is very little shared technology between Android and the Linux desktops. They didn't even use the same graphics drivers till late.

> Outside of the Linux kernel, there is very little shared technology between Android and the Linux desktops. lol... so, all of it? Linux is a kernel. Regardless, my point had absolutely nothing to do with technology. Android's popularity has absolutely nothing to do with Linux and/or what it shipped with or didn't ship with. Its popularity has everything to do with the fact that it shipped preinstalled on devices th…

A lot of netbooks back in the day did ship with a Linux distro pre-installed, and you know what people did?

Replaced them with Windows.

Because the Linux desktop is and continues to be a sup-bar experience for the average joe. GNOME requires a modification to even run Discord properly, but anyone who points this out gets shouted at.

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

#358

Post by kombine »

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…

I don't see a major problem here. Hardware manufacturers can take up the burden of testing their products on Linux, and some already do, like Lenovo certification for Ubuntu (in practice their laptops work perfectly well on other Linux distributions).

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

#359

Post by jpc0 »

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…

The reality is I can just target winforms on windows, or GDI if I need that.

To open a window there is exactly one way if I want it.

To open a window on Linux do I call into X11 or wayland? Do I need to also provide a DRM layer for incase it needs to be run directly ontop of DRM because BIG_USER_WITH_MONEY wants that.

Should I use QT to get a decent UI library, or GTK, or one of the many other less popular ones.

As a developer that would want to release a GUI app it's not extremely easy to pick for linux. There's no clear guidelines stating X has these features but Y doesn't (winforms vs whatever Microsoft's latest attempt at UI is).

Let's not even get into actually needing to ship a fully cross platform app. C# is blessed on windows, swift on MacOS and C on linux... Which means all the business logic will end up at the very least exporting a C API if I'm not deciding to just bite the bullet and pay QT.

All this ia why you will likely find that someone will develop a Windows release and maybe MacOS if they have a userbase that can justify the development cost. Maybe they are nice and run a test on wine and treat that as a supported platform but I only know of exactly one company that does that outside of maybe some game devs.

And that doesn't even touch anything in the article on why Linux on the desktop won't happen because the 1% of devs that went down this rocky road then also finds ABI breaks.

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

#360

Post by dasil003 »

gary_0 wrote: post #211
actuallyalys wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I tend to think it’s not really possible for volunteer open source to directly compete with tech corporations when it comes to polish and cohesion of a large end-user ecosystem—it’s just too much cat herding and uphill battle even to agree on a vision.

That said, Linux has other advantages that corporations will never touch because it doesn’t make business sense. I’m really glad it’s still there as a bulwark against enshittification and all computing freedom being taken away from individuals.

Post reply on HN