7 ms·

I agree with this. It's hard to engage with people like GP saying things like 'the year of the Linux desktop will never happen', as they are using the term to e

by Zhyl 5y ago

I agree with this. It's hard to engage with people like GP saying things like 'the year of the Linux desktop will never happen', as they are using the term to essentially dismiss Linux as a platform, however in order to counter it or to highlight the progress that has been made, you are effectively having to sidestep bad-faith framing of the issue. I don't think GP was universally dismissing Linux in the way that it is normally used (there are plenty of better examples in this thread, though), but it is similarly an inflammatory comment to make that detracts from proper discussion.

simonh 5y ago
>they are using the term to essentially dismiss Linux as a platform The original framing of 'year of the Linux desktop' from back in the 90s was predicated on the assumption that desktop OSes were mature, that Desktop Linux would soon catch up in usability with the proprietary ones, and then free would win. It was the precursor to Google's "open always wins" mantra with Android. That is almost certainly never going to happen, and it's fine. The Linux desktop scene is very mature at this point, and we're all the better for it being there as a developer, sysadmin and hobbyist playground. If the traditional GNOME, KDE, xfce, etc style Linux desktop never becomes a mainstream option for high street users that's fine and it's not dismissive. It's just recognising the reality, after well over 20 years.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  One of the things I learned watching decades of development of computing is to never say never. Things like "the laptop I bought just a couple of years ago is not supported by the most recent version of Windows" might seem insignificant now, but in the hindsight it's one these little things that influence global changes and future trends.
- Zhyl 5y ago
  I think there is a difference between recognising current reality and trying to snub something out of hand. I find those that are doing an honest appraisal of the current situation usually won't use the phrase in either a positive or a negative sense.
  - filmgirlcw 5y ago
    But again, I’m not snubbing anything out of hand. If it is controversial to say that regardless of kernel, successful consumer operating systems require billions of dollars of investment, I’ll own that. But that’s being dismissive. That’s being a realist and responding to the nature of the article posted, which in my opinion was a lot of recycled from 2006 talking points that are still getting clicks and discussion like it’s fucking Slashdot or something. OS wars and text editor wars are eternal, I realize. But my response was to the article, not snubbing or even impugning the very hard and very impressive work that has happened over the last 30 years with Linux. Again, I think there are some really valid reasons to move to Linux. I don’t think this article was a good example.
    - Zhyl 5y ago
      I think your responses to it being a very flannely, clickbaity article without much substance are fair, but I find that responding to the article by making sweeping statements isn't refuting the material of the article - it's making an appeal to authority where the authority is just the fact that Linux is bad on desktop. >Again, I think there are some really valid reasons to move to Linux. I don’t think this article was a good example. I can agree with that. I definitely wouldn't be sending this article to anyone to convince them...
md8z 5y ago
As someone who has done a lot of hacking with Linux as a desktop platform, one would be absolutely right to dismiss it. The desktop platforms on Linux are still heavily fragmented and in some ways are still decades behind Windows/Mac. The existence of a better compatibility layer to run Windows games doesn't really change this fundamental flaw. I personally don't think it will ever be fixed because this fragmentation seems to be the whole reason why people want to use Linux on a desktop. That's what I personally would say is meant by "the year of the Linux desktop will never happen". To put it another way, It's not like the existence of some Steam games is going to suddenly make it so you can go into a Walmart and buy a machine with Arch or Slackware preinstalled on it.
- Zhyl 5y ago
  But what of the Steam deck? If it sells well enough then you will absolutely be buying a machine with Arch pre-installed on it from Walmart. A big 'if', and not currently the case, but also not as impossible as commentators such as yourself would suggest.
  - md8z 5y ago
    I'm not sure what that has to do with the desktop. AFAIK the steam deck is a handheld gaming device similar to a Nintendo Switch, not a desktop PC. It seems about as related to desktop Linux as google stadia, i.e. not much. When I say machine with Arch I mean a desktop/laptop with just the stock Arch on it. Edit: And if you really want to be pedantic, ChromeOS is technically Gentoo underneath the covers, but the only reason it works for its target use cases is because it's heavily modified with some proprietary components. Getting one of those is really different from the experience you would have with trying to put upstream Gentoo on a laptop.
    - Zhyl 5y ago
      >AFAIK the steam deck is a handheld gaming device similar to a Nintendo Switch, not a desktop PC It is essentially a fully fledged desktop PC in a handheld form factor [0]. It is identical architecturally to a desktop PC with integrated controller running Arch-based Steam OS 3.0. >When I say machine with Arch I mean a desktop/laptop with just the stock Arch on it. Which is fair, but not what I asked. [0] https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/steam-deck https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/steam-deck
filmgirlcw 5y ago
I mean, I’m not dismissing Linux though. I am dismissing the idea that an operating system not funded by a trillion dollar company can make inroads with many , many end users, yes, that’s true (Google, Microsoft, Apple are all in that category), but I’m not dismissing Linux or the massive impact it has had. The Linux kernel is one of the singularly most disruptive forces in computing of the last 30 years. I think there is an argument to be made that it is the most disruptive. But Linux on the desktop, sorry. It’s not going to happen. And I just don’t consider Chrome OS Linux any more than I consider iOS Unix. I’ll probably still call macOS Unix (tho the Unixy bits are getting eroded with every release), but I personally don’t consider the kernel the operating system in this way, I just don't. I actually think the success of Chrome OS and macOS show what is necessary to make a successful desktop operating system: billions of dollars in investment. Not millions. Not tens of millions. Billions. It isn’t about the kernel. It’s about everything else. My TV has a Linux kernel inside it. My coffee maker is running some variant of Linux or Busybox or something. Again, the Linux kernel is one of the most disruptive and important advancements in computing. But the article was about switching from Windows to Linux on the desktop. And I think there are plenty of valid reasons to switch. I don’t think that particular article is a good example of them — and I think debates about what desktop OS people want to use are inflammatory by nature.
- Zhyl 5y ago
  > I mean, I’m not dismissing Linux though. > But Linux on the desktop, sorry. It’s not going to happen. I mean this seems like a dismissal to me. I am specifically talking about the desktop. I don't think the impact that the Linux kernel has had on the server or mobile spaces is up for debate - as you say it's pretty massive. The issue I have is the certainty with which you can dismiss the viability of Linux desktop. I've seen you mention Proton, but I don't think I've seen you consider or weigh up whether you think that Proton will or will not have an impact on viability of Linux on the desktop. What about EAC and Battleye anti-cheat? The fact that in the last 10 years we've transitioned from Flash to HTML5 and other cross-platform codecs. I just can't see how you could wave all that off as 'sorry not going to happen'. Like, there has been improvement. There just has! (Going to use your own debating tactic there...). That isn't to say that Linux on the desktop is happening or that it has happened. I am saying that it could happen, and that is in stark contrast to how dismissive you are being about it.

by Zhyl 5y ago

simonh 5y ago

>they are using the term to essentially dismiss Linux as a platform The original framing of 'year of the Linux desktop' from back in the 90s was predicated on the assumption that desktop OSes were mature, that Desktop Linux would soon catch up in usability with the proprietary ones, and then free would win. It was the precursor to Google's "open always wins" mantra with Android. That is almost certainly never going to happen, and it's fine. The Linux desktop scene is very mature at this point, and we're all the better for it being there as a developer, sysadmin and hobbyist playground. If the traditional GNOME, KDE, xfce, etc style Linux desktop never becomes a mainstream option for high street users that's fine and it's not dismissive. It's just recognising the reality, after well over 20 years.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
One of the things I learned watching decades of development of computing is to never say never. Things like "the laptop I bought just a couple of years ago is not supported by the most recent version of Windows" might seem insignificant now, but in the hindsight it's one these little things that influence global changes and future trends.
Zhyl 5y ago
I think there is a difference between recognising current reality and trying to snub something out of hand. I find those that are doing an honest appraisal of the current situation usually won't use the phrase in either a positive or a negative sense.
- filmgirlcw 5y ago
  But again, I’m not snubbing anything out of hand. If it is controversial to say that regardless of kernel, successful consumer operating systems require billions of dollars of investment, I’ll own that. But that’s being dismissive. That’s being a realist and responding to the nature of the article posted, which in my opinion was a lot of recycled from 2006 talking points that are still getting clicks and discussion like it’s fucking Slashdot or something. OS wars and text editor wars are eternal, I realize. But my response was to the article, not snubbing or even impugning the very hard and very impressive work that has happened over the last 30 years with Linux. Again, I think there are some really valid reasons to move to Linux. I don’t think this article was a good example.
  - Zhyl 5y ago
    I think your responses to it being a very flannely, clickbaity article without much substance are fair, but I find that responding to the article by making sweeping statements isn't refuting the material of the article - it's making an appeal to authority where the authority is just the fact that Linux is bad on desktop. >Again, I think there are some really valid reasons to move to Linux. I don’t think this article was a good example. I can agree with that. I definitely wouldn't be sending this article to anyone to convince them...

md8z 5y ago

As someone who has done a lot of hacking with Linux as a desktop platform, one would be absolutely right to dismiss it. The desktop platforms on Linux are still heavily fragmented and in some ways are still decades behind Windows/Mac. The existence of a better compatibility layer to run Windows games doesn't really change this fundamental flaw. I personally don't think it will ever be fixed because this fragmentation seems to be the whole reason why people want to use Linux on a desktop. That's what I personally would say is meant by "the year of the Linux desktop will never happen". To put it another way, It's not like the existence of some Steam games is going to suddenly make it so you can go into a Walmart and buy a machine with Arch or Slackware preinstalled on it.

Zhyl 5y ago
But what of the Steam deck? If it sells well enough then you will absolutely be buying a machine with Arch pre-installed on it from Walmart. A big 'if', and not currently the case, but also not as impossible as commentators such as yourself would suggest.
- md8z 5y ago
  I'm not sure what that has to do with the desktop. AFAIK the steam deck is a handheld gaming device similar to a Nintendo Switch, not a desktop PC. It seems about as related to desktop Linux as google stadia, i.e. not much. When I say machine with Arch I mean a desktop/laptop with just the stock Arch on it. Edit: And if you really want to be pedantic, ChromeOS is technically Gentoo underneath the covers, but the only reason it works for its target use cases is because it's heavily modified with some proprietary components. Getting one of those is really different from the experience you would have with trying to put upstream Gentoo on a laptop.
  - Zhyl 5y ago
    >AFAIK the steam deck is a handheld gaming device similar to a Nintendo Switch, not a desktop PC It is essentially a fully fledged desktop PC in a handheld form factor [0]. It is identical architecturally to a desktop PC with integrated controller running Arch-based Steam OS 3.0. >When I say machine with Arch I mean a desktop/laptop with just the stock Arch on it. Which is fair, but not what I asked. [0] https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/steam-deck https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/steam-deck

filmgirlcw 5y ago

I mean, I’m not dismissing Linux though. I am dismissing the idea that an operating system not funded by a trillion dollar company can make inroads with many , many end users, yes, that’s true (Google, Microsoft, Apple are all in that category), but I’m not dismissing Linux or the massive impact it has had. The Linux kernel is one of the singularly most disruptive forces in computing of the last 30 years. I think there is an argument to be made that it is the most disruptive. But Linux on the desktop, sorry. It’s not going to happen. And I just don’t consider Chrome OS Linux any more than I consider iOS Unix. I’ll probably still call macOS Unix (tho the Unixy bits are getting eroded with every release), but I personally don’t consider the kernel the operating system in this way, I just don't. I actually think the success of Chrome OS and macOS show what is necessary to make a successful desktop operating system: billions of dollars in investment. Not millions. Not tens of millions. Billions. It isn’t about the kernel. It’s about everything else. My TV has a Linux kernel inside it. My coffee maker is running some variant of Linux or Busybox or something. Again, the Linux kernel is one of the most disruptive and important advancements in computing. But the article was about switching from Windows to Linux on the desktop. And I think there are plenty of valid reasons to switch. I don’t think that particular article is a good example of them — and I think debates about what desktop OS people want to use are inflammatory by nature.

Zhyl 5y ago
> I mean, I’m not dismissing Linux though. > But Linux on the desktop, sorry. It’s not going to happen. I mean this seems like a dismissal to me. I am specifically talking about the desktop. I don't think the impact that the Linux kernel has had on the server or mobile spaces is up for debate - as you say it's pretty massive. The issue I have is the certainty with which you can dismiss the viability of Linux desktop. I've seen you mention Proton, but I don't think I've seen you consider or weigh up whether you think that Proton will or will not have an impact on viability of Linux on the desktop. What about EAC and Battleye anti-cheat? The fact that in the last 10 years we've transitioned from Flash to HTML5 and other cross-platform codecs. I just can't see how you could wave all that off as 'sorry not going to happen'. Like, there has been improvement. There just has! (Going to use your own debating tactic there...). That isn't to say that Linux on the desktop is happening or that it has happened. I am saying that it could happen, and that is in stark contrast to how dismissive you are being about it.