5 ms·

Unfortunately, that's also the best way to not get any work done because: 1) None of the software most people need is available for Linux, and 2) "GNU/Linux"

Unfortunately, that's also the best way to not get any work done because: 1) None of the software most people need is available for Linux, and 2) "GNU/Linux" sucks at providing a rich and stable API/ABI on which proprietary software can be built and supported, and 3) Usability of what does exist generally sucks, because unsurprisingly, not charging for your work makes it very hard to hire artists and designers. Also unfortunately, that means the majority of people are stuck choosing between relinquishing privacy to either Apple, MS, or Google.

sarciszewski 11y ago
> 2) "GNU/Linux" sucks at providing a rich and stable API/ABI on which proprietary software can be built and supported, and Care to elaborate on this one? I don't see what sucks about it. You can build proprietary software and run it on Linux. See also: Steam games. > 3) Usability of what does exist generally sucks, because unsurprisingly, not charging for your work makes it very hard to hire artists and designers. I've personally found the latest editions of Debian-based OSes (such as Linux Mint) to be very intuitive and beautiful.
- userbinator 11y ago
  Care to elaborate on this one? I don't see what sucks about it. You can build proprietary software and run it on Linux. See also: Steam games. I've run into this before many times. Binaries for proprietary apps, from 20 years ago, will probably still work today on Windows 10 if they didn't do anything too crazy or need low-level system functions (e.g. disk defragmenters). I don't think the same can be said of proprietary apps on Linux; there, the vast amount of diversity is also its greatest weakness and apps tend to have these massive (version-locked) dependency chains attached to them.
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    > Binaries for proprietary apps, from 20 years ago, will probably still work today on Windows 10 Do you really want to run 20 year-old software? > I don't think the same can be said of proprietary apps on Linux So, you don't know then. ------------- In my experience, getting something to run on Linux is easier than getting it to run on Windows. The only reason that more software isn't built on Linux is the network effect. "All of our paying customers use Windows, why would we want to build on Linux? Only free software hippies use that!" - Caricature of the average IT manager Steam for Linux is going to gradually be a... game-changer. B)
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Do you really want to run 20 year-old software? Games? Line of business applications? Other applications that still work for me and I have no reason to upgrade? Yes. Yes I do. <post type="rant" intensity="105%"> Windows is literally the only OS out there right now that gives a toss about backwards compatibility. Try compiling old code on a new linux - prepare to be stuck in dependency hell for hours as you try to find libraries that the distro maintainers ever-so-helpfully deleted outright or renamed with no pointer. Apple shamelessly breaks things every time there's a point release to iOS or OSX. Killing this API, turning on that "security" feature which breaks your addons, etc etc.
    - userbinator 11y ago
      Do you really want to run 20 year-old software? Yes.
    - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
      > Do you really want to run 20 year-old software? People do want to do this. Go and look at those who are already doing it. Your experience is quite obviously very limited if you've got problems installing software that's built for Windows, on Windows. And Steam for Linux has been out for a couple of years now yet the majority of game devs aren't building games for Linux since next to nobody is running Linux for games or buying the lackluster Steam Machine - http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/5/8733139/valve-steam-machine-half-baked http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/5/8733139/valve-steam-machine...
- teacup50 11y ago
  > Care to elaborate on this one? I don't see what sucks about it. You can build proprietary software and run it on Linux. See also: Steam games. This works if you: - Ship all your dependencies yourself (the distribution-provided dependencies can't be relied upon to stay compatible) - Spend a lot of effort keeping your app and its dependencies working with the surrounding desktop environment (even when shipping your own libraries, IPC protocols, configuration mechanisms, and interoperability behavior are all unstable) - Expect that your users will be technically proficient enough to deal with the inevitable breakage, and - Can afford to spend the extra resources to use the inconsistent and often poorly documented/implemented/designed OSS application libraries that are available.
agumonkey 11y ago
I wonder, if a large mass of people really switched, would the OSS ecosystem be able to channel their needs into something suitable...
cozzyd 11y ago
1) "Most" people nowadays just need a web browser. It may not fit your particular situation though. 2) It's a difficult situation for drivers, but for most software you can just package the shared libraries you need (or statically link). This is what most people do on Windows / OS X anyway... 3) This is often a matter of personal preference and experience, but I find Gnome 3 perfectly usable....
- teacup50 11y ago
  > This is what most people do on Windows / OS X anyway... For the record, people on OS X / Windows package a VERY SMALL NUMBER of shared libraries with their application, if they use any at all. The majority of application requirements are met by stable system APIs. This is very different than having to ship the entire dependency graph above the syscall/libc level.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Am I some superhuman that I am actually capable of getting work done on GNU/Linux? That, in fact, all of the software I need is there? That the kernel, libc and other APIs are actually quite stable (indeed, breaking userspace is the ultimate sin in the kernel, akin to blaspheming the Holy Spirit) and that usability is greatly enhanced by being able to configure my system the way that best suits my workflow and without OS features that think they're holding my hand and helping me but only get in my way of doing actual work?
- teacup50 11y ago
  > Am I some superhuman that I am actually capable of getting work done on GNU/Linux? That, in fact, all of the software I need is there? You're a software developer in a particular, small segment of the industry for which tooling is available, not "most people". > That the kernel, libc and other APIs are actually quite stable The kernel and libc are not enough to meet application developer requirements, not by miles. This is why any usable Linux desktop relies on a massive set of fragile packages that have to be managed via a package manager in lock-step to maintain compatibility across the entire dependency graph. That, in turn, assumes that everything participating in that dependency graph can be rebuilt (and patched) by the package maintainers, at-will, to maintain compatibility across the entirety of the graph. If that doesn't work for your software, your only choice to is to ship your own large set of incompatible dependencies, and spend a lot of effort keeping those working with the surrounding distribution-managed dependency graph. > ... usability is greatly enhanced by being able to configure my system the way that best suits my workflow and without OS features that think they're holding my hand and helping me but only get in my way of doing actual work? That's a different metric of "usability" than the metric most people apply (and benefit from).
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    I'm not really a software developer, no. Of course, the kernel and libc are not enough. There are de facto standard libraries for all other subsystems, with variations and granularity in different areas (e.g. that of the largely one display server to the many types of widget toolkits), not unlike any other OS. The package manager is simply an effective way of controlling software installations with fine-grained control from curated repositories with dependency resolution and querying capabilities. Just about all systems have package management in some way, but not the full picture. Windows had the Windows Installer, which was the equivalent to dpkg, without the advanced frontend dependency resolver and other mechanisms. I understand there is now a Windows Store. Yes, there are issues, largely intrinsic to shared library versioning and maintenance. Windows has them and it too had to supply hideous workarounds (WinSxS, etc.), with privately shipped DLLs still being a standard practice to get around it. Concerning usability, you already do have environments that are fully compliant with the "standard" metric that most people "benefit" from -- there are highly sophisticated DEs such as GNOME 3 and Unity that are perfectly usable by average end users, and I have personally installed and attested the results to this from several friends and acquaintances who are non-technical. At least a couple are even fine with using Cinnamon.
stelonix 11y ago
Not sure why your comment was downvoted since what you said is taken as a given for me and I've been a Linux user (out of principle) for 3 years now. Many things are lacking for a good user experience, simply put. The way a Linux system is built out of very different small programs (and ideals) leaks to the UX, leading to many situations of "why can't I do this simple thing X I can easily do on Windows?". Still, depending on your area, you can use Linux to get your job done, but it does not come without nuisances.

sarciszewski 11y ago

> 2) "GNU/Linux" sucks at providing a rich and stable API/ABI on which proprietary software can be built and supported, and Care to elaborate on this one? I don't see what sucks about it. You can build proprietary software and run it on Linux. See also: Steam games. > 3) Usability of what does exist generally sucks, because unsurprisingly, not charging for your work makes it very hard to hire artists and designers. I've personally found the latest editions of Debian-based OSes (such as Linux Mint) to be very intuitive and beautiful.

userbinator 11y ago
Care to elaborate on this one? I don't see what sucks about it. You can build proprietary software and run it on Linux. See also: Steam games. I've run into this before many times. Binaries for proprietary apps, from 20 years ago, will probably still work today on Windows 10 if they didn't do anything too crazy or need low-level system functions (e.g. disk defragmenters). I don't think the same can be said of proprietary apps on Linux; there, the vast amount of diversity is also its greatest weakness and apps tend to have these massive (version-locked) dependency chains attached to them.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  > Binaries for proprietary apps, from 20 years ago, will probably still work today on Windows 10 Do you really want to run 20 year-old software? > I don't think the same can be said of proprietary apps on Linux So, you don't know then. ------------- In my experience, getting something to run on Linux is easier than getting it to run on Windows. The only reason that more software isn't built on Linux is the network effect. "All of our paying customers use Windows, why would we want to build on Linux? Only free software hippies use that!" - Caricature of the average IT manager Steam for Linux is going to gradually be a... game-changer. B)
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Do you really want to run 20 year-old software? Games? Line of business applications? Other applications that still work for me and I have no reason to upgrade? Yes. Yes I do. <post type="rant" intensity="105%"> Windows is literally the only OS out there right now that gives a toss about backwards compatibility. Try compiling old code on a new linux - prepare to be stuck in dependency hell for hours as you try to find libraries that the distro maintainers ever-so-helpfully deleted outright or renamed with no pointer. Apple shamelessly breaks things every time there's a point release to iOS or OSX. Killing this API, turning on that "security" feature which breaks your addons, etc etc.
  - userbinator 11y ago
    Do you really want to run 20 year-old software? Yes.
  - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    > Do you really want to run 20 year-old software? People do want to do this. Go and look at those who are already doing it. Your experience is quite obviously very limited if you've got problems installing software that's built for Windows, on Windows. And Steam for Linux has been out for a couple of years now yet the majority of game devs aren't building games for Linux since next to nobody is running Linux for games or buying the lackluster Steam Machine - http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/5/8733139/valve-steam-machine-half-baked http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/5/8733139/valve-steam-machine...
teacup50 11y ago
> Care to elaborate on this one? I don't see what sucks about it. You can build proprietary software and run it on Linux. See also: Steam games. This works if you: - Ship all your dependencies yourself (the distribution-provided dependencies can't be relied upon to stay compatible) - Spend a lot of effort keeping your app and its dependencies working with the surrounding desktop environment (even when shipping your own libraries, IPC protocols, configuration mechanisms, and interoperability behavior are all unstable) - Expect that your users will be technically proficient enough to deal with the inevitable breakage, and - Can afford to spend the extra resources to use the inconsistent and often poorly documented/implemented/designed OSS application libraries that are available.

agumonkey 11y ago

I wonder, if a large mass of people really switched, would the OSS ecosystem be able to channel their needs into something suitable...

cozzyd 11y ago

1) "Most" people nowadays just need a web browser. It may not fit your particular situation though. 2) It's a difficult situation for drivers, but for most software you can just package the shared libraries you need (or statically link). This is what most people do on Windows / OS X anyway... 3) This is often a matter of personal preference and experience, but I find Gnome 3 perfectly usable....

teacup50 11y ago
> This is what most people do on Windows / OS X anyway... For the record, people on OS X / Windows package a VERY SMALL NUMBER of shared libraries with their application, if they use any at all. The majority of application requirements are met by stable system APIs. This is very different than having to ship the entire dependency graph above the syscall/libc level.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Am I some superhuman that I am actually capable of getting work done on GNU/Linux? That, in fact, all of the software I need is there? That the kernel, libc and other APIs are actually quite stable (indeed, breaking userspace is the ultimate sin in the kernel, akin to blaspheming the Holy Spirit) and that usability is greatly enhanced by being able to configure my system the way that best suits my workflow and without OS features that think they're holding my hand and helping me but only get in my way of doing actual work?

teacup50 11y ago
> Am I some superhuman that I am actually capable of getting work done on GNU/Linux? That, in fact, all of the software I need is there? You're a software developer in a particular, small segment of the industry for which tooling is available, not "most people". > That the kernel, libc and other APIs are actually quite stable The kernel and libc are not enough to meet application developer requirements, not by miles. This is why any usable Linux desktop relies on a massive set of fragile packages that have to be managed via a package manager in lock-step to maintain compatibility across the entire dependency graph. That, in turn, assumes that everything participating in that dependency graph can be rebuilt (and patched) by the package maintainers, at-will, to maintain compatibility across the entirety of the graph. If that doesn't work for your software, your only choice to is to ship your own large set of incompatible dependencies, and spend a lot of effort keeping those working with the surrounding distribution-managed dependency graph. > ... usability is greatly enhanced by being able to configure my system the way that best suits my workflow and without OS features that think they're holding my hand and helping me but only get in my way of doing actual work? That's a different metric of "usability" than the metric most people apply (and benefit from).
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  I'm not really a software developer, no. Of course, the kernel and libc are not enough. There are de facto standard libraries for all other subsystems, with variations and granularity in different areas (e.g. that of the largely one display server to the many types of widget toolkits), not unlike any other OS. The package manager is simply an effective way of controlling software installations with fine-grained control from curated repositories with dependency resolution and querying capabilities. Just about all systems have package management in some way, but not the full picture. Windows had the Windows Installer, which was the equivalent to dpkg, without the advanced frontend dependency resolver and other mechanisms. I understand there is now a Windows Store. Yes, there are issues, largely intrinsic to shared library versioning and maintenance. Windows has them and it too had to supply hideous workarounds (WinSxS, etc.), with privately shipped DLLs still being a standard practice to get around it. Concerning usability, you already do have environments that are fully compliant with the "standard" metric that most people "benefit" from -- there are highly sophisticated DEs such as GNOME 3 and Unity that are perfectly usable by average end users, and I have personally installed and attested the results to this from several friends and acquaintances who are non-technical. At least a couple are even fine with using Cinnamon.

stelonix 11y ago

Not sure why your comment was downvoted since what you said is taken as a given for me and I've been a Linux user (out of principle) for 3 years now. Many things are lacking for a good user experience, simply put. The way a Linux system is built out of very different small programs (and ideals) leaks to the UX, leading to many situations of "why can't I do this simple thing X I can easily do on Windows?". Still, depending on your area, you can use Linux to get your job done, but it does not come without nuisances.