3 ms·

I believe this is tautological. Mass market products compromise. They simplify. They market, advertise, etcetera. A truly mass market GNU/Linux distro with th

I believe this is tautological. Mass market products compromise. They simplify. They market, advertise, etcetera. A truly mass market GNU/Linux distro with the clout of a Microsoft or an Apple would inevitably, I believe, end up forking off into its' own barely compatible universe. If we're lucky, the 'old' universe sticks around. If we're unlucky, it fragments the ecosystem too much and the proper power user OS falls apart. Android is an example of precisely that. I've been using Linux for my entire adult life. All of the reasons that people give for not using it are reasons I use it. "It's too much tinkering", "I had to look at a config file", "I wanted to compile something to change it", etc.

enobrev 7y ago
To be fair, those reasons aren't as pertinent as they once were. I have a linux-only household and rarely tinker (besides my server, but that's a different category of system). Sure the occasional config file and maybe a compilation if I need the very latest of something, but otherwise, linux is pretty damned solid without digging in too deep these days - which includes a triple-monitor custom desktop.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > maybe a compilation if I need the very latest of something It boggles my mind that it is 2019 and some people find it acceptable that you have to compile from source to install up to date software. Or to install software to a different location. Or to have two versions of the same software installed. This is a ludicrous regression from the state of personal computing in 1985.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    What's the big deal with compiling? Rust's package manager for example compiles everything. 'cargo install bat'. There, you compiled it. Python programs, JS are essentially being compiled on the fly. The Arch AUR is a oneshot 'makepkg' command even without a helper. It's only this big scary thing if the build tools are crap and you need a bunch of manual interventions. Again, I find it strange that developers shy away from this. I can see that the man on the clapham omnibus may not be impressed.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      Yep, compiling is so seamless that nobody ever uses something docker to fully contain their build environment to avoid conflicts and missing dependencies. Not to mention little things like not all software being open source, having to have compile dependencies installed that are not runtime dependencies, compilation being slow for a lot of languages, etc. Here's how installing up to date software goes in a sane world: Download latest software direct from developer (or copy from some other media). Done. That's how AppImage works, it's how RiscOS worked, it's how classic MacOS worked, it's how DOS worked, it's how NeXT worked, and it's how a lot of Windows software works (though sadly not all of it).
      - esotericn 7y ago
        I've never encountered this (compiling) as being a problem - my distro provides build scripts anyway. We're moving towards reproducible builds now, which have a hard requirement of a 'one command' build process to reproduce byte for byte output. I think within a few years we'll see distributions that have the option to build from source in the package manager as a first class citizen. To me, that's the sane way to distribute software. Provided unverifiable binaries are sketchy. Closed source software is something other people use. Almost no software provides binary releases at the commit level. Sometimes you can have nightlies. Again, I think this is something that seperates userbases. You don't want this, you see it as effort or something. I see it as being absolutely necessary. So, YMMV I guess. /shrug
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        > I've never encountered this (compiling) as being a problem - my distro provides build scripts anyway. Consider the common case that the software you want to install is not in the repo. > Closed source software is something other people use. Great for you, but what's this thread about again? Oh yeah, Linux Desktop being useful for people who aren't currently using it. As in, basically everybody who uses a personal computer. Why do they use proprietary software? Because they have shit to do and they need tools. They can't always write the tools themselves so they pay someone else who has written the tool they need. This isn't rocket science, yet Linux Desktop evangelists still don't get it even after 20 years.
  - enobrev 7y ago
    At least for desktops, it's incredibly rare that I need to compile something. The most recent release from whatever installer is almost always more than fine for the client. I don't think I have anything on my current desktop that I've compiled myself, besides software that I've written - which is meant to run on servers.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      On Windows and MacOS, that's true. On Linux it is almost always untrue. If you want to color outside the repo, you pretty much have to compile from source for various reasons.
      - enobrev 7y ago
        If that's your experience then I can absolutely understand your frustration, but as someone who has been using Linux on the desk top full time for about a decade this simply is not the case for me at all. I almost never have to compile anything on my desktops or laptops that isn't related to work on a server.

enobrev 7y ago

To be fair, those reasons aren't as pertinent as they once were. I have a linux-only household and rarely tinker (besides my server, but that's a different category of system). Sure the occasional config file and maybe a compilation if I need the very latest of something, but otherwise, linux is pretty damned solid without digging in too deep these days - which includes a triple-monitor custom desktop.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> maybe a compilation if I need the very latest of something It boggles my mind that it is 2019 and some people find it acceptable that you have to compile from source to install up to date software. Or to install software to a different location. Or to have two versions of the same software installed. This is a ludicrous regression from the state of personal computing in 1985.
- esotericn 7y ago
  What's the big deal with compiling? Rust's package manager for example compiles everything. 'cargo install bat'. There, you compiled it. Python programs, JS are essentially being compiled on the fly. The Arch AUR is a oneshot 'makepkg' command even without a helper. It's only this big scary thing if the build tools are crap and you need a bunch of manual interventions. Again, I find it strange that developers shy away from this. I can see that the man on the clapham omnibus may not be impressed.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Yep, compiling is so seamless that nobody ever uses something docker to fully contain their build environment to avoid conflicts and missing dependencies. Not to mention little things like not all software being open source, having to have compile dependencies installed that are not runtime dependencies, compilation being slow for a lot of languages, etc. Here's how installing up to date software goes in a sane world: Download latest software direct from developer (or copy from some other media). Done. That's how AppImage works, it's how RiscOS worked, it's how classic MacOS worked, it's how DOS worked, it's how NeXT worked, and it's how a lot of Windows software works (though sadly not all of it).
    - esotericn 7y ago
      I've never encountered this (compiling) as being a problem - my distro provides build scripts anyway. We're moving towards reproducible builds now, which have a hard requirement of a 'one command' build process to reproduce byte for byte output. I think within a few years we'll see distributions that have the option to build from source in the package manager as a first class citizen. To me, that's the sane way to distribute software. Provided unverifiable binaries are sketchy. Closed source software is something other people use. Almost no software provides binary releases at the commit level. Sometimes you can have nightlies. Again, I think this is something that seperates userbases. You don't want this, you see it as effort or something. I see it as being absolutely necessary. So, YMMV I guess. /shrug
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        > I've never encountered this (compiling) as being a problem - my distro provides build scripts anyway. Consider the common case that the software you want to install is not in the repo. > Closed source software is something other people use. Great for you, but what's this thread about again? Oh yeah, Linux Desktop being useful for people who aren't currently using it. As in, basically everybody who uses a personal computer. Why do they use proprietary software? Because they have shit to do and they need tools. They can't always write the tools themselves so they pay someone else who has written the tool they need. This isn't rocket science, yet Linux Desktop evangelists still don't get it even after 20 years.
- enobrev 7y ago
  At least for desktops, it's incredibly rare that I need to compile something. The most recent release from whatever installer is almost always more than fine for the client. I don't think I have anything on my current desktop that I've compiled myself, besides software that I've written - which is meant to run on servers.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    On Windows and MacOS, that's true. On Linux it is almost always untrue. If you want to color outside the repo, you pretty much have to compile from source for various reasons.
    - enobrev 7y ago
      If that's your experience then I can absolutely understand your frustration, but as someone who has been using Linux on the desk top full time for about a decade this simply is not the case for me at all. I almost never have to compile anything on my desktops or laptops that isn't related to work on a server.