7 ms·

> Honestly, I don't know why so many people, especially developers still use Windows. A combination of comfort in familiarity and lack of viable alternatives.

> Honestly, I don't know why so many people, especially developers still use Windows. A combination of comfort in familiarity and lack of viable alternatives. Not everyone has the money to buy an expensive Mac. With Linux, you potentially end up working for the OS rather than the OS working for you, no matter how far Linux on the desktop has come. See the latest video from Linus Tech Tips on Linux, for example.

emaro 5y ago
OS works for you > you work for the OS > OS works you
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Russian reversal?
ulzeraj 5y ago
> you potentially end up working for the OS rather than the OS working for you The irony is that in using Windows 10 and 11 you are actually generating revenue to MS from their data collection and ads integrated within the core OS. You are working for the OS. And it gets better when you realize this is a software you had to purchase to use.
pxc 5y ago
> See the latest video from Linus Tech Tips on Linux, for example. lol. The OS told Linus exactly what it would do, warned him it might not be what he intended in ALL CAPS, and made him type a full sentence (with an exclamation point!) confirming that it was really what he wanted. And then it did exactly what it told him it would do. That there was a dependency conflict for a short time there (less than an hour) is a legitimate annoyance. But developers should not be troubled by the fact that an operating system is actually obedient, or that its warnings actually mean something.
- ayushnix 5y ago
  From the point of view of an absolute beginner, Linus shouldn't even be on a terminal. The PopOS shop should've worked. If it didn't work, a package installation shouldn't have asked him to nuke his GUI in huge wall of text, it should've rejected him (which is what a sensible package manager would do). But sure, let's ignore the horrible UX and blame a newbie for not being experienced with how a terminal works.
  - ayushnix 5y ago
    Looks like the apt developers were sensible enough to fix this problem rather than blaming the user for not reading a wall of text. https://twitter.com/JulianKlode/status/1461026051405058048 https://twitter.com/JulianKlode/status/1461026051405058048
    - pxc 5y ago
      Kind of. The apt developers have taken steps to make it harder to remove essential and protected packages, which is a good idea. It would also be a good idea to make the warnings emit red text, some of it flashing, and to replace any override prompt with a more explicit one. It would also, in my opinion, be good to have apt finally start removing orphaned dependencies by default (like many, if not most, package managers already do), so you don't have that big list of orphaned deps at the top. But on Debian, Ubuntu, and other Debian-based distros, the desktop environment is neither protected nor essential, so this prompt or error message won't even come up if a dependency conflict requires removing the DE in order to satisfy the dependencies of some new app. > a package installation shouldn't have asked him to nuke his GUI in huge wall of text, it should've rejected him Experience helps, but it doesn't take an expert to tell that removing 90 packages in order to install 1 application doesn't seem normal. (Occasionally one does see things like that during major dist-upgrades.) The mere fact of the wall of text itself WAS a huge warning. A package manager should offer to do whatever is required to complete the operation you've asked of it, as long as it won't brick your system (render it unrecoverable without recourse to external media or devices, or render the package manager itself inoperable). (If what you've asked it to do is sufficiently explicit, maybe it should even remove itself.) It should also give you the resources (as apt does, through `apt show`) to inspect each package marked for removal and installation, in case you don't know what they are. One of the reasons I like Unix-like operating systems (aside from macOS, which violates this principle) is that they don't waste your time with tons of warnings and locks and gates that don't actually mean anything, or which prevent you from doing things that are in fact harmless and unlikely to cause you any trouble. It's fine for distros like Pop!_OS to extend the notion of ‘bricking’ the system to include removing the desktop environment. But I'm not very interested in running systems which are designed to cater to people who want to use them (and use them recklessly, at that) without understanding them at the expense of users who are willing to learn how they work.
godshatter 5y ago
What happened to Linus was sort of an extreme case. He has a complicated set of hardware and the bug that he ran into that didn't let him install steam shouldn't have been there in the first place. The fact that he tried to force it to do what he wanted was a natural reaction, and apt wasn't lying when it told him it wouldn't work. Just bad luck all around, and evidence of how linux has pitfalls. This coming from someone who has used one distro or another as their daily driver since around 2002, I think. Most people aren't going to run into this. The problem he ran into installing steam was only a problem for a short time, and I'm pretty sure the devs aren't going to allow that one to happen again any time soon. For your average non-power user, a desktop install will go fine, the steam install will go fine, and their favorite games will have a good chance of working properly. Obviously you can live happily in linux since I've been doing it successfully for a couple of decades. Once you get it set up to your liking, it's generally smooth sailing. Depending on your individual circumstances, though, that can be a chore, I admit. I also remember the pains I went through learning DOS and it's quirks, Windows 3.1 and it's quirks, Windows 95 and plug and play, etc. Life in Windows hasn't been a cakewalk either. Things generally work a lot better now, but I shudder thinking about having to download a driver from somewhere, deal with the extra crap they throw in, run through it's installation program, etc. Don't get me started on trying to run something not bought from a company, but downloaded from a website somewhere. Yikes. Or just dealing with how MS breaks their own rules. Click on any non-MS program once, and it takes your click. Click on anything built by MS, and it just gives it focus and you have to click again to get it to do what you wanted to the first time. Windows is user-hostile if you don't walk their walk. Linux is user-friendly if you are open to the idea that a bunch of software built by well-meaning developers that do their own thing might not work as smoothly as something built from the ground up by a corporation. I can't recommend linux to just anyone, even today, but for me dealing with user-hostile problems thrown at me by a corporation is much worse than trying to figure out a workflow that will make these tools built by separate groups work together. Or un-fsck whatever stupid thing I managed to do to myself today by trying to be fancy.
- ayushnix 5y ago
  > ... and the bug that he ran into that didn't let him install steam shouldn't have been there in the first place. Exactly. If an operating system is offering a GUI for installing software, it should work. If it isn't working, it takes an extreme amount of bias to blame the user instead of the operating system. > Windows is user-hostile if you don't walk their walk. Windows 10 is user hostile only if the user in question is sensible enough to understand that an operating system can be user hostile. News flash, most people on Earth who use a laptop or a desktop couldn't tell the difference between Firefox and Edge and why they might wanna use one over the other. For such people, who are used to double clicking on exe files and using them without issues, Linux would be incredibly user hostile. You just need to look at things from the perspective of a beginner, not yourself. > ... but for me dealing with user-hostile problems thrown at me by a corporation is much worse Which is why I've been using Linux as my daily driver for more than 6 years now, but I would never recommend anyone to use it, unless I want to see them in pain.

emaro 5y ago

OS works for you > you work for the OS > OS works you

denton-scratch 5y ago
Russian reversal?

ulzeraj 5y ago

> you potentially end up working for the OS rather than the OS working for you The irony is that in using Windows 10 and 11 you are actually generating revenue to MS from their data collection and ads integrated within the core OS. You are working for the OS. And it gets better when you realize this is a software you had to purchase to use.

pxc 5y ago

> See the latest video from Linus Tech Tips on Linux, for example. lol. The OS told Linus exactly what it would do, warned him it might not be what he intended in ALL CAPS, and made him type a full sentence (with an exclamation point!) confirming that it was really what he wanted. And then it did exactly what it told him it would do. That there was a dependency conflict for a short time there (less than an hour) is a legitimate annoyance. But developers should not be troubled by the fact that an operating system is actually obedient, or that its warnings actually mean something.

ayushnix 5y ago
From the point of view of an absolute beginner, Linus shouldn't even be on a terminal. The PopOS shop should've worked. If it didn't work, a package installation shouldn't have asked him to nuke his GUI in huge wall of text, it should've rejected him (which is what a sensible package manager would do). But sure, let's ignore the horrible UX and blame a newbie for not being experienced with how a terminal works.
- ayushnix 5y ago
  Looks like the apt developers were sensible enough to fix this problem rather than blaming the user for not reading a wall of text. https://twitter.com/JulianKlode/status/1461026051405058048 https://twitter.com/JulianKlode/status/1461026051405058048
  - pxc 5y ago
    Kind of. The apt developers have taken steps to make it harder to remove essential and protected packages, which is a good idea. It would also be a good idea to make the warnings emit red text, some of it flashing, and to replace any override prompt with a more explicit one. It would also, in my opinion, be good to have apt finally start removing orphaned dependencies by default (like many, if not most, package managers already do), so you don't have that big list of orphaned deps at the top. But on Debian, Ubuntu, and other Debian-based distros, the desktop environment is neither protected nor essential, so this prompt or error message won't even come up if a dependency conflict requires removing the DE in order to satisfy the dependencies of some new app. > a package installation shouldn't have asked him to nuke his GUI in huge wall of text, it should've rejected him Experience helps, but it doesn't take an expert to tell that removing 90 packages in order to install 1 application doesn't seem normal. (Occasionally one does see things like that during major dist-upgrades.) The mere fact of the wall of text itself WAS a huge warning. A package manager should offer to do whatever is required to complete the operation you've asked of it, as long as it won't brick your system (render it unrecoverable without recourse to external media or devices, or render the package manager itself inoperable). (If what you've asked it to do is sufficiently explicit, maybe it should even remove itself.) It should also give you the resources (as apt does, through `apt show`) to inspect each package marked for removal and installation, in case you don't know what they are. One of the reasons I like Unix-like operating systems (aside from macOS, which violates this principle) is that they don't waste your time with tons of warnings and locks and gates that don't actually mean anything, or which prevent you from doing things that are in fact harmless and unlikely to cause you any trouble. It's fine for distros like Pop!_OS to extend the notion of ‘bricking’ the system to include removing the desktop environment. But I'm not very interested in running systems which are designed to cater to people who want to use them (and use them recklessly, at that) without understanding them at the expense of users who are willing to learn how they work.

godshatter 5y ago

What happened to Linus was sort of an extreme case. He has a complicated set of hardware and the bug that he ran into that didn't let him install steam shouldn't have been there in the first place. The fact that he tried to force it to do what he wanted was a natural reaction, and apt wasn't lying when it told him it wouldn't work. Just bad luck all around, and evidence of how linux has pitfalls. This coming from someone who has used one distro or another as their daily driver since around 2002, I think. Most people aren't going to run into this. The problem he ran into installing steam was only a problem for a short time, and I'm pretty sure the devs aren't going to allow that one to happen again any time soon. For your average non-power user, a desktop install will go fine, the steam install will go fine, and their favorite games will have a good chance of working properly. Obviously you can live happily in linux since I've been doing it successfully for a couple of decades. Once you get it set up to your liking, it's generally smooth sailing. Depending on your individual circumstances, though, that can be a chore, I admit. I also remember the pains I went through learning DOS and it's quirks, Windows 3.1 and it's quirks, Windows 95 and plug and play, etc. Life in Windows hasn't been a cakewalk either. Things generally work a lot better now, but I shudder thinking about having to download a driver from somewhere, deal with the extra crap they throw in, run through it's installation program, etc. Don't get me started on trying to run something not bought from a company, but downloaded from a website somewhere. Yikes. Or just dealing with how MS breaks their own rules. Click on any non-MS program once, and it takes your click. Click on anything built by MS, and it just gives it focus and you have to click again to get it to do what you wanted to the first time. Windows is user-hostile if you don't walk their walk. Linux is user-friendly if you are open to the idea that a bunch of software built by well-meaning developers that do their own thing might not work as smoothly as something built from the ground up by a corporation. I can't recommend linux to just anyone, even today, but for me dealing with user-hostile problems thrown at me by a corporation is much worse than trying to figure out a workflow that will make these tools built by separate groups work together. Or un-fsck whatever stupid thing I managed to do to myself today by trying to be fancy.

ayushnix 5y ago
> ... and the bug that he ran into that didn't let him install steam shouldn't have been there in the first place. Exactly. If an operating system is offering a GUI for installing software, it should work. If it isn't working, it takes an extreme amount of bias to blame the user instead of the operating system. > Windows is user-hostile if you don't walk their walk. Windows 10 is user hostile only if the user in question is sensible enough to understand that an operating system can be user hostile. News flash, most people on Earth who use a laptop or a desktop couldn't tell the difference between Firefox and Edge and why they might wanna use one over the other. For such people, who are used to double clicking on exe files and using them without issues, Linux would be incredibly user hostile. You just need to look at things from the perspective of a beginner, not yourself. > ... but for me dealing with user-hostile problems thrown at me by a corporation is much worse Which is why I've been using Linux as my daily driver for more than 6 years now, but I would never recommend anyone to use it, unless I want to see them in pain.