4 ms·

It is, if not only because Windows (NT) also matured during the same timeframe and doesn't run only on a limited set of hardware choices. If Microsoft could do

by CrLf 15y ago

It is, if not only because Windows (NT) also matured during the same timeframe and doesn't run only on a limited set of hardware choices. If Microsoft could do it, Linux could have done it as well. In fact, Linux supports a vast number of hardware component choices and platforms, even obscure stuff. It basically runs on everything, except if that happens to be a laptop or any kind of standard desktop PC hardware components. In 1998, with a much more immature Linux and X11, it was in some ways ahead of the competition. I remember looking for a free computer in my universities' computer labs and when I had to settle for one of the old and slow 486DX machines, being able to run Netscape remotely on one of the Pentiums being used by another student just fine, fast for me and unoticeable for the other guy. Windows NT was a joke back then. It has almost no hardware support. When Windows 2000 came out there were even graphics cards better supported on Linux. But from the Windows 2000 lineage we now have Windows 7, even though Microsoft stood still for so many years with Windows XP. Meanwhile, Linux gained eye candy, when you are lucky enough to get it to work. The desktop evolved, but Linux did not, and the gap is widening. BTW: today the decent graphics card marked is mostly ATI/AMD and Nvidia. OS X supports a large number models from both vendors (even those that were never shipped by Apple). How does that fit with the notion that Apple has a more limited set of hardware to support than Linux does?

lwhi 15y ago
The comparison being made was between Apples Unix-like OS X and Linux. In any case, Linux is formed through community - while Windows is formed by a commercial entity. Which features of the 'evolved desktop' does Linux currently lack? EDIT: it seems you've edited your text, and no longer speak of an 'evolved desktop', so perhaps my question isn't relevant anymore.
- CrLf 15y ago
  "Which features of the 'evolved desktop' does Linux currently lack?" Reliability and usability. Pretty important features, IMHO.
  - lwhi 15y ago
    With respect, I don't think those are features. They're attributes. I have no issues with reliability or usability on my current Linux desktop.
    - richmassena23 15y ago
      It's precisely the features-level thinking that gets in the way of a usable Linux desktop. How many more reimplementations of basic functionality on the major desktop environments do we need? It seems like whatever the current window manager is, and however well it works, it'll be thrown out and a new one will take it's place, and take a few years to do what the old one did. We'll throw out the audio stack again at some point. X isn't good enough, so we'll throw that out. Since Wayland isn't network transparent, there will be twelve different ways to add it back in and five incompatible ways to run old X applications on top of it. When those aren't sufficient, we'll throw it out again and start over, ad nauseum. And this applies to most things on the system that are "good enough". Linux on the desktop is stuck in the 90% category, where 90% is implemented (and as we know, this represents 10% of the work). It's always tempting to avoid the unsexy 90% of the work and write from scratch. The end result is throwing increasing amounts of the baby out with the bathwater.
      - lwhi 15y ago
        This is why I fully support what's going on with the ubuntu desktop. While I love the open source model, I think we need more cohesive top down decisions if we want to be able to use a desktop with a cohesive feel. I really feel natty is heading in the right direction.
cookiecaper 15y ago
Windows works only because everyone accommodates Windows. Just like any other OS, without vendor support you are not going to get very far on hardware compatibility. OS X severely limits the range of applicable hardware and Apple has enough muscle to get support for its models and configurations. While I agree generally that a lot of boneheaded moves occur on the Linux desktop (like Pidgin->Empathy), I don't think berating hardware support for not being equivalent to Windows is fair. Also, it's usually wrong; I have always had to install drivers every time I have installed Windows in the last five years, but I have only had to install drivers in Linux on a few occasions (MadWifi back before ath9k was around, Broadcom wireless on a friend's Dell laptop, uvcvideo before it was included in the kernel).

by CrLf 15y ago

lwhi 15y ago

The comparison being made was between Apples Unix-like OS X and Linux. In any case, Linux is formed through community - while Windows is formed by a commercial entity. Which features of the 'evolved desktop' does Linux currently lack? EDIT: it seems you've edited your text, and no longer speak of an 'evolved desktop', so perhaps my question isn't relevant anymore.

CrLf 15y ago
"Which features of the 'evolved desktop' does Linux currently lack?" Reliability and usability. Pretty important features, IMHO.
- lwhi 15y ago
  With respect, I don't think those are features. They're attributes. I have no issues with reliability or usability on my current Linux desktop.
  - richmassena23 15y ago
    It's precisely the features-level thinking that gets in the way of a usable Linux desktop. How many more reimplementations of basic functionality on the major desktop environments do we need? It seems like whatever the current window manager is, and however well it works, it'll be thrown out and a new one will take it's place, and take a few years to do what the old one did. We'll throw out the audio stack again at some point. X isn't good enough, so we'll throw that out. Since Wayland isn't network transparent, there will be twelve different ways to add it back in and five incompatible ways to run old X applications on top of it. When those aren't sufficient, we'll throw it out again and start over, ad nauseum. And this applies to most things on the system that are "good enough". Linux on the desktop is stuck in the 90% category, where 90% is implemented (and as we know, this represents 10% of the work). It's always tempting to avoid the unsexy 90% of the work and write from scratch. The end result is throwing increasing amounts of the baby out with the bathwater.
    - lwhi 15y ago
      This is why I fully support what's going on with the ubuntu desktop. While I love the open source model, I think we need more cohesive top down decisions if we want to be able to use a desktop with a cohesive feel. I really feel natty is heading in the right direction.

cookiecaper 15y ago

Windows works only because everyone accommodates Windows. Just like any other OS, without vendor support you are not going to get very far on hardware compatibility. OS X severely limits the range of applicable hardware and Apple has enough muscle to get support for its models and configurations. While I agree generally that a lot of boneheaded moves occur on the Linux desktop (like Pidgin->Empathy), I don't think berating hardware support for not being equivalent to Windows is fair. Also, it's usually wrong; I have always had to install drivers every time I have installed Windows in the last five years, but I have only had to install drivers in Linux on a few occasions (MadWifi back before ath9k was around, Broadcom wireless on a friend's Dell laptop, uvcvideo before it was included in the kernel).