609
On this day in 1991, Linus Torvalds announced he was working on what would become Linux
(www.xda-developers.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
609 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
59340 readers
1834 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And since 1992 people have been claiming every year that this is the year of Linux on the desktop.
It was the year for me. Windows is bad enough and Linux is good enough to make the switch. People are getting tired of the big tech companies with privacy concerns and anti consumer practices - pretty much the reason most of us are on here on lemmy now.
This year is the year. All you have to do is switch. With products like Ubuntu, there's no reason not to. It. Just. Works.
No. It. Doesn't
You all keep saying it works but it still doesn't work with a whole load of software even with Wine.
If all you do is internet browsing then Linux is fine, but if you need specific software it can be a pain.
I don't think being able to run programs designed and compiled for windows is a requirement to be considered a usable os. For example, you can not run safari on windows. Does this mean windows doesn't count as a usable os?
I think the definition of useable should be that software exists that can do the kind of things you want to do on your computer. In that sense, Linux is perfecty useable on the desktop, at least for people who have similar computing requirements to me.
Yeah seriously lol that's what they were saying 20 friggin years ago and it was okay at best. Idk how it's come along since then but honestly Windows is quite stable now, I literally can't remember the last time I got a bsod or had any real issues. I used to screw around with different builds and dual booting, had strong opinions about which boot loader was best etc, these I just don't see the point. All I use my computer for is web browsing and excel.
They believe that if they say it enough times it might just magically happen.
Linux is not ready for prime time and to a large degree it is because of Linux users themselves who simply don't want to admit the massive usability and compatibility problems that their beloved OS has. If they can't admit it, then clearly it's not going to get fixed.
I don't think the usability problems with Linux are even visible to most Linux users. Most Linux users are probably either "at least mildly techy (and has been using Linux for a while)" or "just needs web and e-mails."
This, 100%. There has been serious progress in useability the past few years with distros like Zorin, but FOSS nerds are coming from a fundamentally different angle than people who are used to commercial software. Linux is extremely robust on the backend, but the frontend experience is still lacking for normal people.
Hopefully one day soon we can all meet in the middle. Once a distro comes about that's as (or more) consumer friendly than Windows/Mac, the commercial platforms will be quite literally unable to compete.
EDIT: I feel I should point out that "the year of the Linux server" arrived a long time ago.
The biggest evidence that Linux is not ready for prime time is the fact that it isn't in fact commonly used.
It's like saying that hyperloops are ready for prime time, you can tell that they're not by the evidence that they don't exist.
The Linux community has an excuse for that though... They keep using the excuse that Linux isn't preinstalled and that's why Linux adoption on the desktop is in single digit market share.
Now if Linux was so superior to Window like has been claimed and was indeed so easy to install, and it was able to be compatible with a variety of hardware and run all the software that one needs, then installing it on a PC would hardly stop computer nerds from doing it. But most of us don't bother because the advantages aren't worth the hassle.
That argument falls a bit with the Steam Deck. Linux is preinstalled and most people don't change the OS. On the other hand it's purpose is also pretty specific, so it isn't an issue if Adobe's softwares works etc.
But people are happy with ChromeOS, which is limited but preinstalled. So I do believe preinstalling makes and fails an OS. It's not even worth it for some car manufacturers to have different skews for chair heating, so it's not surprising that pc/laptops don't come with choices between different OS.
I'm happy with Linux, but I don't think most people want what Linux gives them. Most people just want to stop using it and do something fun.
What would it take for Linux to run all the hardware and software it needs? Companies need to make develop for Linux. In order for that to happen, Linux needs market share to make it profitable for them. But in order for Linux to gain market share, it needs to run all the hardware and software it needs. So in other words in order to get market share, Linux needs market share. How does it do that without being preinstalled on devices?
You are missing the most important issue:
WHY
Why would anyone want to waste their time with Linux when WIndows works perfectly fine?
They would for the same reason they use Linux on their Chromebooks, Android phones, Pixel watches, Steam Decks or TrueNAS server. It's pre-installed. Why do you think that argument is an "excuse" is my question.
No one would care if a Chromebook ran Linux, Windows, BeOS, AmigaOS or anything in between. The OS is a means to an end, something that the Linux community constantly forgets. People don't run an OS, they run software.
And how does Linux get software? I was discussing that two comments ago, we've now come full circle.
Why should software companies release a Linus version of a piece of software? Most don't bother with MacOS and they own about 20% of the desktop market. Linux is just 3%. They aren't going to do that out of the goodness of their hearts and this isn't a small ask, either. Would probably mean a total rewrite. To make matters worse is that Linux community seems to be all about free software, so getting them to actually PAY for something seems near impossible. So where does that leave you?
It isn't about supporting Linux, it's about supporting the hardware that comes with it on it. The Steam Deck demonstrates plainly that good hardware with Linux on it will receive dev attention. Game developers now talk and brag about "Steam Deck support" (which is actually just Linux support) for every major game release. It's not an "excuse", pre-installed Linux does work.
I have a hard time believing MacOS is even close to 20%. Hell on Steam Linux users outnumber Mac and the gaming demographic is lower on Linux to begin with. And lack of Mac software support is pretty obviously a result of them (fairly) recently dropping the x86 architecture, so companies have to remake a lot of software for them and it's not easy.
I don't see you proposing any solutions to this problem. So your opinion is Linux just doomed forever? Microsoft owns this market and that's it, competition isn't possible and the world has to use their closed source operating system for the rest of time?
Works for me. I have zero time to waste on Linux. I know Windows. I use Windows and have few problems with it. I am Average Joe Computer User. You have yet to give me a single reason why I would ever care enough to use Linux other than some "Grrrrr M$ IS BAD" reason. Why should I?
These are the questions you are essentially asking, and while I could write a whole treatise on it I doubt you would change your mind anyway. Enjoy using Windows.
I will enjoy using Windows and the literally limitless software and hardware that it can run. You can enjoy using whatever OS you choose and the incredibly limited options you have in both hardware and software. While you go endlessly tinker with you OS, ill actually use a computer for what it was meant for, and that is running software.
lol why are you such a dick? That last comment was me politely trying to end this convo on good terms. What is this pissing contest all of a sudden?
All I ever hear about is how bad Linux users are, then I run into someone like you who is just insufferable because... Why? Someone uses different software than you? What are you, a fucking child? Who cares. Congratulations, a trillion dollar corporation with endless funds made an operating system that can run Photoshop or something. And my distro that is run by volunteers through sheer passion for free software doesn't. Awesome. I don't use Photoshop.
People who say that severely underestimate the time, effort, and expertise they've accumulated that makes it easy for themselves, but hard for others.
I tried to switch once before COVID. It was horrible. Oh, I now need to learn about file systems and NTFS and ext3/4(?) - i guess i'll try Linux on a separate, old hard drive. Ok, something didn't work, I now have to figure out what driver wasn't supported and what I need to download. Great, people on forums are helpful but they're asking me a bunch of gibberish. Now I gotta figure out this command line thing. Oh cool some people built GUIs for certain stuff so i don't need to play with the command line, but then the GUI doesn't work occasionally and now I have to figure out if it's the GUI that broke or something else. Unsurprisingly, I'm back on Windows. It sucks, but at least it really just works.
For majority of people, an OS isn't something they want to think about. I'm not a gearhead. When I buy a car, I just want to drive it off the lot on Day 1 - sure not everything is perfect the way I want it, but i don't need to do anything if I don't want to. I don't want to buy a shell of a car and have to go to 5 different shops to choose a tire, install my own seats, get used to the stick shift being on the roof of the car instead of beside me, and have it break down on me all the time because "you aren't using it right".
It all depends on your hardware. If you run standard hardware with an AMD card, all the drivers you need should (theoretically) be in the kernel and will magically just work. As soon as you start using running hardware with proprietary drivers then you have to put in a little effort. Might require you to install separate package(s) from a third-party repo or something, and that will require terminal. It's just three commands usually: add the repo -> update your package manager -> install the driver. Not hard but if you are used to the Windows way of doing things it can be intimidating.
Even still, some stuff just doesn't have Linux support at all or it's completely community-maintained. If every company just open sourced their drivers and did things the "Linux" way then there would be no issue but unfortunately Linux doesn't have the market share for those companies to care. So you get into the negative feedback loop of: Linux has low market share because of lack of support, and companies don't support Linux because of low market share.
Valve has done amazing work with Steam Play. Seeing how well the steam deck plays games convinced me not to put windows on my new rig.
I don’t agree, however, that it just works. My graphics card needed a mess driver outside of the default repos for Ubuntu lts, and my gpu has been out for almost a year.
I also have one high dpi monitor and one standard-ish dpi monitor, and scaling them independently, moving windows back and forth, and going into and out of full screen games all produce undesired behavior. It’s annoying enough that I now just use one monitor.
Ubuntu LTS is generally used for servers, but if you are going to game on it you should consider using a container such as flatpak. It will share a kernel with your host OS (so if you need a newer kernel you are out of luck) but will be packaged with a newer version of Mesa. Installing drivers outside of the official repos can be a PITA because you often have to re-do everything when you upgrade your OS.
edit: should mention flatpak won't make your OS work itself. You'll need a newer distro for that. Ubuntu only gets major software updates for six months until the next release, everything after is minor adjustments like security updates and bug fixes.
And I'll just sit there and watch my OS since I'll have no software to run. No thanks.
Else I'd just sit there and watch my OS show me ads and it'd tell me how I should switch to Edge and use Bing. No thanks. /s
Maybe stop believing all the Linux propaganda you read on here.
I'm usually not on this community and just wanted to make a sarcastic play on your words.
E.g. if your in computer science it's almost a requirement to be comfortable around Linux and it's up to anyone if they want to use it bare metal or in a VM on Windows. So I agree that my comment was wrong but that also applies to yours. Anyones OS choice depends on the application you want to run. That's why I definitely won't recommend anyone using Adobe and other creative software to use Linux.