this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
85 points (78.9% liked)
Linux
48329 readers
826 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can we please stop this nonsense already? With Linux on desktop we had two goals:
We achieved both goals. Since probably 20 years ago I've been using Linux exclusively both at work and at home. All my hardware works, all my software works. Why would I care if Linux gets to 20%, 80% or 100% market share? At this point if some companies or game developers don't support Linux it's their loss, I will find an alternative. And if some users is still using Windows it's also their loss. I feel sorry for them but I stopped encouraging people to use Linux years ago. We're good, our feature is secured, we don't need to push for more users anymore.
You have a very loose definition of "achieved." There are countless hardware devices lacking support. Microsoft Office, the most widely used business productivity tool in the world by far, still has either limited or no support on Linux. Most of the top 20 games on Twitch are either completely unsupported, or require onerous workarounds with poor performance.
It's great that you have achieved what you desire, but you're not representative of everyone.
I'm using outlook on Linux (at work), it has a web interface. Office 365 works on Linux. As for games it's entertainment, you can choose what you play. There are alternatives for pretty much everything (Figma, Gimp. Krita, Blender). Even if Linux gets 50% of the market some companies/game studios still will not support it. We will never get to 100% support so that's simply unrealistic goal. You can disagree but for me the goal was to make sure that Linux will not get abandoned and die. The danger was in proprietary protocols and standards, in closed source firmware and drivers. Today it may seem obvious but when I was using Linux 20 years ago it was only possible because someone was reverse engineering protocols and drivers. Main communicator on the internet had only windows client, lots of hardware didn't have Linux drivers, MS was actively trying to kill Linux by promoting closed standards. It was a real possibility that this shit will spread and make Linux on the desktop unusable. Today we're passed that. We won. If someone is on windows it's because they want to play specific games or use specific software. Their choice, I don't care.
Office 365 (which I have to use at work) works well enough in their Online Web variants for me on my Linux laptop.
But yeah. Still a lot of hardware especially the kind for casual people is still not well supported by their manufacturers.
It's not Linux's job to run software designed for another OS. It's great that it sometimes does (thanks to wine/proton), but as a litmus test it seems a little odd.
I'm with that guy. It's exceptionally easy to run Linux full time these days for anyone who wants to. (Have been doing so since 2007, and it was already easier then than it was for the trailblazers.) It requires almost no thought to ensure the hardware I buy will be fully supported.
I don't care in the least if someone chooses something else to run on their computer, and I'm years past the point where I can even understand why I'm supposed to.
It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. This isn’t about assigning blame. It’s about acknowledging reality. The bottom line is that Linux is still lacking a lot of software and hardware compatibility which Windows offers.
And thus, if it's not a good fit for you don't use it. Not getting into another long discussion here.
My only grumpiness (targeted primarily at the article from OP) is the idea that the Linux community is supposed to be handwringing about the fact that more people don't use Linux.
I would love more people to use Linux. MS and Apple are both in their own respective ways bringing all the worst aspects of profit-over-all into an area that used to be and should be about wide open spaces, experimentation, and learning. (shakes cane)
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, and I stand by my assertion that for the vast majority of people it's desire, not technical barriers, that prevent them running Linux. AND THAT'S OK, not everyone has to want the same things I want. But I don't feel an obligation to chase those people, and I don't think the Linux community at large should chase those people. The Linux community should be making decisions and providing tools that Linux users want; it seems ludicrous to focus on the wants of people who don't use it at all.
Without taking the time to go through the specific Twitch top list, I'm still very doubtful that the gaming side of things is as dismal as you state, given my very positive experiences gaming with Linux in recent years. Regardless, your litmus test about running software not designed for it remains a metric that is useful for disqualifying Linux if that's what you want to do, but not a useful metric for assessing the success of Linux overall.
Edited to add: I use and support Windows on the desktop and server for my job. I see firsthand the things that suck about Windows, and they are certainly no less than the things that suck about Linux. Living in Windows 8-12 hours a day has not once made me regret my transition at home. Each successive Windows version since I left it in 2007 has served only to reinforce it.
LOL it is the job of an operating system (ANY operating system) to be able to run the software you need/want. So in that regard, it's not "odd" at all.
Go run a Mac binary natively on Windows and let me know how that goes for you.
I don't care whatsoever if someone wants to use Windows for any reason at all. I take exception to this notion that Linux has some responsibility to be compatible with everything in the world while Windows only has to be compatible with Windows though.
Just make your choice and be open about it, don't manufacture requirements that are not universal.
Well this is a point you've fabricated in your imagination because no one thinks that. Windows and Mac will both run whatever software a typical user needs. Linux often does not. That makes it not suitable for most users. It's as simple as that.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that the success of Linux is tied to the needs of the mythical "average user", in addition to thinking that Linux is somehow responsible for the fact that MS doesn't make Office binaries for it, or Autocad doesn't make binaries for it, etc.
We don't need to agree on either of those, and as I said earlier, I'm years past thinking there's any reason to "convert" you or anyone else.
I find your premise to be flawed, and that's my only objection. However, I don't even care about your flawed premise enough to continue this discussion. You can go have an an OS argument with someone who feels like having one. I'm sure it won't be hard to find.
Nope. You're once again just fabricating statements that no one is making.
Linux is not a business so "success" can be measured in a myriad of ways. One of which could be the number of people adopting it as their main desktop/laptop OS. For that, it has to be able to run the software most people are using.
This is also the topic of discussion that you seem to be missing entirely.
More things you're just making up. No one thinks Linux is responsible for those things. If you want to have an argument with yourself, feel free to write it down on a piece of paper or something.
You clearly don't understand what my premise even is, so you couldn't possibly.
@JasSmith linux devs cant force every developer out there to release a linux compatible version of their sw. If MS doesnt want to build a linux version of one of their s/w, the best that can be done is support their custom doc format.
Also your argument is very one sided if you want linux to seemlessly run every type of binary like exe, dmg of completely incompatible OS. Linux does provides a decent translation layer that attempts at it. How many of the other OS can do so?
You incorrectly infer blame. This isn't anyone's fault. I am simply acknowledging the reality of the situation: Linux still lacks compatibility with a lot of hardware, software, and games. That fact is contributing to its low consumer adoption. In just one year, Steam Deck's exceptional adoption thanks to seamless compatibility and user experience should prove this.
@JasSmith steam just demonstrated there wasnt much lacking on part of linux but the will of the publishers.
Ive no idea how you expect compatiblity b/w different OS. No such thing exist outside of trans-layers like wine or compile to those specifc platform. You cant run linux packages on windows. Need wsl(which is a linux kernel running virtualised) or a full VM to do so. You can run win on a vm inside linux if you so desire.
Who has to fix nvidia reluctance to properly publish their drivers?
I don't expect magic, so I don't expect Linux to be a Windows competitor in the consumer space for many years to come.
Surely you can see the material differences between the Steam Deck and someone trying to install a flavour of Linux for themselves on their Windows PC. Valve has done everything. No tinkering with drivers. The hardware works out of the box. No complicated workarounds. No CLI. Every game is clearly labelled for compatibility in the UI. It even has functionality which Windows doesn't have like sleep and wake for games in progress. They've even gone with an immutable OS, so developers know their games will operate if tested on the one distribution.
We achieved both goals and now I have to force my Nvidia card into high performance mode because otherwise I have a black flicker on my screen constantly. It's way better than it used to be, but it's far from where it needs to be.
Windows has it's own hardware/software issues. Just because you get more adoption doesn't mean everything will start working.
That's not my point, my point was that the goal was not actually achieved.
Get outta my head. 100% agree and could have written your post.
Last time I wanted a gaming laptop (go away gatekeepers, laptop was the right choice for me) I grabbed the first RTX2080 machine that fit my price point from one of my preferred mfr and the build I did just after I got it is still on it today. Have done everything I wanted to with it.
I wanted something smaller and lighter for some other tasks recently, so without much money to spend grabbed a 4ish year old refurbished Lenovo. Touchscreen, stylus, fingerprint reader, everything just works. I did no research beyond a quick google to be sure there weren't immediate results telling me to stay away for Linux for that specific model.
I can't remember the last time I cared what someone else ran on their computer, and at this point I'm annoyed that ZDNet and others think I'm supposed to.
I also use and support Windows at work, and I know how absolute bullshit the idea that everything works flawlessly on Windows is. (Setting aside things like "telemetry", the way you have to force windows to behave as desired, all the other privacy stuff, and all the ads) But, at least I only touch windows when being paid to do so now, so there's that.