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

391–400 of 472 posts

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

#391

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #372
itvision wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is untrue. You can run old Linux binaries on modern Linux systems if you have the older libraries. Again, 0.01% of people in the world could do it, 0.0001% would do it. That's all you need to know about Linux compatibility. And don't get me started on LD_LIBRARY_PATH not working for glibc but you conveniently "forgot" about that. Compatibility "exists" except when it doesn't and it's extremely hard to achieve…

Use the other system’s elf interpreter (which is conveniently a library). Then it should work. Saying an ability to run older binaries does not exist is just wrong. By the way, when someone makes an assertion that something is always true, it only takes 1 counter example to disprove it. The assertion that you cannot run old Linux binaries on a newer system has been disproven by a counter example.

> Saying an ability to run older binaries does not exist is just wrong.

For 99.99% of users this "ability" does not exist. End of story. Period.

I don't care about hacks on tops of tricks on top of hacks. People are not interested in this madness.

Every second comment in this discussion comes from a hardcore software developer who desperately tries to vindicate core Linux flaws by providing workarounds which would work only for people like you.

This is NOT how the world works. This is NOT what people care about or interested in. If cars, refrigerators, microwave ovens worked like that no one would buy them.

If it's Linux? Ah, totally fine.

I'm done with this exercise in futility.

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

#392

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #373
itvision wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtualization and sandbox environment code execution have been available for years now in multiple Windows AVs. And it works great. Linux on the other hand has absolutely nothing and it's still "OK". "Windows is not perfect and thus Linux is OK". I've heard that way too many times. Sorry, doesn't work for me.

That is a waste of resources that cannot prove the safety of arbitrary code. If you want safe code, use code only from trusted sources.

Windows gives a semblance of trusted code, also Microsoft sells certificates to developers.

Nothing (!) like that exists in the Linux world aside from PGP cross singing which barely any projects use because of its sheer complexity.

Don't lie about Windows and don't lie about Linux.

And Windows 10/11 both mandate that installers are signed before you can even launch them, so there's a very decent first line of defense which is TOTALLY missing in Linux.

Also, "trusted sources"? Who and why would you trust? Seasoned engineers in my company git pull any crap from the web and run it happily without thinking twice because AGILE and things like RoR. Who do you trust among thousands of modules?

God damn it.

Linux fans will make up all sorts of crappy pseudo-arguments to portray it as a decent/secure/stable OS and it's none of that.

On servers where you don't touch anything and never install third-party software? Yeah, surely. No one cares.

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

#393

Post by ryao »

zahlman wrote: post #151
teruakohatu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wine/proton work so well at this point it may as well just be considered just another runtime environment (like Java or the .Net vm).

I'm seeing a lot of endorsement of Wine ITT, which is strange to me because the Linux Mint forums constantly seem to trash it whenever it comes up. (I'm not particularly interested in any programs that would need it.)

You are probably seeing endorsements of proton rather than vanilla wine. Proton is more than just wine (although wine is the most importantly part) and it works much better than vanilla wine.

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

#394

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #374
itvision wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LD_LIBRARY_PATH again? Can you stop for a second and realize your "solutions" are absolute unmitigated crap and 99.999% of people of the world wouldn't bother even if they could? In Windows you don't have to do that. You can compile an application in Windows 11 and run it in Windows XP for Christ's sake (if you don't use new Windows APIs). Show me a way to compile anything in Ubuntu 24 using only its own libraries an…

First, LD_LIBRARY_PATH works well (or has for me). If for some reason the elf interpreter is unable to use the older libc, just use the old elf interpreter. Second, do static linking to achieve what you want. Then it will run on the older Ubuntu trivially. That of course requires updating the application when a vulnerability is found in a library, but this is no different from Windows where you have to update many ap…

For 99.99999% average people out there none of this utter cryptic crap works even remotely which basically means it doesn't exist.

Can you stop with anecdotal evidence? I don't care that you can make old software works. I can do as well, you know. Been there long before you even knew Linux existed. Had a nice little trip with GCC 2.96 by RedHat if you even remember that fiasco of epic proportions.

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

#395

Post by ryao »

itvision wrote: post #394
ryao wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, LD_LIBRARY_PATH works well (or has for me). If for some reason the elf interpreter is unable to use the older libc, just use the old elf interpreter. Second, do static linking to achieve what you want. Then it will run on the older Ubuntu trivially. That of course requires updating the application when a vulnerability is found in a library, but this is no different from Windows where you have to update many ap…

For 99.99999% average people out there none of this utter cryptic crap works even remotely which basically means it doesn't exist. Can you stop with anecdotal evidence? I don't care that you can make old software works. I can do as well, you know. Been there long before you even knew Linux existed. Had a nice little trip with GCC 2.96 by RedHat if you even remember that fiasco of epic proportions.

Then you acknowledge that what you said earlier was untrue.

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

#396

Post by feelamee »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #106
kube-system wrote: post #36

These are a bunch of reasons why the top 1% of the most technical users in the world might not use Linux on their desktop. For everyone else, the reason they don't use Linux on their desktop is because it didn't come installed on it. If somebody does to desktops like what Google did for smartphones, then Linux will finally have its moment.

> For everyone else, the reason they don't use Linux on their desktop is because it didn't come installed on it. My experience lines up with this. Both my elderly parents run Zorin OS on their separate laptops for the past 6 years, they understand as a kind of 'free windows'. They don't care about the inner workings, they go online, check email, do shopping, make travel arrangements, print a ridiculous amount of pape…

cool, I have the same experience with my sister.

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

#397

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #375
itvision wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've not read the article at all and it explains full well what constitutes an OS. The Linux kernel is NOT an OS. Any given Linux distro which is not compatible with any other Linux distro or even its own earlier or later versions couldn't be called an OS. It's a software compilation for a certain time period. An OS implies everyone runs it, anyone can compile software for it and have it run on all devices with thi…

I read the article. It did correctly say that Linux is not an OS and that the distribution is the OS. Then it said Linux is an OS. The article author and you are the ones spreading FUD here. Much of what the two of you say is factually incorrect.

Linux is not an OS and that's an indisputable fact.

An OS must have:

    * Stable API/ABIs including for the kernel  

    * Wide software compatibility  

    * Decent QA/QC  

    * Can be used with any hardware it's meant to support
Linux on desktop has none of that.

E.g. the open source AMD driver, amdgpu, has a gazillion of regressions and issues for any kernel: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues

If it works for you, that's called "anecdotal evidence". That doesn't mean suddenly Linux has become an OS.

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

#398

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #377
itvision wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no assumptions. Windows is installed on 2 billion PCs, give or take. It works great on them, too. Long gone are the days of malware waves or driver failures that break the system. Linux is on 40 millions. And the amount of pain I see daily on Linux-related forums trumps Windows' woes by an insane margin.

I would not call limping along from extreme levels of telemetry, AV and other bloat “works great”. Discussing “driver failures that break the system” is a strawman since bad drivers never really broke the system. They just crashed it such that it needed a reboot. That said, Microsoft lets garbage that has no business being in the kernel into the NT kernel, which resulted in this fiasco that actually broke Windows sys…

> I would not call limping along from extreme levels of telemetry, AV and other bloat “works great”

2 billion users don't notice too much "limping" and "telemetry".

1. This entire post is whataboutism, the article is about Linux

2. NSA/CIA/FBI and pretty much all governments of the world use Windows that is ostensibly riddled with spyware and telemetry

3. In the past 20 years not a single person with WireShark and MITM has proven that Windows leaks any personal data (e.g. files). This can be set up in less than 10 minutes. Go produce a single shred of effing evidence I dare you!!

Parroting BS on the Internet doesn't make your post any more valid.

That's disgusting coming from an "IT specialist". You have issues with basic logic.

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

#399

Post by ryao »

itvision wrote: post #392
ryao wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a waste of resources that cannot prove the safety of arbitrary code. If you want safe code, use code only from trusted sources.

Windows gives a semblance of trusted code, also Microsoft sells certificates to developers. Nothing (!) like that exists in the Linux world aside from PGP cross singing which barely any projects use because of its sheer complexity. Don't lie about Windows and don't lie about Linux. And Windows 10/11 both mandate that installers are signed before you can even launch them, so there's a very decent first line of defense…

Distribution package maintainers generally vet the packages they make avaliable and updates to repositories are typically PGP signed with cryptographically secure hashes for the files. I say typically because I am only familiar with Gentoo and to a lesser extent, the Debian family.

As for Windows, there is no signing requirement according to Microsoft:

  > Windows doesn't require software developers to digitally sign their code
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/applicati...

You are the one making stuff up.

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

#400

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #384
itvision wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has ignored it's developments to this extent What have I ignored precisely? Bugs? Regressions? Missing features? Lack of funding? Xorg being deprecated, Wayland being all the rage while being usable only in Gnome and KDE? > Many in this thread have also identified that MacOS and Windows are deficient in several of the criteria you listed. Windows: 2 billion users with no technical background. Linux: 40 million user…

The X.Org project is not deprecated. It handles both the X.Org X11 server and Wayland. That said, Linux has more users than Windows: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/ Android Linux is at 46%, while Windows is at 26%. Other Linux versions have 1%.

Not a single Windows MacOS iOS Android user knows what their display server is and how it works.

Xorg is being deprecated and replaced with semi-broken something where tons of functions only work in KDE and Gnome. That's all you need to know about Linux.

Post reply on HN