3 ms·

> both major projects (Gnome and KDE) are increasingly depending on Linux-specific technologies Yeah, turns out POSIX is no longer enough. I am all for operat

> both major projects (Gnome and KDE) are increasingly depending on Linux-specific technologies Yeah, turns out POSIX is no longer enough. I am all for operating systems using the best technology stack they've got. Nor Windows, macOS or BSDs get hate for doing the same, so why should Linux not be able to fully embrace its own solutions to make itself more competitive? People always complain about this and that not being on par with Windows or macOS - well, in order to get there, you'll have to take full advantage of whatever APIs you can, even forgoing POSIX in some instances. You can get the best experience using the most up-to-date APIs available on your platform or the most compatible, lowest common denominator experience, but you can't get both. > Basically, except for Bluetooth and proprietary graphics driver, there's nothing that "almost works" True that, it tends to "just work", on reasonably standard hardware, like the latest Dell XPS 15, practically everything 'just works', even on a 2015 retina MacBook Pro, my experience has been near flawless.

notalaser 9y ago
> You can get the best experience using the most up-to-date APIs available on your platform or the most compatible, lowest common denominator experience, but you can't get both. Thank God the guys who write the kernel never thought about this :-) Besides, this isn't what I was criticizing. What I wrote (it often helps to read the whole argument before offering a counterpoint) is: > Both major projects (Gnome and KDE) are increasingly depending on Linux-specific technologies (mainly through systemd dependencies, e.g. timedated, localed, hostnamed and logind, which are explicitly Linux-specific). They can be replaced by shims, fortunately, but these are difficult to write, because the components that they replace move quickly, often not very transparently, and without much documentation. Windows, MacOS and (at least Open)BSD don't get all this hate because they tend to introduce components when they're reasonably stable and almost always with full, proper documentation. They rarely dump beta-quality code for the community to test and document, like Red Hat did with pretty much every desktop technology they developed after 2005 or so.
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  > Thank God the guys who write the kernel never thought about this :-) Sorry, I tried, but can't see what you're arguing here, since the discussion was about user space, not the kernel. > They rarely dump beta-quality code for the community to test and document Huh, Microsoft has a loong history of updates breaking things, (even permanently) and they recently fired practically all their testers to let the users test their updates. Mac OS 10.7 was a broken mess and the latest Sierra broke cURL. Besides, that is the trade off of developing in the open, you get to see not only the good stuff, but all the quirks on the way there too, you must personally decide if it's a trade-of worth making.

notalaser 9y ago

> You can get the best experience using the most up-to-date APIs available on your platform or the most compatible, lowest common denominator experience, but you can't get both. Thank God the guys who write the kernel never thought about this :-) Besides, this isn't what I was criticizing. What I wrote (it often helps to read the whole argument before offering a counterpoint) is: > Both major projects (Gnome and KDE) are increasingly depending on Linux-specific technologies (mainly through systemd dependencies, e.g. timedated, localed, hostnamed and logind, which are explicitly Linux-specific). They can be replaced by shims, fortunately, but these are difficult to write, because the components that they replace move quickly, often not very transparently, and without much documentation. Windows, MacOS and (at least Open)BSD don't get all this hate because they tend to introduce components when they're reasonably stable and almost always with full, proper documentation. They rarely dump beta-quality code for the community to test and document, like Red Hat did with pretty much every desktop technology they developed after 2005 or so.

AsyncAwait 9y ago
> Thank God the guys who write the kernel never thought about this :-) Sorry, I tried, but can't see what you're arguing here, since the discussion was about user space, not the kernel. > They rarely dump beta-quality code for the community to test and document Huh, Microsoft has a loong history of updates breaking things, (even permanently) and they recently fired practically all their testers to let the users test their updates. Mac OS 10.7 was a broken mess and the latest Sierra broke cURL. Besides, that is the trade off of developing in the open, you get to see not only the good stuff, but all the quirks on the way there too, you must personally decide if it's a trade-of worth making.