4 ms·

> when I come out and say the experience sucks and the very next reply is "actually it is great" it is hard not to read that as evangelism. Let's review. You s

> when I come out and say the experience sucks and the very next reply is "actually it is great" it is hard not to read that as evangelism. Let's review. You said that the Linux desktop experience is "awful" and provided no evidence whatsoever for your claim. The reply to you, "It's actually pretty great" at least provided a couple of points in favor of believing that the situation on the Linux desktop is good, at least for some people. From where I'm standing you're the evangelist, insisting that their own picture of how a Linux desktop should be architected is the only good way with no evidence. Claiming that the way things are currently done is garbage, with no real evidence. I think it's totally unfair for you to claim that you were just giving your opinion and then had other people walk all over you and "tell you what you do and don't want in an OS". Rather, what people in this thread have been trying to get across (I think) is that we like Linux the way it is. We think it's "pretty great". We don't want to see it change because a bunch of tech "evangelists" (if you'll pardon the expression) think static linking and AppImages are a much better way to do things. Sure at the end of the day that's "subjective" (meaning it's the result of us finding certain things valuable that not everyone else finds valuable), but, well, so are any alternative conceptions of the Linux desktop.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
If you want evidence then all you need to look at is the extremely low adoption rate. Even developers often prefer MacOS. My statement about Linux's awfulness included an opinion qualifying phrase, theirs did not. Why do I need evidence for a subjective opinion? Besides, I know from experience that if I air my grievances with the Linux Desktop an army will come out of the woodwork to tell me how wrong I am, attacking my intellect, my use-cases, the very facts of my experiences, etc. If you need evidence I suggest you do even the tiniest amount of looking at how negative opinions of Linux Desktop are treated in forums. I, for one, am not even remotely surprised to be downvoted steadily every time I express them. > Rather, what people in this thread have been trying to get across (I think) is that we like Linux the way it is. And that is fine, I don't want to harass people who use and like Linux any more than I want to be harassed for not using. What I want is to not have to keep having the same arguments over and over about why I feel the way I do about it, because the community has made it clear they don't care. > We think it's "pretty great". IF parent had said "I disagree, I think it is pretty great" we wouldn't be having this conversation.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > If you need evidence I suggest you do even the tiniest amount of looking at how negative opinions of Linux Desktop are treated in forums. Your opinion about this mythical Linux Desktop was not the reason why I replied to your post. I replied to your opinion on the packaging model. It is great and in my original post I explained why I think so. It's a highly successful model. Just look at the huge number of platforms with app stores these days. It's fundamentally the same thing. Apple is notorious for enforcing quality control on apps and forcing them to integrate with their wider ecosystem. Linux invented it with software repositories and automatic package managers and it's even more open compared to modern solutions.
- bscphil 5y ago
  > My statement about Linux's awfulness included an opinion qualifying phrase, theirs did not. Why do I need evidence for a subjective opinion? I disagree. I do not read this statement as containing an opinion qualifying phrase about whether the Linux Desktop experience is awful, the opinion being qualified here is that the repo/package manager model is the root cause of it. > As far as I am concerned the whole repo/package manager model is the root cause of most of the reasons the Linux Desktop experience is as awful as it is. You appear, in this statement at least, to just take "the Linux Desktop experience is ... awful" as an underlying objective fact that everyone should just accept, and we're all debating the reason for it. I don't accept it.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

If you want evidence then all you need to look at is the extremely low adoption rate. Even developers often prefer MacOS. My statement about Linux's awfulness included an opinion qualifying phrase, theirs did not. Why do I need evidence for a subjective opinion? Besides, I know from experience that if I air my grievances with the Linux Desktop an army will come out of the woodwork to tell me how wrong I am, attacking my intellect, my use-cases, the very facts of my experiences, etc. If you need evidence I suggest you do even the tiniest amount of looking at how negative opinions of Linux Desktop are treated in forums. I, for one, am not even remotely surprised to be downvoted steadily every time I express them. > Rather, what people in this thread have been trying to get across (I think) is that we like Linux the way it is. And that is fine, I don't want to harass people who use and like Linux any more than I want to be harassed for not using. What I want is to not have to keep having the same arguments over and over about why I feel the way I do about it, because the community has made it clear they don't care. > We think it's "pretty great". IF parent had said "I disagree, I think it is pretty great" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> If you need evidence I suggest you do even the tiniest amount of looking at how negative opinions of Linux Desktop are treated in forums. Your opinion about this mythical Linux Desktop was not the reason why I replied to your post. I replied to your opinion on the packaging model. It is great and in my original post I explained why I think so. It's a highly successful model. Just look at the huge number of platforms with app stores these days. It's fundamentally the same thing. Apple is notorious for enforcing quality control on apps and forcing them to integrate with their wider ecosystem. Linux invented it with software repositories and automatic package managers and it's even more open compared to modern solutions.
bscphil 5y ago
> My statement about Linux's awfulness included an opinion qualifying phrase, theirs did not. Why do I need evidence for a subjective opinion? I disagree. I do not read this statement as containing an opinion qualifying phrase about whether the Linux Desktop experience is awful, the opinion being qualified here is that the repo/package manager model is the root cause of it. > As far as I am concerned the whole repo/package manager model is the root cause of most of the reasons the Linux Desktop experience is as awful as it is. You appear, in this statement at least, to just take "the Linux Desktop experience is ... awful" as an underlying objective fact that everyone should just accept, and we're all debating the reason for it. I don't accept it.