'I Love the Linux Desktop, But That Doesn't Mean I Don't See Its Problems All Too Well' (theregister.com) 197
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from an opinion piece via The Register, written by longtime technology reporter and Linux enthusiast Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols: Recently, The Register's Liam Proven wrote tongue in cheek about the most annoying desktop Linux distros. He inspired me to do another take. Proven pointed out that Distrowatch currently lists 270 -- count 'em -- Linux distros. Of course, no one can look at all of those. But, having covered the Linux desktop since the big interface debate was between Bash and zsh rather than GNOME vs KDE, and being the editor-in-chief of a now-departed publication called Linux Desktop, I think I've used more of them than anyone else who also has a life beyond the PC. In short, I love the Linux desktop. Many Linux desktop distros are great. I've been a big Linux Mint fan for years now. I'm also fond, in no particular order, of Fedora, openSUSE, Ubuntu, and MX Linux. But you know what? That's a problem right there. We have many excellent Linux desktop distros, which means none of them can gain enough market share to make any real dent in the overall market.
[...]
Besides over 200 distros, there are 21 different desktop interfaces and over half-a-dozen different major ways to install software such as the Debian Package Management System (DPKG), Red Hat Package Manager (RPM), Pacman, Zypper, and all too many others. Then there are all the newer containerized ways to install programs including Flatpak, Snap, and AppImage. I can barely keep them all straight and that's part of my job! How can you expect ordinary users to make sense of it all? You can't. None of the major Linux distributors -- Canonical, Red Hat, and SUSE -- really care about the Linux desktop. Sure, they have them. They're also major desktop influencers. But their cash comes from servers, containers, the cloud, and the Internet of Things (IoT). The desktop? Please. We should just be glad they spend as many resources as they do on them.
Now, all this said, I don't want you to get the impression that I don't think the conventional Linux desktop is important. I do. In fact, I think it's critical. Microsoft, you see, is abandoning the traditional PC-based desktop. In its crystal ball, Microsoft sees Azure-based Desktop-as-a-Service (DaaS) as its future. [...] That means that the future of a true desktop operating system will lie in the hands of Apple with macOS and us with Linux. As someone who remembers the transition from centrally controlled mainframes and minicomputers to individually empowered PCs, I do not want to return to a world where all power belongs to Microsoft or any other company. "The Linux desktop will never be as big as Windows once was," writes Vaughan-Nichols in closing. "Between DaaS's rise and the fall of the desktop to smartphones, it can't be. But it may yet, by default, become the most popular true conventional desktop."
[...]
Besides over 200 distros, there are 21 different desktop interfaces and over half-a-dozen different major ways to install software such as the Debian Package Management System (DPKG), Red Hat Package Manager (RPM), Pacman, Zypper, and all too many others. Then there are all the newer containerized ways to install programs including Flatpak, Snap, and AppImage. I can barely keep them all straight and that's part of my job! How can you expect ordinary users to make sense of it all? You can't. None of the major Linux distributors -- Canonical, Red Hat, and SUSE -- really care about the Linux desktop. Sure, they have them. They're also major desktop influencers. But their cash comes from servers, containers, the cloud, and the Internet of Things (IoT). The desktop? Please. We should just be glad they spend as many resources as they do on them.
Now, all this said, I don't want you to get the impression that I don't think the conventional Linux desktop is important. I do. In fact, I think it's critical. Microsoft, you see, is abandoning the traditional PC-based desktop. In its crystal ball, Microsoft sees Azure-based Desktop-as-a-Service (DaaS) as its future. [...] That means that the future of a true desktop operating system will lie in the hands of Apple with macOS and us with Linux. As someone who remembers the transition from centrally controlled mainframes and minicomputers to individually empowered PCs, I do not want to return to a world where all power belongs to Microsoft or any other company. "The Linux desktop will never be as big as Windows once was," writes Vaughan-Nichols in closing. "Between DaaS's rise and the fall of the desktop to smartphones, it can't be. But it may yet, by default, become the most popular true conventional desktop."
Linux desktop will never be big (Score:5, Insightful)
.
Re:Linux desktop will never be big (Score:5, Insightful)
power users are going to be at best 10% of the audience, even for linux, if talking desktop/laptop, so should be deprioritized accordingly.
Way to kill the golden goose.
Power users aren't the majority, but they are the majority of free tech support and people who know what they are doing. You destroy usability for power users and the people who are actually useful to you leave.
Just look at redhat poettering's push for "silverblue" an image based os that tries to turn linux into an appliance like android.
Android already exists, if it were suitable to the problem spaces people were dealing with they would use it instead.
With a few bumps on the way (wifi mid 2000's, open source graphics drivers until mid 2010's) the linux desktop has been plenty usable since the early 2000's. If anything pushes from dictators (*cough* pulseaudio for it's first decade) drastically hurt linux desktop usability.
We already have plenty of locked down platforms with little control. Be wary of wanting to turn likely the last real systems you have control over into more systems that try to control you.
Re:Linux desktop will never be big (Score:4, Funny)
Just look at redhat poettering's push for "silverblue" an image based os that tries to turn linux into an appliance like android. Android already exists, if it were suitable to the problem spaces people were dealing with they would use it instead.
Just as well, most of Lennart's stuff is a problem in search of a solution -- wait... no that's right. :-)
Re:Linux desktop will never be big (Score:5, Insightful)
most of Lennart's stuff is a problem
There. FTFY.
Re:Linux desktop will never be big (Score:5, Interesting)
Its good to emphasize the importance of power users. In a lot of ways, they are the center of gravity in a tech ecosystem.
But 98% of the power users / techies I know want standards. Linux distros are chock full of standards under the hood, but there is no hardware certification standard (so finding compatible peripherals is always weird+risky), and there is no standard UI. Techies want both those things (and more). Yes, most power users prefer Windows or OS X for these reasons! A techie who must give tech support instructions to users as _shell_ commands because there is no standard GUI is a techie who will turn their back on "desktop Linux".
The three social maladies FOSS community has, which leads to this predicament are:
1. It thinks "Linux" is an OS. Its only an OS for technical elites, to anyone with a consumer mindset (which includes most power users) it is nothing at all. Put another way: What is Linux to an Android user? Its something vague that rattles around under the hood.
2. "Interfaces are commitments (learned that in CS) – but only to my hacker peers. I refuse to make commitments to end-users; that would be then end of freedom!" Truth: Interfaces are commitments for everyone involved, most especially for UIs. If a certain class of stakeholder experiences a computer as chaotic, then that system is a failure. Computers must deliver consistency or else... be unplugged.
3. Distro packaging was both app-developer and user hostile. The "solution" is, uh... Let me just cut to the chase: Snapcraft is an OS. Think about it. Is that good? IDK. The other app packaging contenders are less useful to desktop consumers for reasons I won't get into here.
To be worthy of the general public's attention & investment, FOSS desktop developers must shift their mindset to the questions: a) How do I get ppl excited enough about the platform to start writing apps for it? b) How do I bring app developers and end-users together in the least stressful ways possible?
The answers to these may vary at times, but they usually look like: "Vertical integration goodies are on the way", "Targeting dependencies is usually just checking the OS version" and "Keep the UI and other interfaces consistent but not spartan". (FOSS tends to emphasize horizontal integration, per-library dependency resolution, disposable UIs and spartan APIs – almost all wrong answers for the desktop!).
Also, this was an early peeve of Mark Shuttleworth's: If you have a standard collection of desktop APIs, they will be relatively useless unless the APIs in the ensemble have standard versions. The rest of the Linux distro community at the time said "No" we'll mix-match upstream versions as each sees fit; this is perfectly reasonable if you assume all "developers" are system hackers who occasionally write apps.
Google figured out most of the above with Android, which considers the Linux kernel replaceable BTW.
Re: (Score:2)
The other app packaging contenders are less useful to desktop consumers for reasons I won't get into here.
Then they're all unsuitable, because snap is unreliable garbage. Just updating Ubuntu after initial install broke half the default snaps, and I ripped that shit out post-haste.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem they always run into is that nobody cares. If you make a decent but otherwise unremarkable desktop, people will just shrug and ask why don't they simply use Windows that came with their computer. So they add some nice features that make it different, but nobody notices so they start pushing them front and centre so they can be "discovered". That gets annoying fast and people complain that they just want something simple and unobtrusive.
It's not that KDE Plasma isn't a perfect good desktop for 95
Re: (Score:2)
Power users aren't the majority, but they are the majority of free tech support and people who know what they are doing
Its more than that. Those same power users are also your outside influences. There the ones that really convince others your product is good, all the marketing glossies in the world won't sell your solution to people who don't read the industry rags.
The people who think you can/should ignore the power users are the same people who think Chrysler builds Hellcats because its good revenue/cost activity. They don't, they do it because having enthusiasts sells other people other cars.
I don't see why it has to be mutually exclusive. (Score:2)
Re:Linux desktop will never be big (Score:5, Insightful)
But by and large Windows doesn't need that much tech support
You're kidding right? The market for tech support operators for windows based services is massive. Once set up by a proper sysadmin sure it doesn't take much tech support, but I think you'll find a properly setup linux system really doesn't either. Especially with modern use cases of "everything is on the browser".
the power users that do use it can do things perfectly well on it - hell these days they can install Linux within it if they want to. Why would it destroy usability for power users?
When I'm forced to use windows I do exactly that, and the integration as of late is pretty darn useful. The trouble with "one way to rule them all" .. is they try to actually enforce that. Sure you can still go out of your way to make things work the way you want anyway, and even develop your own distributions to avoid the damage (and if you're bad enough, people will) but it's still adding resistance where there really doesn't need to be any just to spite power users.
Add enough resistance, and people will take a path with lesser resistance (likely not involving the mandated path). Examples of this are abound when groups in popular projects decide to "simplify" things, for example gnome. Enough functionality was restricted/removed to cause enough motivated people to fork an older version, and congrats there you go the mandated path has not been followed and we have more variety.
I don't consider the forking/fragmentation a bad thing, people are getting their own needs met. That is not how you get a single exact install for everyone though.
Yes and that is exactly the point, Red Hat is not designing and OS for the home users that aren't their customers. They building a server OS for hosted cloud compute and that's a very different thing to an OS for personal computers so just deriving from what Red Hat / Poettering are doing and expecting that a few tweaks will turn it into a usable consumer (or even power user) OS is just nonsense.
From Poetterings own writings he considers it the right path for a consumer os and that's partly why he's pushing that path. Regarding it being suitable for a consumer os depends on the needs, some people are fine with chromebooks and they'd probably get by with that. Having it be an option is fine, pushing it without realizing what we're trading by going that route could lead to interesting but not necessarily great results.
even now you quite easily pick up a laptop with a trackpad that won't work after you resume from suspend state on Linux for example.
So you have never been able to find hardware that won't run or runs but with a few glitches on windows? even in the 9x to nt transition? You've better luck than I. Hardware support in the linux kernel is actually pretty darn amazing. There is no shortage of hardware that will "just work" under linux that cannot be made to work under any version of windows that runs on modern hardware.
That's just a false dichotomy, Linux (the kernel) has a benevolent dictator and that works just fine, it's not locked down or taking away control from you.
And yet the kernels the distros use aren't commonly straight from mainline. He doesn't control what people eventually use in the end and is himself all for people doing their own thing just if they want their code in his mainline it has to be good.
People only follow his mainline because he is good at quality control and can call bullshit when he sees it. There are reasons he pushes back on the stable in kernel ABI crowd which are the same lot that want a 'stanardized linux'. It's too restricting and a detriment to progress.
If all you want is another Linux Standard Base [wikipedia.org] on the other hand, go for it. The rest of us will continue to do our own thing.
Re:Linux desktop will never be big (Score:4, Insightful)
> The market for tech support operators for windows based services is massive. Once set up by a proper sysadmin sure it doesn't take much tech support, but I think you'll find a properly setup linux system really doesn't either.
If it's not good for home use it won't find popularity for work use. You're ignoring a large section of the Desktop computing market. A typical home user doesn't have a sys admin as such, whatever the user knows is what goes. That means the OS has to function without much specialized knowledge. And while the market for tech support for Windows is massive, the market PER DESKTOP is much smaller than for Linux.
> modern use cases of "everything is on the browser".
That's not something most desktop users want.
> it's still adding resistance where there really doesn't need to be any just to spite power users.
Power users can install whatever they like on their open-source system. I'm not THAT familiar with this ecosystem, but I really doubt compatibility is being deliberately broken. In the mean time there isn't a single distro that's sufficiently similar across most use cases for a typical home user to find a fast answer to a common problem he may be having.
> So you have never been able to find hardware that won't run or runs but with a few glitches on windows?
Windows has its problems and glitches. But Linux has way more problems and glitches, to the point that a person has to already be a power user to even use it effectively in most cases beyond using it straight out of the box with no changes. The moment Grandma wants to install a program which isn't in the repo's store or install a new piece of hardware (even a printer or camera), or perform a slightly unusual configuration task it's WAY harder to do that on Linux. You don't get to point out that there have been problems with Windows to excuse the many more problems on Linux.
> a 'stanardized linux'. It's too restricting and a detriment to progress.
I get that you love the freedom of using Linux. But by failing to support standardization you're demanding an ecosystem that will never be good (stable) enough for the desktop.
Re: (Score:3)
Your observations are completely backwards. The number of friends I have who use Windows and constantly ask questions because of problems is large. The ones I have converted to Linux (by helping them install Mint; they are not savvy enough to install by themselves) who ask for support are... so far none.
It Just Works (tm).
Windows is horrifyingly unstable, especially these days with the mandatory push updates that tend to go wrong.
The market PER DESKTOP for Windows support is immensely much larger. Same per
Re: (Score:2)
From the normal user's point of view, most of their devices don't need tech support. Their Android or iOS phones and tablets tend not to go wrong, and the companies controlling them handle all the malware scanning and removal. Same with Chrome OS.
Since I switched my mum to a Chromebook, the only tech support I've had to do was when her router died.
If they use Windows, it's probably at work. IT keeps it locked down, handles updates, makes sure the apps they need are all working.
So suggesting Linux for person
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Honestly, though, how much tech support is needed nowadays?
The hardest part is picking a distro and if you are looking to switch from Windows, that can be a bit overwhelming but you can make the same case for 1 browser to rule them all.
Once installed (and most installs are click through with sane defaults), everything works. With Mint, 3d acceleration drivers are even installed for you.
I haven't fiddled with graphic drivers, wifi drivers, or anything else in years. Contrast that with windows, I am usually
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the Linus Tech Tips video where they try to switch to Linux for a month. One is an expert in Windows, the other has some Linux experience. They want to do common stuff like play their games from Steam, stream with video and audio, manage their files etc.
It gets off to a bad start when one Linus picks the wrong distro for Steam, and following some instructions he found online breaks the OS badly enough to need a re-install. He switches to a different distro and it works, at least for some games. Th
Re: (Score:3)
He switches to a different distro and it works, at least for some games. There is a list of games that tells you how well they run on Linux, but it's not up to date and sometimes games get patched and broken even though it says they work flawlessly.
Ugh. You have to use Ubuntu if you want to use Steam and get any support. If the compatibility stuff is broken there IS no support, you HAVE to go to the community forums and get help from other users. And get this, right now my Steam on Linux install is installing the Windows version of Civ VI and not the Linux version. So I contact Valve for support and they tell me to go to the forum for support for that feature. So then I contact them back to tell them I'm explicitly trying NOT to use that feature, and
Re: Linux desktop will never be big (Score:2)
Don't get me started on Linus and his "Tim the Toolman Taylor"-esque blundering.
During that install he literally read outloud what it said on the screen, which was basically "are you sure you want to continue with this action it will remove the following (x many) essential packages" he even comments that to proceed with it he didn't just have to type yes, but rather a whole sentence to override the warning.
I feel sorry for his long suffering staff who have to put up with his petty shenanigans.
Casually dropp
Re: (Score:2)
without a single "let's all (major distros) co-operate to work toward this" consensus project with a benevolent dictator at the project helm. A dictator who understands human factors, and understands that power users are going to be at best 10% of the audience, even for linux, if talking desktop/laptop, so should be deprioritized accordingly.
That sounds easy.
Re:Linux desktop will never be big (Score:5, Funny)
I have been loudly and rudely assured that the problems I recently encountered using Linux on the desktop simply don't happen anymore, and my information is decades out of date. One thing you can count on if you run into technical trouble using Linux: the community of erudites will always be there to mock you.
Incidentally, I think there is at least one benefit to Linux having these problems: mainstream commercial interests haven't corrupted it. The reason Linux desktops obey me and do not spy on me or advertise at me like Windows is precisely because the only people who use them are a tiny group of weirdos. If desktop Linux ever does have its "eternal September" then I might have to throw in the towel and switch to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
I have been loudly and rudely assured that the problems I recently encountered using Linux on the desktop simply don't happen anymore, and my information is decades out of date.
You've piqued my curiosity. Do tell what the issue was.
I do have to say that, during the recent years, the only issues I've had with Linux have been with some obscure 10Gbps ethernet card. That, and networking has become a clusterfuck. Between NetworkManager, Systemd networking, and the old ifcfg files, anything beyond a simple one-ethernet connection (bridges, routing, etc) is a nightmare. But, as much as I hate PulseAudio, it kinda just works on top of ALSA. Graphics drivers are good for desktop usag
Re: (Score:2)
I still use Ubuntu as my desktop on my home pc (though I have to use windows on my work equipment). So, the problems I hit were not enough to drive me away, nor was the mockery I occasionally endured when seeking help (though most of the time I received help, the mockery didn't happen on any of the main forums).
When I was using Fedora, which was maybe two years ago or so, applying updates (even minor updates) was always an adventure. Random things would break. One that got me a couple of times was an err
Re: (Score:2)
So you got the point about Wine! Yeah, it's just for running Windows executables (and not all!) and not for things to help Linux with.
I agree with the Fedora sentiment. Between not-so-seamless upgrades (which Debian and Ubuntu don't suffer from) and Red Hat being the overlord of the distro, I gave up on it a few years ago.
As for RDP into Windows, I use xfreerdp and I have left myself logged on to RDP for days without a hick up. It has full size control as well for the desktop.
The one thing (well, one of
Re:Linux desktop will never be big (Score:5, Insightful)
This. The frustration is real. I would love to be a Linux user. I'm all about freedom and not having the corporate overlords watch over my back. But every time I have tried to make the switch, which happens regularly, like every 3 years or so, I encounter some weirdness that makes me regret leaving the comfy and safe harbor that is Windows. The latest issue I'm having with Ubuntu is the desktop sometimes "twitching" by a pixel or two, and problems getting the same contrast and color settings that I'm used to, because the default settings for my monitor are too bright, and Linux NVidia display driver doesn't offer the same settings as on Windows.
Windows 10 is a darn good and stable operating system at this point, and it's an unfortunate reality that Linux can't keep up with the reliability, in terms of things that matter to a normal user: usability, hassle-free upgrades and driver installations, just having system that works without nasty surprises.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you try this? I have never not had a mouse just work.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a gaming mouse with configurable buttons, sensitivity settings, and settings for decorative light emitted by the mouse. The drivers it came with include a nice UI that makes it simple for me to configure all that and switch between templates.
Without those drivers I figured out how to use xinput to remap the mouse buttons in Linux (which is of course more difficult since I must make a script to do this and make it run on startup, and the mouse button remap is all it does).
I have also run into an issue w
Re:Linux desktop will never be big (Score:5, Interesting)
You've piqued my curiosity. Do tell what the issue was.
Trackpad issues. Just recently bought a laptop (it's a Razer Blade) figuring I would just believe that all the Linux hardware compatibility problems were solved but of course I closed the lid so it went into "suspend" then when I opened it back up the trackpad was unusable, laggy and jumping all about the place.
It tried modprobe to remove and reload the various modules associated with the trackpad to no avail. As a user I don't really care who's fault it is (because in the end that's the response, "oh it's not poor Linux's fault, it's somebody elses"), but it Linux simply does not work properly. Clearly it can work since it works fine if you power off and reboot but power management in Linux has been in a woeful state for well over a decade now and it still doesn't work reliably, sometimes I shut the laptop lid and it doesn't go into suspend...wtf? How is this still a problem when Apple and even fucking Microsoft can make this work.
Re: Linux desktop will never be big (Score:2)
I recently got a Raspberry Pi that I was going to try to use as a second desktop in another room. I tried both the Raspian and Ubuntu distros on the Pi and could not get it to play smooth video on YouTube. I have a lot of Windows experience but not a whole lot of Linux experience. I gave up after 4-5 hrs, very frustrating and disappointing, I really wanted to get it working, if anyone knows how please point me in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't forget a manifesto with inclusive language. Master/slave? Too colonial.
And of course, everyone will have to post their pronouns with every message. To say nothing of a board made up of only the most diverse group of zers. ...I'm honestly not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not.
Re: Linux desktop will never be big (Score:2)
That wouldn't make Linux big on consumer PCs. A big marketing and customer service operation, of the kind Microsoft initiated in the 90s (when people who didn't even have a computer wanted this hot new thing called Windows 95) is what's necessary to get any kind of penetration.
Canonical had some of that, including its partnerships with OEM PC makers, but it's hard to charge money for your product to pay for this operation when your competitors are giving it away for free and, unlike with a closed-source pro
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't make Linux big on consumer PCs. A big marketing and customer service operation, of the kind Microsoft initiated in the 90s (when people who didn't even have a computer wanted this hot new thing called Windows 95) is what's necessary to get any kind of penetration.
That's kind of it, at the moment Linux is really for people who just prefer UNIX because fundamentally it doesn't do anything better than Windows does but it's an open platform where people could innovate and create a reason that the average PC user would want to switch. Google took Linux and created Android and with it the mass-market smartphone experience powered by Linux. I'm still kind of staggered that the tablet market is owned by the iPad and that nobody has come up with a free software/hardware tabl
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't take much skill to create a system that satisfies power users and normal people.
Re:Linux desktop will never be big (Score:4, Insightful)
IMO: That single project is or was Ubuntu, and according to power users (not myself - I'm running Ubuntu LTS builds on all my non-Windows machines and I'm very much *not* a Linux power user) it's already failed because "Ew Canonical and SNAP".
As long as power users jump ship and fork a la "I'll build my own distro, with blackjack... and hookers!" as soon as something doesn't go their way, we'll never reach a single default Linux desktop for everyone. It sometimes even seems like power users don't want this and are actively working against it - running something that not many people run or requires a lot of time and skill to set up and use seems to be like a badge of honor...
When the Linux desktop is for the masses (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Redmond's silly DaaS strategy will inevitably fail at the consumer level (making Win8 look like a smashing success). I believe they are covertly working through a long-term plan to transform the Windows desktop environment into a GUI running on top of their own Linux distro.
Re: When the Linux desktop is for the masses (Score:2)
Their goal isn't "Linux kernel running Windows", it's "Windows kernel running Linux".
Microsoft would prefer that you run Windows & use Explorer as your DE... but if you're hellbent on running KDE or Gnome as your DE, they'll grudgingly settle for you running them under Windows.
Re: When the Linux desktop is for the masses (Score:2)
No it wonâ(TM)t. Office 365 for consumers has been successful. MS office plus 1 tb of cloud storage for 5 people at 100 per year? Thatâ(TM)s a good deal when one considers office along used to be 150+. Many people would happily for 129 per year maybe 150 per year for rolling release windows and office as a subscription. Power users wonâ(TM)t like it, but most computer users want the simplicity that comes with it.
Re: When the Linux desktop is for the masses (Score:2)
I donâ(TM)t know about the US, but here in Germany the 5-seat Office 365 Family subscription is on Amazon for 70 â a year. Thatâ(TM)s a *lot* of value, given it includes full Office for Windows and Mac and the TB of online storage per person.
Microsoft isn't leaving Windows behind... (Score:3)
The Azure stuff is just another evolution in VDI that has been around for 30+ years. In fact, this latest thing is just a merger of two other Azure products. The main usage there is really app virtualization, providing access to legacy or really complex (to install and patch) applications to Windows desktops that can also run applications locally. This includes things like mapping local filesystems, networked printers and other OS resources to those applications *as if* they were on the local machine.
Microsoft knows very well the value of having local desktop applications and while web applications are displacing those in some cases, there are still many, many use cases in which a desktop app is the best fit. Software development itself being a huge one.
So, I do think Microsoft will be investing in Windows for quite some time to come.
Mickeysoft are rent seekers. (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is 100% correct. They're moving very quickly to lock everything down like a phone and require a recurring revenue stream to access what little bit you're allowed to do their in walled garden on "your" computer.
Windows 11 already requires a Mickeysoft account to even use. They removed the ability to bypass account creation and have only local accounts. [theverge.com]
They're not even trying to pretend this isn't what they intend to do with everything. [forbes.com]
Gee, I wonder why Mickeysoft got left out of the recent anti-trust scrutiny of big tech? [opensecrets.org]
Still waiting for GabeN to save us on the desktop.
Re:Mickeysoft are rent seekers. (Score:4, Interesting)
You can install and Activate Windows without microsoft account. To make it easy, you need a Lan connection to internet, (use usb adapter if no rj-45 port on computer.). Start Windows install with No internet. At the step it demands internet, connect Lan cable to continue, When you are at the next screen, (checking for updates.) disconnect,. Install with continue from there with local account, as god intended.
Re:Mickeysoft are rent seekers. (Score:4, Informative)
You can install and Activate Windows without microsoft account.
Are you sure about that? According to Microsoft [windows.com], it is Microsoft accounts only for Windows 11 home, and Windows 11 Pro will be following later this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Tried without connecting to any LAN or WiFi to create a local account on my new Windows 11 (Home) laptop. There is no option to create a local account, I really looked and it isn't there. Only if I would re-install the laptop with Windows 11 Pro, you can try your trick.
But even then it is likely to fail. Especially with the latest Windows 11 installer you just plucked from Microsoft's website.
During re-installation you can hit the F10 key and get to a command-line, where you can circumvent the standard Wind
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, your using a diminutive proper noun instead of a company name shows your bias.
But, not all versions of Windows require a Microsoft account to use. Windows 11 Enterprise requires a domain account or local account for setup. Windows 11 Pro still does not require it on setup and it can be used with only local accounts. I agree Pro is in a weird spot, but no version requires Microsoft accounts to use.
As for the XBox example, yes, they want as many avenues for people to play games, but not at the cost of a
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 11 Pro will require a Microsoft account:
https://www.theverge.com/2022/... [theverge.com]
Re: Mickeysoft are rent seekers. (Score:2)
It's really hard to take you seriously using Mickeysoft. You might as well just use M$.
Re: (Score:2)
No complaints (Score:3)
Switched to Linux Mint over a year ago and have had only the most minor of issues. Specifically, my monitor does not always become active when taking my machine out of suspension. Power control is set to suspend after 15 minutes of non-use. Around a third of the time, I'll tap my keyboard to wake my machine and the monitor never comes alive. The machine itself is working, just not the monitor. Only open is to power off and start over.
Aside from that one niggling issue, everything works. I figured out how to manually install stuff rather than through the package manager, but have used both.
I am not a heavy user by any means. General surfing, writing, and other odds and ends. So for me, Linux Mint is as close to perfect as I can want for my needs.
Re: No complaints (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have the same problem with my nvidia card (I use the proprietary drivers). Things you can try:
Check /etc/modprobe.d/nvidia.conf there is an option to flip 0/1 and see if it improves.
According to: https://gist.github.com/ioggst... [github.com] , there is a broken xhci module that causes issues, you have to disable it before suspend, by adding a line into your suspend script (the two XHC lines below). It also solves the problem "sometimes suspend immediately resumes". For me however this small issue still happens at the
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using Linux since the 90s. I run Mint on most of my devices but have Kubuntu installed on a tiny computer that I bought to turn into a media device so that I could take my "smart" tv offline, make it dumb and still be able to watch Netflix, YouTube play local media etc. running software that I trust that has ad blockers installed and won't send telemetry data to the manufacturer etc.
Recently an update killed the audio and I lost a Sunday to having to figure out the workaround (turned out to be a b
Re: (Score:2)
Already there:
if [ ! -f /proc/driver/nvidia/suspend ]; then
exit 0
There is no rhyme or reason I can see for why it's happening. I do shut down my machine during the day when I'm at work, but it stays on all night and on the weekends. Sometimes it happens the first time it goes to suspend, other times I can go for days and not have it happen. The only thing running every time is Firefox, and that's at a neutral page.
Considering what I deal with every day on the windows side for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No complaints (Score:2)
You need to cut the ends off that cable so no one uses it again.
Re: (Score:2)
Change the cable type, if that doesn't work, change the monitor. I have an AOC monitor that sometimes refuses to wake from sleep on this mac. It probably doesn't have the same problem on windows, I'm used to windows having weird hacks for weird hardware or hardware having weird hacks for windows that cause issues with macs. I could swear and hunt for increasingly invasive fixes and workarounds, or I can just get a different monitor. For me, it's a small price to pay for not having to use windows.
I think of
Just make it work like Windows (Score:2)
Make all the settings work like Control Panel, make the file browser look and work like Explorer, put a mask over the filesystem so it looks like a C: drive layout. Make a package manager make installing software and drivers work like an exe or msi.
Are any of these ideal or the best way to do things? Hell no, but this is what most of the desktop using masses have been trained to use for decades now. Sometimes the less ideal option becomes the standard. If we could go back in time we would have started
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason not to do this really is pride, which is OK but then no one can be puzzled as to why desktop Linux will always be a niche product for devs and power users, and that is also just fine.
The only reason TO do it is pride. What's the point in making Linux a crap knock-off of a system I dislike using just for bragging rights of having more users? But anyway you're fighting last decade's war:
Make all the settings work like Control Panel, make the file browser look and work like Explorer, put a mas
Compatibility (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care if there are 10000000 distros, 50000 desktop environments, etc. What matters is a long-term binary compatibility which is basically a swear word in the world of Linux distros. Everything is in a constant flux. This is why Windows/Android and all other successful OSes feature first and foremost. You may say there's Snap, Flatpak, AppImage, whatever, only they all suck [ludocode.com] and just work around the basic incompatibility issue.
And that's pretty much it except a hundred more [altervista.org] issues, like the one mentioned in the article, the fact that there's no universal packaging format for Linux, something like an exe for Windows: you download and run it and it just works. This is a pipe dream.
As it stands right now, Win32 is a better API for writing applications for Linux (all of them have Wine) than native Linux APIs. This speaks volumes about what Linux is. A developer OS from developers for developers.
Re: (Score:2)
What matters is a long-term binary compatibility which is basically a swear word in the world of Linux distros.
What pray tell are you using? windows 3.1 apps won't run on windows 10. The long term compatibility strategy for windows is "run it in a VM" which is even worse than flatpak etc.
As it stands right now, Win32 is a better API for writing applications for Linux (all of them have Wine) than native Linux APIs.
No, a tarball with sane make system/listed deps is the best way. If closed source including required libraries and listing required libraries for if wanting to use system ones is better and a common route for literal extract and play items on linux.
Shared library systems what linux uses are quite memory and space efficient. The comm
Re: (Score:3)
windows 3.1 apps won't run on windows 10.
Programs released in 1992 won't work on an OS released in 2015. Actually, I think at least some Windows 3.1 programs will run on Windows 10 32bit. I don't have 32bit version of 10 installed, so I cannot check, but at least some 16bit programs work on Windows 7 32bit (released in 2009). Being able to run a 17 year old program is quite neat.
However, usually it is not as extreme. A program written for Windows XP will usually work on Windows 10 (maybe with some compatibility settings but still). 14 years is qui
Re: (Score:2)
On some software I work on we make a 64 bit Windows binary. It works on 7,8,8.1,10,11, and the various server versions of Windows without any issues.
Trying to do the same thing for Linux was just too complicated and instead Linux users get instructions on how to compile the software. Even when you make binary for a specific version of a specific distro you have to keep it updated because updates can and do break compatibility.
It is just really frustrating sometimes. I like using Linux on servers but at this
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla produces long-lived universal binaries. The firefox-4.0 binary version from 2011 ( https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/fi... [mozilla.org] ) works fine on my current linux, which is the same timeline as your Windows 7+. Older versions of firefox don't work on my setup because they only had 32 bit binaries and I don't have the 32 bit layer installed (and that could be solved). Do you have any idea what Mozilla does that you cannot do in your software?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably they bundle a shitload of libraries. This sort of thing is a problem for Unix software in general which is why we have all these crappy container formats like snap (which is just buggy, unreliable garbage which doesn't integrate well with the system, apps don't even get themed correctly, let alone the more serious stuff that doesn't work right.) Remember the Loki games? Remember Loki_Compat?
Re: (Score:2)
You may say there's Snap, Flatpak, AppImage, whatever, only they all suck
Way too much of that rant is about disk space.
I'll choose for you... (Score:2)
the big interface debate was between Bash and zsh rather than GNOME vs KDE
Ksh (scripting), Tcsh (interactive); MATE -- Maybe KDE, if your graphics card has a lot of fans on it. :-)
Debian Package Management System (DPKG), Red Hat Package Manager (RPM), Pacman, Zypper, and all too many others
DPKG
newer containerized ways to install programs including Flatpak, Snap, and AppImage
No. Just no. (Bad newbie)
LINUX IS FINALLY ON THE DESKTOP!! (Score:2)
Meaning I left my phone on the desk before logging into my computer.
I don't see a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
If all those choices and lack of "market share" are bothering you, you're in the wrong ecosystem. Go get Windows or a Mac. Either one is a system that will work the same as a giant chunk of the market. Every few years you'll get jerked around when they come up with the New And Improved version, and honestly, that's okay. That's what you wanted, to get the latest stuff without having all those competing options.
I want the ecosystem where I have all those choices, developed in parallel, none of them gaining a majority. When some part of it no longer does what I want, I switch - which takes research and learning and effort, because I have to make choices. And that's okay, because it's what I want.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, I don't know why people are still talking about 'Linux winning with Windows'. I didn't have to use Windows (other then run some app in a virtual machine once or twice) during the last... 15 years? Even my spouse is happily using Mint for browsing. If you want to use it you can, even in most of workplaces. Why do you care if some basic user, who just bought a laptop a Wallmart and doesn't even know what a OS is does? Seriously, what will we gain if Linux gets to 50% market share?
If Mr. Vaughan-Nichols sees a problem... (Score:2)
He's free to submit a patch.
(obligatory)
over 200 distros? (Score:3)
Uh, so what? who cares? How does that affect anything? Most of the famous ones will suit your needs, especially if you are the dumbass type that is panicked about how many distros there are.
MacOS (Score:3)
MacOS has become the “desktop UNIX” operating system of choice. Also Windows has a built in Linux subsystem. Why do we need desktop linux again?
Re: (Score:2)
MacOS has become the âoedesktop UNIXâ operating system of choice.
For people who have too much money, yes. They can afford to pay Apple more for less performance, and they can afford to buy a new machine every few years when Apple discontinues support for their model.
Re: (Score:2)
1999 called and they want their anti-Mac rhetoric back. Also, just to keep you in the loop you can use more than 1 mouse button in MacOS.
We don't need a dent (Score:4, Interesting)
We don't need a dent nor really should we want to be a major choice in the market. IMHO, Linux users are mostly self-selecting. They want to choose it for one reason or another and shun or avoid other commercial options. The fact that Microsoft has multiple internal distros means Linux has won. Having 4 or more great desktop distros is just gravy for the users.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
HiDPI still needs work (Score:2)
As of the last time I checked, Linux window managers & DEs still do a piss-poor job of dealing with scenarios where you have a laptop with FHD panel that occasionally gets used as your only monitor (eg, when undocked), and a 3840x2560 monitor that's your primary display when you're at home & docked.
If you optimize for the 28" 4k monitor, text on the built-in FHD panel is unreadable or looks like shit. If you optimize for the FHD panel, text on the 28" 4k monitor is blurry & looks like shit.
There
Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey... get a tech support job for consumer GUI apps on Linux. Then tell me how you help end-users navigate the system while trying to diagnose/fix the issue.
But also know that this conversation isn't about you, obviously. And your food analogy sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey... get a tech support job for consumer GUI apps on Linux. Then tell me how you help end-users navigate the system while trying to diagnose/fix the issue.
But also know that this conversation isn't about you, obviously. And your food analogy sucks.
No, his analogy is dead on.
When I go to the shop, I may want dark chocolate, milk chocolate or a freaking ice-cream. The reason I don't go to Co-op for my ice-cream is because there is almost no choice there. I go to ASDA.
As for tech support, you'll never find an environment more hostile or unwelcoming of it than Apple.
User: I'd like to do this somewhat obscure thing.
On Windows: Open Control Panel, select files, go to the options tab, select properties, scroll down to the "slartibarfast" section
Need alternate boot environments for updates (Score:2)
Case in point: I recently ran an update on my Linux desktop. After rebooting, sound did not work. Instead of wasting time trouble shooting, I simply rebooted to my prior boot environment. Later, I removed that faulty update. And about 2 weeks later tried again, which worked f
Use Windows/Mac then? (Score:3)
I've been totally happy with windowmaker since the 90s. It consumes very little resources, stays out of the way and does everything I care about. My configuration has barely changed in literal decades and I consider that a totally awesome feature. I need a solid terminal, web browser, great package management (on Arch lately, totally happy).
I honestly have no idea what the author of the article wants. A unified vision? Join the Lennart clan. No choice? Join the Windows/Mac tribe.
I was forced to use Mac at my last gig; really gave it a shot but was totally unhappy. For starters, the accessibility for visual impairment is total shite. In Linux, I can get every single application I care about to use the fonts and scale I want. In Mac, I need a retina display to get scaling. I fought with karabiner to get basic sensible keybindings. The only thing I actually liked was iterm2 - especially the "highlight and copy" feature.
I'm way more productive in my Arch desktop than I ever could imagine in OSX; sure it's a matter of familiarity but the fact that I can get such a consistent environment that stays out of the way is a beautiful thing imho.
The beauty of the Linux ecosystem is the choice he's complaining about.
My thoughts (Score:2)
1. Multiple distros mean that you can make the computer think like you, rather than having you think like the computer
This, of course, relies on the LSB being clear and good communication between distributions. Both of which could be improved on.
2. Sound is currently in a bit of a state
LV2 isn't quite where it needs to be, but there's confusion over what (if anything) to do about it.
Jack and Pipewire are excellent but applications need to be told about them. In other words, we don't have an agnostic API for
Re: (Score:2)
We still don't have the high-speed graphics of the Evil Empire, and I rather suspect there's lots of redundant redundancy that is redundantly sitting in the graphics libraries that are there. Not sure what to do there, either, other than encouraging communication.
Wait what? We don't? Since when?
All of Nvidia's latest and greatest cards work on Linux. Intel graphics works out of the box. I gather things are looking good for AMD as well as long as you don't care about deep learning (but that's not a Linux spe
Re: (Score:3)
The cards work, yes, and nVidia produces some good drivers for it, but the problem is the layer above that. We're not going to see things like Elite: Dangerous or other majorly graphics-heavy games until we can do everything DirectX 12 can do and at the same speed or better.
Vulkan, Metal, and other such libraries are apparently getting there, but I don't know who installs such libraries by default. You've also got the same problem as with sound, lots of redundancy if you've installed everything. I'm also se
Re: (Score:2)
Oh right games. I'm not a high end gamer.
Vulkan, Metal, and other such libraries are apparently getting there, but I don't know who installs such libraries by default.
I think Vulkan is installed by default on Linux, at least on Nvidia.
You've also got the same problem as with sound, lots of redundancy if you've installed everything.
I don't know what you mean by that. These days all the major crashing bugs seem to have finally been beaten out of pulseaudio and it generally works fine, better even in complex
Re: (Score:2)
Graphics is in more of a state
We still don't have the high-speed graphics of the Evil Empire
That is almost exactly the opposite of my experience. Given a single card that is supported by both Windows and Linux, and a game that runs on both Windows and Linux, I have about the same 3d performance on both platforms. In the case of AMD graphics I find they now work better on Linux than Windows, with nVidia the situation is the reverse. But it's not performance, it's lack of features. For example, Linux SLI no longer actually supports SLI. The only valid SLI setting is now "Mosaic" which is not SLI at
Hundreds of distros (Score:2)
Saying there are hundreds of distros is misleading, the vast majority of these are aimed at specific niche purposes - eg firewall appliances etc and would not even be considered by someone looking to use a general purpose desktop.
There are also many distros of android or windows (every oem has their own distro that comes with their hardware), and there are many websites detailing how to debrand such devices because a lot of people hate the oem distros.
If you want a platform that has a single consistent dist
Wait - what? (Score:2)
He does know that MacOS is Unix, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There's where people who are worried about stupid stuff like The Year of Linux on the Desktop should consider. Linux is Unix-y, but all of a sudden you have a "big brother" so to speak. A lot in common between the two, as Windows becomes an operating system as a service.
So just like windows then ... (Score:2)
Multiple ways of installing software - EXE, MSI, Applet, Software with it's own downloader, software with it's own package manager ... yep Windows has all these
Different's looks - it has changed on every major version, and altered on some minor versions
- Server editions often look and work different
Hardware compatibility - my experience is that Linux is more compatible if the manufacturer has written a driver, for Windows if the device is new it will have a Windows driver, but it will
Re: (Score:2)
Comments here show another problem. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find that most of us are fine with constructive and relevant criticism. But when it is 10-15 years out of date, as is often the case? Or when it is almost word-for-word identical to 10-15 year old FUD spouted by an old Microsoft that, today, is one of the biggest contributors to the Linux kernel? Yeah, that can be a little irritating.
I'd say the same thing about criticism of some of Microsoft's better stuff, and in particular, C# and .NET Core. Much of it is so outdated as to be useless.
Linux isn't a desktop, it's a kernel (Score:2)
Yes, there are 270 linux disttros, but only a few popular desktops:
Regardless of which distro you use, the majority will give you one (or more choices) of the above. The big difference between the distros is the number and type of software packages installed by default, so your choice of distro is likely more dependent upon what software you'd like to run, and the ease of installing new software. If you want to run Gnome, you'd likely choose RedHat, Debian, or Ubuntu. If you prefer KDE, s
Crackshot Journalism... (Score:4, Interesting)
Proven pointed out that Distrowatch currently lists 270 -- count 'em -- Linux distros.
It'd take half an hour to start realizing that the number isn't nearly as daunting as claimed.
There are a couple dozen "appliance" distros - TrueNAS, ClearOS, Turnkey Linux, FreePBX, and Volumio - distros whose intent have nothing to do with a desktop at all.
There are a handful of server distros - Rancher, Zentyal, Univention, Proxmox, and NethServer...none of which are effective for desktop use.
Then there are the mobile and system board releases - RasPiOS, /e/OS, RasPlex, Raspi Signage, and other systems expressly designed for things other than desktops.
Next up is a few specialist distros - Clonezilla, SystemRescueCD, Thinstation, Porteus Kiosk, and CloudReady, maybe stretch it to include Kali and Parrot - things that will technically run on a desktop but are quite obviously not intended for desktops.
So, we've finally eliminated most of the non-desktop releases, but it's still a long list...until, once again, we read paragraphs...and lots of them can be described using the phrase "but with". Oracle is RHEL...but with Oracle branding. Alma and Rocky and Scientific are also RHEL...but without trademarks. Mint is Ubuntu...but with Cinnamon. Zorin is Ubuntu...but with KDE and a pretty theme. Liinuxfx is Ubuntu...but with a Portuguese language pack. A solid chunk of desktop environments can be described in this way, and a perusal of the very list of 270 distros would reflect this.
Now, one might argue that this is still confusing for people, and there's a case to be made for that. However, "one to control them all" really isn't the answer, either. By all means, pick Ubuntu, the most popular, best documented, and best supported, and just use that, completely ignoring the other 269 listed distros. Trying to make a retail version of Linux wasn't exactly effective, Lindows/Linspire and Xandros were never terribly successful in the space.
In terms of the different package installers, I think that there is at least *some* room to talk about the idea that there's utility in making .deb and .rpm packages spawn an InstallShield wizard...Mint does this out of the box with .deb files, but not with .rpm's...which I get has to do with the difference in package managers, but I do think that abstracting it away would be a good thing. This, however, is being done to an extent with the different "app store" clones found in some desktop distros like Mint. While it makes installs super easy for the top 5% of software, after that, it's a GUI wrapper over Synaptic. This isn't a bad thing in principle, but in practice, try adding "python" and it quickly devolves into 101 different packages and extensions and 'which ones do I need' that get really messy really quickly.
Personally, I tried running Mint recently, and it was great...until I needed to connect to a Wireguard VPN. That was fun because it was either straight CLI, or updating Network Manager, except that Mint didn't have the newer version available, and there was no Wireguard GUI except for Network Manager, so I got stuck compiling from source, and it took me a day to figure out precisely which instructions were correct because there were different things to sift through and none of them worked the way I expected.
I think this better illustrates the Linux Desktop problem than the 270 distros and half-dozen software installation mechanisms. When desktop Linux works, it works pretty well. However, we've all got a story of "things that have worked flawlessly, better than Windows, even" in Linux, and one where desktop Linux had an issue that took hours to solve that had a 5-minute solution in Windows or OSX...and it's never clear which is which, and nobody takes ownership for solving the problem (OEM says 'unsupported', devs say 'works for me', software vendor says 'use something else', leaving the user unable to do the thin
agree. disagree. (Score:2)
I lost a big post here to a bug in the slashdot code. My finger accidentally touched a page element and slashdot didnt ask me to leave or stay.
A less precise shorter version below:
I'm a Linux user through and through and have been using it for over 15 years and you can keep me from it when you can pry it from my cold dead hands...I'm a command line guy from way back and spend a lot of time in the magic of the terminal.
Just note that even Apple doesn't have more than a blip's worth of desktop market share a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't use either myself, aren't chromebooks and macbook M1s functionally 'linux desktops'? You get a slick GUI maintained by Google/Apple, with a coherent theme and whole teams to maintain it. You can drop into bash whenever you like. High end SWE jobs, like at Meta, you get issued a macbook M1 Pro Air Max on day 0.
Depends on your definition of "slick". I'm at a job where I got issued a high end mac laptop (and they're kept up to date). I barely use the thing, preferring instead my Linux desktop. I
Re: (Score:2)
You can configure OSX to use X11 instead of the standard mac ui, then you can operate it just like linux.
Re: (Score:2)
You can configure OSX to use X11 instead of the standard mac ui, then you can operate it just like linux.
Kinda?
You then have to do a bunch of setup to get actually decent versions of the unix tools, because OSX forked off BSD at the point when BSD had a hard-on for hating all things GNU and therefore decided that keeping the commandline UI as spartan as possible was the most anti-GNU thing they could do. And then all the other tools, some of which are weird and you only really get mac versions not nice X ve