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

411–420 of 472 posts

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

#411

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #395
itvision wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Then you acknowledge that what you said earlier was untrue.

Where did I?

Or something that's available to 0.0001% of its users has become an OS "feature"?

Who are you kidding, man? What else, you gonna claim Linux is "fine" because people can write assembler code for it? It can even run on your PC?

That's not what a desktop OS is about. That's not how it's used.

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

#412

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #399
itvision wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Try to run an unsigned installer in Windows 10/11 and tell me how it worked for you.

This is how it works and looks:

https://docs.anythingllm.com/installation-desktop/windows

https://github.com/gitextensions/gitextensions/issues/7738

I never said it was a requirement.

What's more you can enable GPO policies to prevent the user from running any new/unknown apps.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/so...

Good luck implementing that in Linux.

Continue to use a crap pseudo-OS with no security and believe everyone around is a geek who is willing to learn CLI, bash, vi, git bisect, reading mans, etc. just to use it.

You have now accused me of saying something I'd never said, you crossed the line and goodbye.

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

#413

Post by rbanffy »

pxoe wrote: post #263
kelnos wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using Linux on my desktop even longer, but I agree with at least the premise of the article (even though the arguments are poorly thought out and expressed most of the time). No Linux-based OS has gained mainstream acceptance. You can try to blame that on marketing or corporations or whatever, but I don't buy that. I think open source software is the best way to make technically-superior software, but I thi…

Gnome tries to focus on UX and does a pretty good job at it. But they're yet to make a regular user oriented distro, which I think could be a better bet at realizing that 'mainstream linux' idea, because at least they'd care enough to try and figure out the things that get in the way of users having linux running.

Some standard, good enough, apps would help further this idea. Right now, I can’t find a mail client for Gnome that’s as comfortable to use as Apple’s Mail app. I use Mailspring, and it comes really close, but still could be nicer. It’s also not part of Gnome.

Gnome is a very well managed project, but its resources aren’t infinite.

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

#414

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #401
itvision wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are calling the Xorg X11 server Xorg, which is wrong. As someone who has “contributed” to so many projects, you should know that. In any case, it is odd you are whining about this considering that the article’s author is a well known X11 hater and you seem to agree with everything he says. By the way, “Not a single Windows MacOS iOS Android user knows what their display server is and how it works” is both a non-s…

> You are calling the Xorg X11 Xorg, which is wrong

Xorg has been the de-facto X11 implementation on Linux for the past 25 years.

First XFree86, then it was superseded by Xorg.

You're being nit picky only that's not a counter argument. That's ad hominem.

> the article’s author is a well known X11 hater and you seem to agree with everything he says.

I'm the author of the article and I'm not a hater. Understanding the limitations of something is not "hatred". I guess the entire world is black or white to you, either I have to be deeply in love with Linux or "You're a hater" which is another ad hominem.

See you've stopped arguing and now switched to discussing me personally. I knew it would happen given how you never had any counter arguments in the first place, the problem is I've been here for over 25 years and know Linux inside out and EVERYTHING that is "claimed" in the article is the common truth.

> By the way, “Not a single Windows MacOS iOS Android user knows what their display server is and how it works” is both a non-sequitur and untrue.

Yet another "counter argument" that lacks any validity because it's empty.

> The guys who wrote the display servers used on those are users of those systems.

This is an article about Linux _USERS_.

You still don't bloody understand that. I don't care about software engineers that can make anything work given enough time. I don't care who wrote Quartz or Surface Flinger. They are not end users.

End users use Operating Systems, buy them and buy software for them. Their developers are absolutely IRRELEVANT. There have been dozens of forgotten OSes that no one uses.

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

#416

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #403
itvision wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

None of that fits the definition of an OS. As per Wikipedia, “An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware and software resources, and provides common services for computer programs.”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system The reason Linux is not an operating system is because it is just the kernel and you need more than a kernel to fit that definition. The only thing you said t…

Oh god.

1. Is Wikipedia _page_ an authority?

2. Does Wikipedia page buy operating systems and software for them? No? That's what I thought. Where's native commercial applications for Linux aside from very few specialized ones? Where's native Linux for Linux? Oh, wait, even Indie developers have abandoned Linux because why if there's Wine + DXVK.

3. Who cares about obscure something that pretends to provide APIs? How is it relevant for adoption and usage? Oh, wait, it's not. We've had dozens of dead wanna-be OSes that provide APIs. All dead. Linux on desktop is one of them as well.

Yeah, "I'm wrong".

Linux desktop market share proves it beyond reasonable doubt. LMAO.

The fact that absolute most people shy away from Linux is another proof that it's a "great OS" and "better than Windows".

Keep on living in your fantasy world. Sadly people around you don't share your ideals. They want shit to be done. They install Windows, use it for a decade without any issues, buy a new device. All good.

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

#417

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #405
itvision wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wo…

Then you acknowledge your previous claims about the capability not existing were wrong. You also contradict yourself by saying elsewhere that mostly geeks run Linux, which implies far more than 99.99% of users can do this. It is not a hack either. It is the way you are supposed to run old software by design.

Can you stop making shit up?

I dare you to grab a Linux distro from the late 90s/earlier 00s and run any application that uses GTK1 or Qt1/2 on your Ubuntu 24.

Without spending insurmountable amounts of time. You will fail miserably. Your 0.0001% example is pure BS.

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

#418

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #406
itvision wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 MI…

> 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. I assume you are projecting here since I have never once in my life described myself as an “IT specialist”. This fits what you have been doing far better than it fits me. It leaked a while ago that Microsoft Windows automatically uploads WiFi passwords to their se…

Install WireShark and PROVE that Windows is leaking data.

I've challenged you a couple of times already. You keep writing walls of text without proving anything you claim.

You've not proven that you can "easily" run old graphical software in your modern Linux.

You've not proven that Windows is leaking data left and right.

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

#419

Post by itvision »

ryao wrote: post #409
itvision wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html Now, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... > For the purpose of complying with the LGPL (any extant version: v2, v2.1 or v3): > If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you _must_ also provide your application in _an object_ (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application. Basi…

LGPL != GPL You just provided evidence that your remarks were wrong and then claimed it validated your remarks as being right. Rather than accuse you of lying, I would accuse you of having a severe issue in your basic reasoning skills. Furthermore, your rant is consistent with disorganized thinking, which is often a symptom of schizophrenia. I suggest seeing a psychiatrist.

You claimed you can "easily link applications statically and have them work everywhere all the time".

I said that even linking with LGPL is a task almost everyone avoids (NVIDIA being an exception).

You cannot link with GPL _at all_ unless you provide full source code.

Fuck it, I'm out.

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

#420

Post by ryao »

itvision wrote: post #414
ryao wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are calling the Xorg X11 server Xorg, which is wrong. As someone who has “contributed” to so many projects, you should know that. In any case, it is odd you are whining about this considering that the article’s author is a well known X11 hater and you seem to agree with everything he says. By the way, “Not a single Windows MacOS iOS Android user knows what their display server is and how it works” is both a non-s…

> You are calling the Xorg X11 Xorg, which is wrong Xorg has been the de-facto X11 implementation on Linux for the past 25 years. First XFree86, then it was superseded by Xorg. You're being nit picky only that's not a counter argument. That's ad hominem. > the article’s author is a well known X11 hater and you seem to agree with everything he says. I'm the author of the article and I'm not a hater. Understanding the…

There is nothing “ad hominem” in what I said. I was discussing your remarks, rather than you. However, I will now discuss you. You exhibit severe deficits in logical reasoning skills. Some of your comments exhibit signs of disorganized thoughts, which are linked to schizophrenia.

To give an example, the sudden interjection of “Not a single Windows MacOS iOS Android user knows what their display server is and how it works.” appears to be an example of disorganized thinking, since its connection to what was being discussed is superficial to an extreme. There are other comments by you that exhibit signs of disorganized thinking even more clearly.

You likely could benefit from seeing a psychiatrist.

Post reply on HN