4 ms·

Sigh. No offense but it's comments like this that remind me why no, I haven't tried desktop linux recently. No, I am not going to mess around trying KDE Plasma

by sho 8y ago

Sigh. No offense but it's comments like this that remind me why no, I haven't tried desktop linux recently. No, I am not going to mess around trying KDE Plasma or SomethingElse Tumbleweed or OpenWuffe SnufflePuss XL or any other of the billion permutations of half-baked shit which might or might not work. I am mid-career, I have money, I have little time and even less interest in fucking around with any of that just to get a working computer that meets my needs. I want a big company, who I trust will follow through, to take my money and solve my problems with The Desktop Linux™. I need office apps, I need music apps, I need image processing, I need some sort of integrated cloud offering, and I'd like a unix-like back end. I'll pay money for this. I will not pay in time. Apple does this for me currently; MS is possibly the only possible other company which could take on such a challenge, hence the interest in the idea. It's sort of ironic to me that one of the main reasons I like linux on the server - which I use exclusively - is because I perceive it as "just working" in a way that MS servers never do. The situation is entirely inverted on the desktop - OSX, and to a lesser extent Windows, "just work" and the solutions to all of my problems are, at most, an install and possibly a few dollars away. Linux is very far from that currently, and until it gets a whole lot closer - and it will probably take a big company to actually do it - that door is closed to me, and people like me, for the foreseeable future.

curiousgal 8y ago
> and it will probably take a big company to actually do it The lack of a company controlling Linux is exactly why it's Linux. I am surprised that someone who is mid-career, has money, and little time doesn't know that.
- sho 8y ago
  Of course I know that. I'm explaining why the lack of somebody capable taking responsibility for providing a "curated" linux with a world-class UI and backing it up with deep and broad app and services ecosystem means that it won't ever be acceptable to the vast majority of desktop users, including me. Canonical has totally failed to deliver this. Maybe someone else could, maybe not. We're just speculating here.
- zapzupnz 8y ago
  I always saw Canonical as trying to do this, considering what pains they used to go through to not use the term 'Linux' in their marketing. They were playing things as though Ubuntu was their own platform (and in many ways, given the different ways that Ubuntu used to break compatibility with plain Debian, it was) — their own software centre, their own desktop, their own services. Many of those seem to have gone by the wayside: Unity deprecated in favour of GNOME 3, Ubuntu One dead. It makes me wonder if Canonical found out that it just can't be done, that pissing off the people involved in the projects upon which Ubuntu depends by sacrificing some of the sense of community in exchange the It Just Works™ magic towards which they have been working is ultimately a fool's game in the current ecosystem. I find that a shame. I thought Ubuntu had the potential to be a sort of macOS for Linux: built upon a free base, contributing heavily to other projects from which it takes, but also adding Ubuntu-specific stuff (still open source, of course) that disrupts the Linux desktop ecosystem to make the current other players (KDE, GNOME, Xfce, etc.) feel like amateur hour. At one time, it felt like Unity could've been Ubuntu's macOS desktop and I could swear they were heavily promoting some Python API for desktop apps that might've been to Ubuntu as Cocoa is to macOS. That also seems to have changed.
  - Zardoz84 8y ago
    you know that everything that unity was doing, can be donde indica KDE if you take 20 minutes to configure it? Try to not call it "amateur"
    - zapzupnz 8y ago
      > you know that everything that unity was doing can be done in KDE […] Please re-read what I said. I said that I was hopeful that Ubuntu would create something that would make KDE and GNOME seem like amateur hour. I never said Unity was the thing for which I was hoping, merely that it was Ubuntu's attempt (which, to my mind, was a failure), and I never said KDE or GNOME __are__ amateur — although, you forced my hand with the next bit. > […] if you take 20 minutes to configure it This is exactly what I'm talking about as "amateur", though. Try thinking like a regular user, who just wants everything to work properly out of the box, rather than a technical user who might be happy wasting 20 minutes on the fruitless endeavour of getting KDE to work Just Right This Time And I Swear I Won't Spend Another Couple of Hours Reconfiguring It Again Later When I'm Bored™, because that very way of thinking is exactly why the Year of Linux Desktop will never come.
emilsedgh 8y ago
I cannot stand windows for 5 minutes. to me it's just a terrible unresponsive, incoherent and unusable mess. Linux Desktop is a jewel in comparison. I'm kind of starting to realize that small nuances in Linux are not forgiven, but they are easily overlooked in Windows. People are just used to Windows and it's problem's are overlooked. Anyways, Desktop Linux has always been a mostly volunteered project. There are billion dollar industries around server but most of the drive on desktop is just pure volunteered. Considering that fact, I think it's doing amazing.
- zzo38computer 8y ago
  I agree, Linux desktop is much better than Windows. But I prefer Linux without a desktop environment (this is not the same as a window manager; I do use a window manager, but not a desktop environment).
crispinb 8y ago
I see from the obtuse responses you've received, there's really little point in summoning the effort to type anything besides either 'linux sux' or 'linux rocks'.
qplex 8y ago
Have you actually tried a Linux machine from a company that bundles hardware, software and support or are you just comparing apples to oranges?
ageofwant 8y ago
LOL, no. As a mid-career DINC in a 2% income bracket married to a 1%'er, I too, have money but not much time. That is why I will never not use a Linux desktop. Everything just works on my XPS 13 arch + i3. I also own the previous gen mbpro, I think I used that last year may. Just the idea of me wasting time with osx or windows is sneeringly ludicrous.
zozbot123 8y ago
> It's sort of ironic to me that one of the main reasons I like linux on the server - which I use exclusively - is because I perceive it as "just working" in a way that MS servers never do. The situation is entirely inverted on the desktop If "just works" is what you're going for, then install a rock-solid distro on the desktop - Debian GNU/Linux, CentOS and OpenSUSE Leap are the ones which are really in the running, IME; Ubuntu LTS is a distant possibility if commercial support or third-party applications are a priority for you - and, just as importantly, accept its limitations. No, it's not going to support the office, music or image-processing apps that you're used to. But there's plenty that it can do, that many, many users will be absolutely fine with. (The fact that so many people are fine with something as incredibly basic as ChromeOS is proof positive of this. A Linux desktop gives you plenty more than that, and you can easily get it to run on extremely cheap hardware that would not manage to run any other modern OS.)
halbritt 8y ago
It's there: https://blog.ubuntu.com/2018/07/27/dell-xps13-developer-edition-ships-with-ubuntu-18-04-lts-pre-installed https://blog.ubuntu.com/2018/07/27/dell-xps13-developer-edit... Alternately, there's System76

by sho 8y ago

curiousgal 8y ago

> and it will probably take a big company to actually do it The lack of a company controlling Linux is exactly why it's Linux. I am surprised that someone who is mid-career, has money, and little time doesn't know that.

sho 8y ago
Of course I know that. I'm explaining why the lack of somebody capable taking responsibility for providing a "curated" linux with a world-class UI and backing it up with deep and broad app and services ecosystem means that it won't ever be acceptable to the vast majority of desktop users, including me. Canonical has totally failed to deliver this. Maybe someone else could, maybe not. We're just speculating here.
zapzupnz 8y ago
I always saw Canonical as trying to do this, considering what pains they used to go through to not use the term 'Linux' in their marketing. They were playing things as though Ubuntu was their own platform (and in many ways, given the different ways that Ubuntu used to break compatibility with plain Debian, it was) — their own software centre, their own desktop, their own services. Many of those seem to have gone by the wayside: Unity deprecated in favour of GNOME 3, Ubuntu One dead. It makes me wonder if Canonical found out that it just can't be done, that pissing off the people involved in the projects upon which Ubuntu depends by sacrificing some of the sense of community in exchange the It Just Works™ magic towards which they have been working is ultimately a fool's game in the current ecosystem. I find that a shame. I thought Ubuntu had the potential to be a sort of macOS for Linux: built upon a free base, contributing heavily to other projects from which it takes, but also adding Ubuntu-specific stuff (still open source, of course) that disrupts the Linux desktop ecosystem to make the current other players (KDE, GNOME, Xfce, etc.) feel like amateur hour. At one time, it felt like Unity could've been Ubuntu's macOS desktop and I could swear they were heavily promoting some Python API for desktop apps that might've been to Ubuntu as Cocoa is to macOS. That also seems to have changed.
- Zardoz84 8y ago
  you know that everything that unity was doing, can be donde indica KDE if you take 20 minutes to configure it? Try to not call it "amateur"
  - zapzupnz 8y ago
    > you know that everything that unity was doing can be done in KDE […] Please re-read what I said. I said that I was hopeful that Ubuntu would create something that would make KDE and GNOME seem like amateur hour. I never said Unity was the thing for which I was hoping, merely that it was Ubuntu's attempt (which, to my mind, was a failure), and I never said KDE or GNOME __are__ amateur — although, you forced my hand with the next bit. > […] if you take 20 minutes to configure it This is exactly what I'm talking about as "amateur", though. Try thinking like a regular user, who just wants everything to work properly out of the box, rather than a technical user who might be happy wasting 20 minutes on the fruitless endeavour of getting KDE to work Just Right This Time And I Swear I Won't Spend Another Couple of Hours Reconfiguring It Again Later When I'm Bored™, because that very way of thinking is exactly why the Year of Linux Desktop will never come.

emilsedgh 8y ago

I cannot stand windows for 5 minutes. to me it's just a terrible unresponsive, incoherent and unusable mess. Linux Desktop is a jewel in comparison. I'm kind of starting to realize that small nuances in Linux are not forgiven, but they are easily overlooked in Windows. People are just used to Windows and it's problem's are overlooked. Anyways, Desktop Linux has always been a mostly volunteered project. There are billion dollar industries around server but most of the drive on desktop is just pure volunteered. Considering that fact, I think it's doing amazing.

zzo38computer 8y ago
I agree, Linux desktop is much better than Windows. But I prefer Linux without a desktop environment (this is not the same as a window manager; I do use a window manager, but not a desktop environment).

crispinb 8y ago

I see from the obtuse responses you've received, there's really little point in summoning the effort to type anything besides either 'linux sux' or 'linux rocks'.

qplex 8y ago

Have you actually tried a Linux machine from a company that bundles hardware, software and support or are you just comparing apples to oranges?

ageofwant 8y ago

LOL, no. As a mid-career DINC in a 2% income bracket married to a 1%'er, I too, have money but not much time. That is why I will never not use a Linux desktop. Everything just works on my XPS 13 arch + i3. I also own the previous gen mbpro, I think I used that last year may. Just the idea of me wasting time with osx or windows is sneeringly ludicrous.

zozbot123 8y ago

> It's sort of ironic to me that one of the main reasons I like linux on the server - which I use exclusively - is because I perceive it as "just working" in a way that MS servers never do. The situation is entirely inverted on the desktop If "just works" is what you're going for, then install a rock-solid distro on the desktop - Debian GNU/Linux, CentOS and OpenSUSE Leap are the ones which are really in the running, IME; Ubuntu LTS is a distant possibility if commercial support or third-party applications are a priority for you - and, just as importantly, accept its limitations. No, it's not going to support the office, music or image-processing apps that you're used to. But there's plenty that it can do, that many, many users will be absolutely fine with. (The fact that so many people are fine with something as incredibly basic as ChromeOS is proof positive of this. A Linux desktop gives you plenty more than that, and you can easily get it to run on extremely cheap hardware that would not manage to run any other modern OS.)

halbritt 8y ago

It's there: https://blog.ubuntu.com/2018/07/27/dell-xps13-developer-edition-ships-with-ubuntu-18-04-lts-pre-installed https://blog.ubuntu.com/2018/07/27/dell-xps13-developer-edit... Alternately, there's System76