8 ms·

Meh, for all of Linux's minor inconveniences it works pretty damn well and the freedom to not deal with MS and Apple's bullshit is a pretty big win.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
That's subjective. There are deeply ingrained paradigms on Linux that infuriate me to the point that, thus far, I'm more willing to put up with MS's bullshit than I am with Linux Desktop's.
- ravar 5y ago
  Ditch the Desktop, embrace i3.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Even if I liked tiling wms and keyboard-only GUI that wouldn't actually fix many of the issues I have with Linux Desktop. The issues have to do with the multitude of disparately developed complex systems that are kludged together under the hood.
  - jagger27 5y ago
    Or Sway, which is more or less i3-upon-Wayland.
- jmholla 5y ago
  I'm curious what those are. If they're around the UI, I've found Cinnamon is a really good approximation.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    I'm already getting downvotes just for mentioning the things I've already mentioned. Unfortunately this is the common reaction whenever anyone brings up having problems with the way Linux Desktop does things. It's apparently ok to complain about lacking hardware support because that's a problem people can dismiss easily with "just buy different hardware", but if you say something like you don't want to use Linux because you think package management is a stupid way to manage applications then people just want you to shut up.
    - arepublicadoceu 5y ago
      > but if you say something like you don't want to use Linux because you think package management is a stupid way to manage applications then people just want you to shut up. In my experience people respond better when you actually explain and provides arguments to why you think “package management is a stupid way to manage applications” and not simply say this blanket statement. For instance, I believe that *not* having a package system is a stupid way to manage applications because: - you have to trust many more parties than a single repository; - you incentivize people to do unsafe things like running downloaded exes from sites; - now you need to also trust that no one tampered with the websites and have to manually checksum and verify authenticity of each application whereas a good package manager should do this for you; - Removing applications without package managers is a worse experience. Now I would love to hear your arguments and, maybe, change my mind.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        > In my experience people respond better when you actually explain and provides arguments to why you think “package management is a stupid way to manage applications” and not simply say this blanket statement. I have done this many times on HN, and it almost universally results in downvoting. > Now I would love to hear your arguments and, maybe, change my mind. Fine, whatever. I don't need the fake internet points. Let me start by saying my complaints here are specifically in regards to the way Linux packages, repos, and managers work to avoid someone from Haiku showing up to tell me I'm wrong: - Repos are no better than walled gardens except that they are typically maintained by unpaid third parties - Said unpaid third parties sometimes introduce bugs or arbitrary changes to the software - You can't install applications to different disks or have multiple versions of the same application - Copying applications from one computer to another is massively complicated because most package managers never consider this use case at all - Package managers encourage the kind of interdependency hell and reliance on fixed paths that makes them necessary in the first place - The proliferation of package formats and package managers has made packaging binaries for Linux an incredible pain in the ass To address your points specifically: > - you have to trust many more parties than a single repository; This is true even in the repo world. You have to trust the developer of the application and the maintainer of the package for that repo at the very least. There is no reason someone cannot curate a repository of software that is not managed by and tied to a package manager and, in fact, there are many of these to choose from. > - you incentivize people to do unsafe things like running downloaded exes from sites; Yes, but I think that speaks to a failure of non-mobile OSs to implement proper application sandboxing once the internet became the dominant distribution medium for applications. I also think this threat is given far too much weight in comparison to being constrained in your choice of software. > - now you need to also trust that no one tampered with the websites and have to manually checksum and verify authenticity of each application whereas a good package manager should do this for you; Yes. Again, I don't think this is a big deal, especially when compared to restricting my choice in software. The thing I think makes personal computers valuable is that people can install pretty much whatever they want, make their own stuff, and easily pass it around. Package management and repos overcomplicates this. > - Removing applications without package managers is a worse experience. Only under "installer/uninstaller" paradigms. "Portable Applications" in Windows, or Application Bundles on Mac or NeXT, or the original Macintosh's single-file applications, or RiscOS AppDirs, or even DOS's buncha-files-ina-folder paradigm make removing an application as simple as deleting a single object. Not to mention they make copying or moving applications, or running them on different media, as trivial as any file operation. I probably won't change your mind as a lot of this is subjective, equally your arguments do not sway me. Suffice it to say, the Linux community agrees with you, and that is part of the reason I don't want to use Linux.
  - snuser 5y ago
    My system76 laptop (lemp10) has crashed, bugged out, failed to wake from sleep, fully frozen, and just outright failed more often than windows10 ever has for me which is also less than any of my work macbook's have either linux is a nice operating system and the community developed aspect is neat but be real

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

That's subjective. There are deeply ingrained paradigms on Linux that infuriate me to the point that, thus far, I'm more willing to put up with MS's bullshit than I am with Linux Desktop's.

ravar 5y ago
Ditch the Desktop, embrace i3.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Even if I liked tiling wms and keyboard-only GUI that wouldn't actually fix many of the issues I have with Linux Desktop. The issues have to do with the multitude of disparately developed complex systems that are kludged together under the hood.
- jagger27 5y ago
  Or Sway, which is more or less i3-upon-Wayland.
jmholla 5y ago
I'm curious what those are. If they're around the UI, I've found Cinnamon is a really good approximation.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  I'm already getting downvotes just for mentioning the things I've already mentioned. Unfortunately this is the common reaction whenever anyone brings up having problems with the way Linux Desktop does things. It's apparently ok to complain about lacking hardware support because that's a problem people can dismiss easily with "just buy different hardware", but if you say something like you don't want to use Linux because you think package management is a stupid way to manage applications then people just want you to shut up.
  - arepublicadoceu 5y ago
    > but if you say something like you don't want to use Linux because you think package management is a stupid way to manage applications then people just want you to shut up. In my experience people respond better when you actually explain and provides arguments to why you think “package management is a stupid way to manage applications” and not simply say this blanket statement. For instance, I believe that *not* having a package system is a stupid way to manage applications because: - you have to trust many more parties than a single repository; - you incentivize people to do unsafe things like running downloaded exes from sites; - now you need to also trust that no one tampered with the websites and have to manually checksum and verify authenticity of each application whereas a good package manager should do this for you; - Removing applications without package managers is a worse experience. Now I would love to hear your arguments and, maybe, change my mind.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      > In my experience people respond better when you actually explain and provides arguments to why you think “package management is a stupid way to manage applications” and not simply say this blanket statement. I have done this many times on HN, and it almost universally results in downvoting. > Now I would love to hear your arguments and, maybe, change my mind. Fine, whatever. I don't need the fake internet points. Let me start by saying my complaints here are specifically in regards to the way Linux packages, repos, and managers work to avoid someone from Haiku showing up to tell me I'm wrong: - Repos are no better than walled gardens except that they are typically maintained by unpaid third parties - Said unpaid third parties sometimes introduce bugs or arbitrary changes to the software - You can't install applications to different disks or have multiple versions of the same application - Copying applications from one computer to another is massively complicated because most package managers never consider this use case at all - Package managers encourage the kind of interdependency hell and reliance on fixed paths that makes them necessary in the first place - The proliferation of package formats and package managers has made packaging binaries for Linux an incredible pain in the ass To address your points specifically: > - you have to trust many more parties than a single repository; This is true even in the repo world. You have to trust the developer of the application and the maintainer of the package for that repo at the very least. There is no reason someone cannot curate a repository of software that is not managed by and tied to a package manager and, in fact, there are many of these to choose from. > - you incentivize people to do unsafe things like running downloaded exes from sites; Yes, but I think that speaks to a failure of non-mobile OSs to implement proper application sandboxing once the internet became the dominant distribution medium for applications. I also think this threat is given far too much weight in comparison to being constrained in your choice of software. > - now you need to also trust that no one tampered with the websites and have to manually checksum and verify authenticity of each application whereas a good package manager should do this for you; Yes. Again, I don't think this is a big deal, especially when compared to restricting my choice in software. The thing I think makes personal computers valuable is that people can install pretty much whatever they want, make their own stuff, and easily pass it around. Package management and repos overcomplicates this. > - Removing applications without package managers is a worse experience. Only under "installer/uninstaller" paradigms. "Portable Applications" in Windows, or Application Bundles on Mac or NeXT, or the original Macintosh's single-file applications, or RiscOS AppDirs, or even DOS's buncha-files-ina-folder paradigm make removing an application as simple as deleting a single object. Not to mention they make copying or moving applications, or running them on different media, as trivial as any file operation. I probably won't change your mind as a lot of this is subjective, equally your arguments do not sway me. Suffice it to say, the Linux community agrees with you, and that is part of the reason I don't want to use Linux.
- snuser 5y ago
  My system76 laptop (lemp10) has crashed, bugged out, failed to wake from sleep, fully frozen, and just outright failed more often than windows10 ever has for me which is also less than any of my work macbook's have either linux is a nice operating system and the community developed aspect is neat but be real