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

471–472 of 472 posts

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

#471

Post by itvision »

Draiken wrote: post #470
itvision wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rabid fanboyism is solely on you, mate. I've been running Linux exclusively since RedHat 5.0 (no, that's not RHEL, that's more than a decade earlier). This entire article is 1000% true. Every word of it. You can "opine" and "disagree" with it as much as you want. It's become too damn popular in the western world lately to opine about anything. Feel free to opine about gravity, just don't fall off the top of a 10-stor…

People run Windows because it comes installed in their machines. > Windows is rock stable and doesn't break randomly after every upgrade (sans occasional conflicts with third-party software here and there affecting ~0.05% of people). What? I've lost count of the amount of times that I've had to restore botched Windows updates. It has gotten better lately, but it still happened more times than I've had to deal with up…

> People run Windows because it comes installed in their machines.

People run Windows because it works. FTFY.

The number of times something in Linux has broken over the past 25 years for me has been insane.

How about the Linux kernel failing to boot for three releases in a row, a regression that affected tens of thousands of laptops?

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206175

Of course in the unicorn land of Linux cultists it "works" too, but then you open any Linux related forum and multiple threads about something not working anymore are posted daily.

I invite you to r/Fedora for example.

> My point stands. People don't choose their OS.

There's no point.

There's an actual OS, Windows.

And then there's a software compilation X version N that comes with no warranties whatsoever, it's called Linux Distro X version N.

People choose to run an actual OS with the ability to create and run third-party software for at least a decade, in the case of Windows for up to three decades.

Linux offers NONE of that.

No stability, no quality, no QA/AC and no implied or enforced backward or forward compatibility.

Continue to OVERLOOK all of that and believe "But mom, Windows is preinstalled!"

I know a TON of people who have left Linux after a few years of struggling with it at every turn. They are all now running Windows or MacOS.

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

#472

Post by Draiken »

itvision wrote: post #471
Draiken wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People run Windows because it comes installed in their machines. > Windows is rock stable and doesn't break randomly after every upgrade (sans occasional conflicts with third-party software here and there affecting ~0.05% of people). What? I've lost count of the amount of times that I've had to restore botched Windows updates. It has gotten better lately, but it still happened more times than I've had to deal with up…

> People run Windows because it comes installed in their machines. People run Windows because it works. FTFY. The number of times something in Linux has broken over the past 25 years for me has been insane. How about the Linux kernel failing to boot for three releases in a row, a regression that affected tens of thousands of laptops? https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206175 Of course in the unicorn land of…

Reading your answers you seem unhinged. Calm down mate.

> Of course in the unicorn land of Linux cultists it "works" too, but then you open any Linux related forum and multiple threads about something not working anymore are posted daily.

As opposed to Windows where nothing ever breaks? That doesn't make any sense. It's a known fact that Linux users report way more problems than Windows users because they are simply more technical, more in line with the open source spirit and dig deeper.

When I had issues on my Windows, it was extremely hard to find any solution online. Nobody goes to r/Windows for their troubles. From the few answers I've found, pretty much all of them ended up being "re-install Windows" or "re-install parts of Windows".

> People choose to run an actual OS with the ability to create and run third-party software for at least a decade, in the case of Windows for up to three decades.

Sorry but, that's simply not true for the average person. I'm not talking about the typical HN user here. The absolute vast majority of users *do not choose an OS*. Surely you can't argue with that, right?

> Continue to OVERLOOK all of that

No. I'm well aware that there are many things to improve on Linux (especially desktop linux), but my whole point is that it's utterly irrelevant until people actually get to choose an OS. Linux could have zero issues and work flawlessly everywhere and it would still have almost nobody using it outside of our tech savvy bubble.

If Linux as a whole was as bad as you say, it wouldn't be used in the majority of computers in the world. It's only desktop Linux that suffers from your complaints, and it's simply because it doesn't have companies with infinite money and monopolies behind it making it more seamless for the average user while forcing vendors to support it.

Post reply on HN