Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you don't install software and drivers on Linux, you edit your nix flake, switch and it always works. If it doesn't work up to your liking, you boot into the previous generation. Also for some mysterious reasons, compiling C code under Nix always works and dependencies can't be missing.
In my experience, Nix makes some things very easy and other things very, very difficult. I hope the situation has improved, but the last time I had to deal with Nvidia (kernel/driver/library dependencies/updates/etc.) under Nix it did not remotely work out of the box and it was a huge pain. (And switching to AMD or intel was not really an option.) Doing anything off the beaten path seems to be challenging even if you…
Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
61–70 of 472 posts
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#62These are a bunch of reasons why the top 1% of the most technical users in the world might not use Linux on their desktop. For everyone else, the reason they don't use Linux on their desktop is because it didn't come installed on it. If somebody does to desktops like what Google did for smartphones, then Linux will finally have its moment.
Somebody does to desktops what Google did for smartphone. The company is called Microsoft, and the behaviour is called blatant monopoly abuse.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#63For example, Windows or Android software from ten years ago will still work in Windows 11 or Android 15 or whatever their current versions are. For Windows, software compatibility is actually excellent: a lot of 32-bit Windows 95 software still runs perfectly on Windows 11 64 almost 30 years later. Nothing remotely close exists for Linux. I completely disagree. Android applications made for older versions DO NOT work…
Correct, there are some Gnu/Linux-en, and there is Android/Linux.
Which may not be a classical desktop OS, but some platforms like Samsung phones emulate floating window management and multitasking, making it an okay desktop OS. And Android has a huge market share, so perhaps "Linux won over Windows" already, just not on the desktop.
Did the author do any fact checking, proton (developed for Steam OS) runs so many games, it is unbelievable.
Trollish opinion piece behind the link.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#64This was funny considering Linux runs on almost anything is everywhere: > 6. Hardware support and compatibility
is somewhat true. State of the video drivers from AMD are not good on Windows and atrociously bad on Linux. NVIDIA are drivers are barely of the acceptable quality on Linux.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#651. Linux is a software ecosystem. Varying flavors and options to fill almost any need of computing solution.
2. Bugs and Regressions are crowd-source community solved. Bugs don't last long if it's keeping something from working.
3. There are so many open-source games native to Linux/Windows/Mac that don't get enough attention. Most of them are free too.
4. Filesharing on linux is as simple as a command line operation. See rsync. Also there are countless GUI apps that use rsync.
5. Funding is everywhere in Linux and open source software. See IBM, RedHat, Google, Microsoft, Amazon among a few.
6. Hardware drivers are plentiful for Linux. Hardly have any issues.
7. The community will help you. They've helped me for years.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#66What are we comparing this too? With the exception of Windows software able to run on Windows, you could make everyone of those claims in spades about Windows. I would recommend OP go administer an enterprise Windows network and stare into the abyss like I did during my stint in the corporate world. And I won't be doing that again.
I can't imagine trying to manage 1000's of users, file access, permissions, etc from cobbled together bash scripts.
M365/Azure/AD is how all large orgs are run. The only time I see Linux in this space is for some one off VMs running apps in Docker or something.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#67Yeah, I get that this is called out under business / professionals, but I've also used Ubuntu (more recently Pop!_OS, and Fedora before that) as a daily driver for >a decade and given small-form-factor PCs with Ubuntu to relatives who have successfully used them for web and basic LibreOffice work for years without major issues.
When people ask me for recommendations for a family PC these days, I tell them to just get an iPad or Mac Mini though.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#682: The statement "Linux developers spend very little to no time checking that their code changes don't cause regressions or breakages" cannot be applied to all or possibly most developers. What packages is TFA talking about here? Maybe TFA means "Denuvo developers spend very little time checking that their code changes don't cause rootkits or kernel exploits - in Windows."
3: "Lack of general software" - TFA seems to be arguing that because software is not specifically compiled for Linux, it is therefore not "available", which is laughably false. My entire Steam library works just fine on the Steam Deck and in Debian. In fact, many of those games run on Steam/Proton when they could not be made to run on modern versions of Windows.
4: "Poor file and folder sharing" - I don't think TFA has ever tried Samba in an all-Linux environment, but I will grant that permissions across machines can be tricky. You know, like sharing folders between Windows XP, 7, 10, and 11.
5: "Lack of funding on the desktop" - Listen, I don't think IBM/RedHat are underfunded. I don't prefer Gnome Desktop, but it's perfectly functional, and funding doesn't seem to be an issue there. Maybe we should ask Canonical if they've ever funded desktop work.
6: "Hardware support and compatibility" - Listen, I'm using an HP 1012 laser printer. Microsoft stopped writing drivers for this perfectly usable printer in Windows 8. I'm using a modern GPU (Radeon 6700XT) that has drivers built right into the kernel. I'm using a scanner that was new when Windows 2000 was new, and I can tell you, it won't work in Windows anymore but it will for sure work in Linux. Once again, TFA does not give examples.
7: Ok, I'll give him this one. You can pay for commercial support for Linux if you want it, though! Canonical and Redhat would love to have your money.
Summing up, it seems like this guy is just complaining that Linux isn't a commercially-supported O/S, except it is, if you pay for it. Maybe he means "Linux isn't Windows." So, his entire premise is wrong, and trolly. And speaking of trolls, you'll see TFA's name in the ars forum if you search, and I'll give you two guesses what his posts there look like.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#69Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#70Very trollish. The second such article I have seen recently on the HN front page. What does "not ready for the desktop" even mean? Its been ready for MY desktop for over 20 years. Points 1,2,3 and 4 are pretty much wrong. Point 5 is a problem for other OSes too (there are bugs in applications!), point 6 is only relevant if you have particular hardware you want to work with Linux, and point 7 is not my experience.