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

421–430 of 472 posts

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

#421

Post by ryao »

itvision wrote: post #419
ryao wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is not what I claimed and Nvidia does not statically link to LGPL code as far as I know. If you refer to the Nvidia kernel modules, there is no static linking being done with LGPL code.

I studied introductory psychology in college. I am a decent judge of whether people could benefit from psychiatric help and the more you write, the more convinced I become that you could benefit. Please go for an evaluation. Ask your regular physician for a referral. A psychiatrist likely could help you.

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

#422

Post by ryao »

itvision wrote: post #418
ryao wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have proven things multiple times. For example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42557373

Knowing that Microsoft uploads WiFi passwords to its servers does not even need wireshark. You just need to log into the same Microsoft account on a different machine and observe that your WiFi passwords are synced. Given that the upload is likely encrypted, it would be difficult to observe the passwords being uploaded to Microsoft servers using wireshark. While you would see the packets, you would not know what they contain unless you somehow get the encryption keys out of the system encryption library.

Your prior remarks on running old Linux software did not require that things be easy, which is a matter of opinion, or graphical. It is possible with the right libraries as modern Linux systems (minus Android unless you install a X11 server) can display X11 applications.

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

#423

Post by actuallyalys »

EarthBlues wrote: post #356
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…

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.

Thanks for your kind words! I do think there are valid criticisms in the article, even if the overall framing isn’t productive.

While the tone and framing may make it especially good at attracting responses, I do want to clarify that I don’t think it was deliberately optimized for the engagement.

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

#424

Post by ryao »

itvision wrote: post #417
ryao wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I run Gentoo, not Ubuntu. I have run graphical software from Ubuntu on my machine in a chroot that spoke to my X11 server in the past. I did it to get a Windows game running whose anticheat had wine support that was incompatible with newer versions of glibc than 2.32. A similar process should work with an old Linux distribution binary.

That said, you refuse to recognize that you are wrong no matter how much evidence is presented and even go so far as to present evidence debunking what you say while claiming it supports what you say. If I were to run a graphical application from the 90s on my machine, you would accuse me of making up the result. Since you will say the same thing even if I did this exercise, why should I bother?

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

#425

Post by newdee »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #131
perihelions wrote: post #4

- "The vast majority of applications exist only for Windows, and speaking of games, Linux hasn't seen any AAA titles for many years now," The vast majority of AAA titles run seamlessly on Linux. Per protondb[0], ≥80% of the top 10, top 100, and top 1000 are rated "platinum" or "gold" for Linux functioning (by users). [0] https://www.protondb.com/

Steam also runs on Chromebook; which is easily showing that this is a very shallow victory for Linux on the desktop as a platform. If you can survive with Proton, LibreOffice, and GIMP; you can much more comfortably survive with Proton on ChromeOS, Google Docs, and Photopea. Just hating Windows is not enough of a reason to be a Linux user, and as long as that is the case, Linux will remain niche.

Just hating Windows and wanting to use a beefy dedicated GPU/CPU (not a flimsy feeling Chromebook) is more than enough reason

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

#426

Post by jpc0 »

neonsunset wrote: post #381
jpc0 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> C# is blessed on windows Not as much anymore. Part of it due to the mess that is the first-party Microsoft's GUI frameworks situation, part of it due to .NET's own APIs and semantics not evolving together with Windows since long time ago. Funny anecdata: someone* recently made a small app to indicate when (now broken) CTRL+C is actually triggered in Windows. It was initially written in WPF and was exhibiting a weir…

His journey tracks exactly what I've heard from windows development. If you need more than winforms use avalonia because Microsoft cannot create a viable UI toolkit... Which is extremely funny concidering the article we are having a discussion under...

My point however was that compared to C# you are fighting an uphill battle using any other language to do native windows UI development...

Also why I stopped looking pretty early into native on windows and built a webapp...

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

#427

Post by vunderba »

devops99 wrote: post #244
itvision wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean exceedingly rare apps that use it? Yeah. And they weigh in hundreds of megabytes, right, because they come with all the dependencies starting with glibc. Yeah, that will totally work and has been a smashing success. Except it never has.

Drawio, Session, and SimpleX are three that use AppImage, just off the top of my head. > because they come with all the dependencies starting with glibc Good, because my system doesn't have glibc, by choice. > Yeah, that will totally work It's already working. > And they weigh in hundreds of megabytes My home connection is 2-gigabit symmetrical and the internal NVMe in my laptop is 4TB. So cry more poorfag.

> So cry more poorfag

You need to dial down the hysterics by about 1000%, or alternatively you might want to head back to the YouTube comment section since your vernacular seems more appropriate for it.

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

#428

Post by ryao »

itvision wrote: post #416
ryao wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You response has almost nothing to do with the comment to which you replied. There is no sense in trying to address the moving target that are your replies since you are unable to stay on topic. I will however address the one on topic thing that you said. Wikipedia’s definition of an operating system is roughly what was taught in my university when I got my CS degree and I am in full agreement with it, so regardless of whether Wikipedia is an authority, the definition Wikipedia provides is correct.

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

#429

Post by ryao »

itvision wrote: post #411
ryao wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In reference to running old software, you said:

  > In Linux nothing even close is possible.
Now you say it is possible, but are fabricating figures for how many people can do it. Thus, you acknowledge what you said was untrue. Both things cannot be true simultaneously.

This is a feature of Linux. Linus Torvalds is very adamant about supporting old binaries with new kernels, even if it is not commonly done.

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

#430

Post by ryao »

itvision wrote: post #412
ryao wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/identi…

You said:

  > Windows 10/11 both mandate that installers are signed before you can even launch them
The word mandate means that it is a requirement.
Post reply on HN