41–50 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Difference between "never will" emphasised and "likely never will"
I'm afraid I'm not able to discern your meaning from that little snippet, but... I am willing to go on record now as saying "never will". It hasn't happened yet and the desktop is already dying. The mobile space is the juggernaut now and through Android, Linux is the biggest player.
Not using RPi for anything is not a good idea either, it seems.
The RPi (and C.H.I.P., Arduino, etc) have a rather well-defined sweet spot: small-scale hobby projects and study. At this niche, they are a good value for the money (because tools, books, community, etc).
The hardware limitations and the "danger of server maintenance" points are valid. Only that >That ever-so-slight delay between hitting a key and having it appear on screen will eventually wear you down. You don't need to run a full blown desktop. TTY is snappy enough on my model 2B. It's a great "learn to hack stuff on a cheap small computer" platform for my nephew (if I had a nephew [1]), and that's how it is advert…
I once considered buying an AlphaSmart Dana for this purpose, but you can't beat Emacs's keybindings (or vi's, if that's your thing).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"non-default helper programs" Define "default". From the perspective of a user buying a Chromebook, the "helper programs" are very much the default. Additionally, "helper programs that obfuscate the underlying OS" is pretty much the whole point of a desktop environment. I fail to see what point you're trying to make there. "I mean, yeah Android is nice. And it technically runs Linux." Which is really all that matters…
>I fail to see what point you're trying to make there Do you? Because it doesn't seem like it. I didn't exactly stutter.
If ChromeOS or Android don't count as "real" Linux desktops because (aside from Android not usually being used for desktops) they abstract away the "Linux" part, then by your exact same logic, any Linux distro that ships with a full-fledged desktop environment is not a "real" Linux desktop, either, since they by design abstract away the Linux part. In fact, literally no actual operating system could possibly be a Linux desktop unless we want to go ahead and turn all user software into kernel modules, since literally anything in userspace is by definition an abstraction on top of Linux.
Linux is one component in a fully-featured operating system. Exactly which userland happens to be running on top of it does not change one's status as a Linux user.
Meanwhile, pretty much every desktop environment for Linux (except maybe recent versions of GNOME) is not exclusive to Linux, so by the logic you've presented, there's literally no such thing as a "real" Linux desktop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. What kind of question is that? With the same logic you can claim that no Windows user that doesn't know how to use "obscure" Windows tools is a Windows user. What you are talking about is a "Power User" or admin. Fuck when every Desktop would run ChromeOS would you still claim it wasn't the year of the Linux desktop? Ubuntu tries to hide every "linuxy" aspect and make it user friendly. So people using Ub…
The difference is, Windows is Windows. It's a full OS from tip to tail. Linux is a kernel, one that doesn't do a whole lot by itself. If you installed Linux, you'd be very disappointed. But even installing Ubuntu is different IMO than using Android or ChromeOS or a car infotainment system that may technically be based on Linux but the end user would never be able to tell. Likewise if I've used an ATM or a mall kiosk…
I think if we are evaluating what the market share of an os it doesn't matter how it hides it presence. ATMs still are vulnerable to Windows exploits and Linux PCs for Linux vulns and it doesn't need someone to identify with something to be it. It's just the difference between calling oneself a * user and being counted/seen as one.
> Does having a laptop that boots straight into a browser without showing anything lower level than that really count as Linux? Does it really make me a Linux user?
You maybe don't see yourself as one, but you are one. I don't think my Grandma knew she was using Windows and it doesn't matter if she knew.
Just like any other programmable internet connected device.
> A Mini-PC or Tablet Would Probably Be Better
How does this solve the security problem mentioned above? IMHO it actually makes it worse, because you are now connecting an even more powerful machine.
> Never open your Pi as a public facing server.
What if the purpose of my Pi is to be a public facing server?
> This is true of every website regardless of where it’s hosted, but it’s particularly problematic for the Raspberry Pi, which tends to be set up by hobbyists who aren’t intimately familiar with best security practices.
It is easier to install a web server and misconfigure security on a typical desktop machine than it is on a Raspberry. It feels that the author has a condescending view on raspberry hobbyists that is not backed up by any facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I fail to see what point you're trying to make there Do you? Because it doesn't seem like it. I didn't exactly stutter.
You don't have to stutter for your point to be logically inconsistent to the point of incomprehensibility. Lorem ipsum is nonsensical faux-Latin regardless of any speech impediments. If ChromeOS or Android don't count as "real" Linux desktops because (aside from Android not usually being used for desktops) they abstract away the "Linux" part, then by your exact same logic, any Linux distro that ships with a full-fled…
That may be the simplest answer, but when people talk about "the year of Linux on the desktop" they're talking about something in particular, right? Or does any Linux system count? Android smart TVs? Routers? Mall kiosks? Car infotainment systems? Bluray players where the only interface is a Java program? Or are we only counting systems where we can drop to a shell? In which case, do we only count Android phones that let you install bash, or only ones that can be rooted, or do we count them all?
It's not a logical inconsistency, and it's not incomprehensible. It's a simple question: at what point do you differentiate "it runs on Linux" from "it's Linux on the desktop"? Because if my router counts, Linux won a long time ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My job is trying to get ambivalent people to take security seriously, and I'd like to amend your statement. Ubiquity and ease-of-use will win over security as long as security professionals insist on cumbersome practices . Nonsensical password complexity rules. The absolutely asinine technology we have to encrypt emails. Third-party antivirus software. Patches forcing a reboot (hell, patches needing a reboot). Encryp…
> What wins security is making it harder to not be secure. I find this is usually at odds with your original statement. Current security practices are almost entirely a security/utility trade off, we make things secure by locking systems down so the user can do less or has to jump through hoops to do it. The iPhone is the perfect example of this, it's only secure because it's limited in what can be installed or run b…
Windows went the other route. If you want to install unsigned drivers, you have to reboot into a special mode, and next time you reboot you lose that privilege again. If you want to install programs, you have to click yes on the UAC pop-up. In the past, none of those roadblocks existed. Rather than making it easier to have good security, they made it harder to do things insecurely.
Microsoft purposefully put in things to make it harder to be insecure, where Apple (with the benefit of starting from scratch and not having to deal with legacy cruft) was able to make being secure easier. Most people don't have to jump through hoops to do things securely on the iPhone because it was built from the ground up to make sure everything you need to do can be done within the sandbox/walled garden.
Things like SSH keys that require you to upload a certificate to every server, that's secure but all you're doing is making it harder to do things. People are more likely to fall back to passwords, so your only option is to not let them use passwords, which is just making it harder to be insecure. RSA tokens are a middle ground, not really harder than a password but far more secure. But a fingerprint scanner built right into a button you were going to press anyway? That is making security easier. It's good (enough) security and end users don't even notice it, let alone have any opinion on it. It just works. It's that easy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is, Windows is Windows. It's a full OS from tip to tail. Linux is a kernel, one that doesn't do a whole lot by itself. If you installed Linux, you'd be very disappointed. But even installing Ubuntu is different IMO than using Android or ChromeOS or a car infotainment system that may technically be based on Linux but the end user would never be able to tell. Likewise if I've used an ATM or a mall kiosk…
The problem we both have is when we define someone as a Linux or Windows "user". In my opinion what counts for the year of the Linux Desktop isn't if anybody _sees_ themself as Linux user, but rather if someone actually uses Linux. I think if we are evaluating what the market share of an os it doesn't matter how it hides it presence. ATMs still are vulnerable to Windows exploits and Linux PCs for Linux vulns and it d…
Debate's over. If you don't have to know you're using Linux, if you don't have to see yourself as a Linux user, if all you have to do is be exposed to a system that incidentally runs Linux in some odd capacity for it to be considered Linux on the desktop, that's it. Linux won.
Bad news for everyone who is anti-Microsoft but visits Stack Overflow which runs on Windows Server... wonder if those people are aware that they're now considered Windows users?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to stutter for your point to be logically inconsistent to the point of incomprehensibility. Lorem ipsum is nonsensical faux-Latin regardless of any speech impediments. If ChromeOS or Android don't count as "real" Linux desktops because (aside from Android not usually being used for desktops) they abstract away the "Linux" part, then by your exact same logic, any Linux distro that ships with a full-fled…
>[maybe] there's no such thing as a "real" Linux desktop. That may be the simplest answer, but when people talk about "the year of Linux on the desktop" they're talking about something in particular, right? Or does any Linux system count? Android smart TVs? Routers? Mall kiosks? Car infotainment systems? Bluray players where the only interface is a Java program? Or are we only counting systems where we can drop to a…
Yes: they're talking about a computer running a desktop environment on Linux on a desktop or laptop computer. ChromeOS meets all those criteria. Android would meet all those criteria should it ever be widely deployed on laptops or desktops.
So:
"It's a simple question: at what point do you differentiate 'it runs on Linux' from 'it's Linux on the desktop'?"
And it's a simple answer:
1: It's a desktop or laptop computer.
2: It's running Linux.
3: It's running a graphical desktop environment.
If all three of those things are true, then it's Linux on the desktop. All three of those things are true for Ubuntu, so it's Linux on the desktop. All three of those things are true for ChromeOS, so it's Linux on the desktop.
Whether the operating system allows lower-level access (like a command-line interface) is irrelevant.
"Because if my router counts, Linux won a long time ago."
Your router probably doesn't meet those criteria, since it's probably not a desktop computer and probably not running a desktop environment.
"Android smart TVs?"
Fails criterion 1.
"Routers?"
Fails criteria 1 and 3.
"Mall kiosks?"
Probably fails criterion 3, and almost certainly fails criterion 1.
"Car infotainment systems?"
Fails criterion 1.
"Bluray players where the only interface is a Java program?"
Fails criterion 1.