meh... My only issues are: sound/multimedia and inconstant font size/type, other than that, perfect.
Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
71–80 of 472 posts
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#72Earlier 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.
NixOS is certainly the most obvious design paradigm with the most confusing integration / implementation I've ever seen. It feels a bit like "Emacs is my favorite operating system, if only it had a text editor" NixOS's philosophy? amazing . Actually trying to use, install stuff to, make changes to, etc. NixOS with the currently existing tools? horrible .
The benefits outweight the issues.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#73When I see the articles I believe the title should be "Linux is not Windows so I do not like it". I have used Linux for just shy of 30 years. It is different than Windows and far more powerful. It is just that people do not want to learn different things. Plus Linux has no spyware. These days, you can do anything on Linux that you do on Windows, except for some 3d Gaming. And that is because hardware vendors refuse t…
> It is the fault of Video vendors, most notability Nvidia.
And even that's gotten better in recent years, too. Nvidia hasn't fixed everything, but two of the biggest concerns (not supporting Wayland and fighting community drivers) have began to be addressed recently. It's beginning to look like Nvidia is taking desktop Linux seriously, albeit slowly. Most of these changes landed in the 555-series drivers, which are still pretty fresh, maybe even still in beta iirc.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#74The main criticism I see as valid here is first point: software distribution is tricky. For macOS and Windows you basically have a model where you can go to a website, download a binary, install it, and it runs. Most Linux distros won’t jive with that very well. And because every Linux distro uses a different theme and one of a dozen UI libraries/DEs/etc. the downloaded GUI application will look bad because it won’t…
Windows has been isolating dependencies for a while now too, but for security, since their entire security model was pretty awful before, largely because of the need to support decades-old applications that business customers / governments still rely on. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/device-protectio...
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#75This was funny considering Linux runs on almost anything is everywhere: > 6. Hardware support and compatibility
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.
And that's just when considering core system components. But non-technical users will expect any odd-ball peripheral they pick up at Office Depot or Best Buy to work as advertised out of the box, and it probably will not.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#76My retired parents would disagree, having happily used Linux Mint for years now. Whenever I need to use Windows while teaching in school, I wonder how people put up with a system that is so user-unfriendly, some would even call it hostile.
The main difference, I feel, is that with Windows you can tell the system is built with a company's interests in mind, while in Linux this feeling is absent, and instead, you can tell the user is at the center of attention. And even if the system may not be perfect, it constantly evolves for the better. Just this difference ensures I will never go back again, nor will I ever recommend anything else.
With Windows, the system is a boss, with linux, you are the boss :)
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#77These 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.
> If somebody does to desktops like what Google did for smartphones, [...] Somebody does to desktops what Google did for smartphone. The company is called Microsoft, and the behaviour is called blatant monopoly abuse.
I'm referring to Linux being the basis of Android.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
NixOS is certainly the most obvious design paradigm with the most confusing integration / implementation I've ever seen. It feels a bit like "Emacs is my favorite operating system, if only it had a text editor" NixOS's philosophy? amazing . Actually trying to use, install stuff to, make changes to, etc. NixOS with the currently existing tools? horrible .
The benefits outweight the issues.
Sure, if I want to spend weeks and months of time learning how to:
* move my arms again, so I can learn how to
* push myself up again, so I can learn how to
* move my legs again, so I can learn how to
* crawl, so I can learn how to
* walk.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#79The main criticism I see as valid here is first point: software distribution is tricky. For macOS and Windows you basically have a model where you can go to a website, download a binary, install it, and it runs. Most Linux distros won’t jive with that very well. And because every Linux distro uses a different theme and one of a dozen UI libraries/DEs/etc. the downloaded GUI application will look bad because it won’t…
Windows has been isolating dependencies for a while now too, but for security, since their entire security model was pretty awful before, largely because of the need to support decades-old applications that business customers / governments still rely on. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/device-protectio...
I have really come around to this way of thinking. Either you use the walled garden that is the distro’s own repos with only the blessed software of specific slightly out of date versions, or you allow arbitrary software but have to isolate it. The former works for some use cases but not for “Linux on the desktop” as most typical users define it.
Re: Why Linux is not ready for the desktop, the final edition
#80Everyone I know that uses linux for their PC, has constant, daily issues and complaints, and they all use a different distro that they promise is the best. Without even going into any of the other issues, that's enough to keep me away. Even as a nerdy programmer, I don't have the time, energy or any reason to use something that will make my life harder and impact my ability to do what I want to do. I can't see any conceivable path forward where linux becomes an actual viable and mainstream platform for regular PC users. It seems like people mainly use linux for ideological reasons, not because it's better - actually in spite of it being worse. In my personal experience, the vast 99% majority of professional programmers use windows/mac, and I see more than anything people switching to linux just for the novelty of it. Linux users can also be very dismissive "Photoshop? You don't need that. Use LibreGimp, but use X fork as it has essential bugfixes."