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

441–450 of 472 posts

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

#441

Post by IgorPartola »

ghaff wrote: post #388
LeFantome wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What macOS provides is that each app is bundled with all the libraries it needs. That is basically what AppImage is on Linux and it works just as well. Most people find it too wasteful so Flatpak has become more popular. At least Flatpak allows apps to share many of the libraries that they both rely on.

Although Apple has also made a mistake IMO in not having a proper package manager in spite of hiring the writer of Homebrew at one point. probably less important than it used to be but not all roads lead to Apple apps or the apps of a few other companies.

The fundamental thing people need to realize is that package and app are different abstractions. They are not one to one related and they are not orthogonal. Distros deliver some open source apps as packages. But thats not the same as delivering apps.

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

#442

Post by t_mahmood »

itvision wrote: post #343
t_mahmood wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just a hater. I have to use Windows to test my apps, and each and every time it just infuriates me with ads and cluster fuck UI, constant notifications of different products, ads in start menu. It's only consistent on delivering ads, not how the user interface is organized How you have to tweak registry to remove the ad, but still can't get rid of OneDrives reminder, and then comes the forced updates. Settings…

> You're just a hater. Yeah, with hundreds of contributions to multiple Linux projects including the Linux kernel, GCC, KDE, Wine, etc. A total hater. > How you have to tweak registry to remove the ad, but still can't get rid of OneDrives reminder, and then comes the forced updates. Takes roughly 2 minutes, ok. > Settings are spread in between millions of places, extremely confusing, and twisted. Not sure what you me…

Yeah, still a hater.

> Takes roughly 2 minutes, ok.

Sure, then after 2 or 3 days it pops up again.

Do you want to use OneDrive? > No

Oh, too bad, You should turn it on, I will remind you in a few days. > 3 days, 5 days Oh, Sorry, never is NOT an option.

How can that be acceptable!

At least you know where your configuration might be! On Windows, You don't even know where your apps configurations are. Is it in some deep level underground of registry? Or in App Data, local or roaming, or somewhere else?

On Linux, I know user based configs are in `.config`, and system-wide configs are in `/etc`. Some older app may store their config in home, but that's all. How is that difficult?! And everything is just text files and most of the time very nicely commented.

And I probably never needed to touch anything in `/etc` for almost over a year, unless I am messing with something.

> Search is not even available for multiple Linux DEs.

What?! Gnome has excellent application search, Win + one or two key presses I can launch my app, and it's actually consistent. No ads inserted randomly to interrupt my muscle memory.

KDE also have it. In i3 I can use `rofi` to do the same.

> MSI and GPO exist. Most serious applications nowadays have auto-updaters. Others often need no updates.

Oh, lol. How can one excuse the mess of going to each application's website, download binaries and install, and then let each and every app phone home to check for update, and then go through the upgrade dialogs, keeping watch if the app has inserted any search box or toolbar opt-outs? That is just absurd! I can just run `yay -S --noconfirm` and put password, and my update kicks in. Most of the apps are not bothered if I am running their latest version or not.

> Works near perfectly for 2 billion users.

Because, again, it's only feeding on the legacy, and because people pay the Windows Tax, without knowing, or in my country, it was easily available with new purchases for free (Piracy).

IF, people had to install Windows by themselves, I can confidently say, most of the people would stay far, far away from it.

> Barely works for its 40 million users, riddled with bugs/regressions and missing features.

I have been using Linux for 20+ years. I am not riddled by any of those 'bugs' and 'regressions', funny thing is, sometimes there are minor hitches, but again, they are minor.

And if I face a problem, I can communicate with the respected community, and get a solution. For Windows, which is a black box, you never know if you'll get any solution for your inconveniences. Like, getting rid of OneDrive, permanently. Or File explorer getting stuck indefinitely for hours after hour, and there's no solution to it. The client suffered for almost years, and he had no way to reinstall.

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

#443

Post by ghaff »

IgorPartola wrote: post #441
ghaff wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although Apple has also made a mistake IMO in not having a proper package manager in spite of hiring the writer of Homebrew at one point. probably less important than it used to be but not all roads lead to Apple apps or the apps of a few other companies.

The fundamental thing people need to realize is that package and app are different abstractions. They are not one to one related and they are not orthogonal. Distros deliver some open source apps as packages. But thats not the same as delivering apps.

As someone who has written a free book on the topic, I don't disagree:-) https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitmasons.com/packagingbook.html

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

#444

Post by itvision »

t_mahmood wrote: post #442
itvision wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're just a hater. Yeah, with hundreds of contributions to multiple Linux projects including the Linux kernel, GCC, KDE, Wine, etc. A total hater. > How you have to tweak registry to remove the ad, but still can't get rid of OneDrives reminder, and then comes the forced updates. Takes roughly 2 minutes, ok. > Settings are spread in between millions of places, extremely confusing, and twisted. Not sure what you me…

Yeah, still a hater. > Takes roughly 2 minutes, ok. Sure, then after 2 or 3 days it pops up again. Do you want to use OneDrive? > No Oh, too bad, You should turn it on, I will remind you in a few days. > 3 days, 5 days Oh, Sorry, never is NOT an option. How can that be acceptable! At least you know where your configuration might be! On Windows, You don't even know where your apps configurations are. Is it in some dee…

> Sure, then after 2 or 3 days it pops up again.

Citations needed. Doesn't happen to anyone else but you.

> Oh, too bad, You should turn it on, I will remind you in a few days. > 3 days, 5 days Oh, Sorry, never is NOT an option.

Again 5 minutes of Googling disables it.

> On Windows, You don't even know where your apps configurations are.

In Linux they can be in a dozen of different locations as well. And Gnome even has (had?) a sort of registry.

> What?! Gnome has excellent application search, Win + one or two key presses I can launch my app, and it's actually consistent. No ads inserted randomly to interrupt my muscle memory.

"I use Gnome/KDE and I don't give a damn about all other DEs."

Got it!

> How can one excuse the mess of going to each application's website, download binaries and install, and then let each and every app phone home to check for update, and then go through the upgrade dialogs, keeping watch if the app has inserted any search box or toolbar opt-outs? That is just absurd! I can just run `yay -S --noconfirm` and put password, and my update kicks in. Most of the apps are not bothered if I am running their latest version or not.

Most serious Windows software doesn't need manual updates. Windows and MS Office update themselves. Adobe, Corel and 3dMax products do so as well. Tiny utilities? Who cares? They just work.

It's Linux where people get obsessed with updates because there's no API/ABI compatibility per se and you have no choice. In Windows? Run something from 20 years ago and don't bother.

> Because, again, it's only feeding on the legacy, and because people pay the Windows Tax,

$10 tax. Yeah. I've spent hundreds of hours fixing Linux. No tax at all.

> I am not riddled by any of those 'bugs' and 'regressions', funny thing is, sometimes there are minor hitches, but again, they are minor.

Anecdotal evidence rears its ugly head AGAIN AGAIN AND AGAIN. "If it works me for Linux is perfect". Never mind people who actually do the dirty work of fixing hundreds of regressions every Linux kernel release.

Nothing ever changes with the Linux cult. "It works for me, I'm a seasoned developer, I know my way around console, Linux must work for everyone".

Even in this discussion this has been repeated ad nauseam.

F it. I'm out.

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

#445

Post by jitl »

adriancr wrote: post #369
jitl wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Android does not exist in laptop format currently and I see no use case for that. On the other hand I see lots of people using linux on laptops just fine. They are probably counted as windows because it comes preinstalled and there's no choice to give it up and get money back. So you might be wrong on your prediction.

I'm not saying "android on a laptop is the way of the future". I'm saying the Android model, to sweep aside the status quo distros and start fresh with new approach to userspace, is the path I see most likely to bring Linux to the masses in laptop/desktop form factor.

If the people you see using Linux on the laptop are developers, then I don't think they count as "consumers" - they're on the production side of things! I don't know any consumers who use Linux on a laptop. I last gave it a shot in 2018 but decided it's not for me.

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

#446

Post by jitl »

itvision wrote: post #366
jitl wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> All I’m saying is that a position “desktop Linux can’t into games” is very very wrong in 2024. Ping me when you find a way to play modern online Windows games with a kernel level anticheat. Oh, and people don't care that Linux can play games from 2015. People are interested in AAA titles and something that OTHER people play. Leave obscure indies to yourself. Linux runs (emulates!) Windows games just fine, except wh…

The one 2024 game release I wanted to play but couldn't at release on my Deck was Star Wars: Survivor (although recent reviews says it runs great now). Every other 2024 game I bought worked flawlessly. Maybe kernel anti-cheat is important to you, but I haven't wanted to play any such titles ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

You are welcome to "no true scotsman" and "move the goalposts" about this but I still think it's a silly position to hold that "desktop Linux can't into games".

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

#447

Post by foobiekr »

edoceo wrote: post #432
foobiekr wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your experience is selection bias. And if you never had issues with ext3fs, I assure you it's because you never checked.

You've lost context and appear to be going after a weak interpretation with the implication I don't know how to sysadmin. The context was the sweeping generalisation that Linux devs and that they don't care about regressions, see up thread by @imiric. In that context I've not had regressions. More explicitly, for this narrower context, I've not had regression bugs in ext3/ext4. I'm not making a claim that I've not ha…

I think you’re missing the point. Unless you were actually measuring the content of your file system with a reasonable quality hash function, you likely had actual data corruption that Fsck will never see. Fsck can’t check data on ext*.

Unless you were routinely running mtree or something similar, you’d honestly have no idea.

My point here is that software can appear to be fine when it’s actually shit because most people won’t notice any kind of corner case. All you’re saying is that you’ve very likely missed the corner cases.

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

#448

Post by foobiekr »

tuna74 wrote: post #364
foobiekr wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are very careful about not breaking userspace. That has nothing to do with holding the _user_ in high regard, though. The sweeping changes in Linux are amazing, but they also break a lot, frequently, and the testing approach leaves a lot to be desired. I am old and a former embedded coder, I understand how the 90s developers feel about unit testing, and I am sympathetic to the idea that test-driven-developm…

If you report a regression within an -RC series it will be fixed or the commit reverted. Of course, that requires actual testing.

I am very familiar with reporting bugs on the Linux kernel, as you may imagine from the previous comments.

But you’re just reiterating that the kernel development itself lacks sufficient testing which necessitates this. Everyone is a volunteer; the result is as you’d expect.

Look, there’s nothing wrong with this. In reality all the people who are electing to run Linux without it actually having sufficient quality for their purposes are the actual problem, who’d which there are hundreds of companies that just don’t care. We created this situation by undervaluing quality vs cost.

But it’s also the reason it won’t be a success on the desktop. The only way that happens is if windows takes an even more substantial nosedive. Things are going to have to get pretty bad for that to happen.

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

#449

Post by RossBencina »

cloudsec9 wrote: post #248
do_not_redeem wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> knowing that if I build an app and it probably won’t work in 5 years Would you say MacOS, Android, and iPhone are also hobbyist toys then? And by the way, if you statically compile your app for Linux it will basically work forever. Linus's mantra: We Do Not Break Userspace. These are userland problems and can all be avoided with a linker flag if it's a priority for you.

This is a broken mindset, that you should be able to take an app and use it for 5+ years. When computers were in their infancy, and systems were only updated every 4-6 years, it might have made sense, but this doesn't in our modern software environment. Nowadays all software is built on libraries and frameworks, and they have security issues and even just bugs, and you want to get those fixes. If you want to run 5+ y…

Without intending to be inflammatory, I think that the mindset that you are espousing is broken.

Security is is a real issue for a subset of computing tasks. To further your point, for those tasks you can argue that constant vigilance and patching are a necessity of the modern world (an alternative and arguably better approach would be that formal verification and not updating, as often applied in safety critical control systems.) However, security is often used as a pernicious ruse for forcing obsolesence: want the latest security patches? update to the latest OS version. Oh look, the latest OS version no longer runs on your perfectly good hardware. Or similarly, oh look, your perfectly good software no longer runs on the latest OS version.

But now consider the subset of computing that does not need to involve security either because it has literally no security implications, or because it can be sandboxed by the OS (e.g. games, music and video production, architectural design, scientific simulation, mathematical research, ...) There is a large body of this kind of software that works perfectly well for any number of years (modulo forced obsolesce initiatives like "modernising" the UI or moving to the cloud). I would argue that the primary function of the OS should be to provide a stable platform for running such software securely. Yes, the user could learn how run it under emulation, in a container or VM, but then what is the purpose of the OS?

The alternative is a high software maintenance burden/cost to everyone (for applications to just keep the lights on, or users to stay current in a churning software landscape) and/or the destruction of a massive amount value in developed but no longer easily able to be run software: this value destruction here is twofold: (1) the licensee can no longer run the software that they pay for, and (2) the effort expended to develop said software is discarded.

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

#450

Post by ryao »

ghaff wrote: post #390
ryao wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would probably be better served by MacOS.

It sounds like you're violently agreeing with the parent. I worked for an open source company for over a decade. But, although things improved over time, within about a week of joining I went out and bought a MacBook to use (for the first time) because it was more politically acceptable than Windows but I didn't want to deal with either a locked-down corporate Linux distro or an unsupported free Linux.

My neighbor is a photographer. He uses photoshop on MacOS. It works for him. Until Adobe ports Photoshop to Linux, the “must have Photoshop with no issues whatsoever” demographic is better served by MacOS.
Post reply on HN