3 ms·

> "One of the most enticing parts of Linux is choice. Even down to the distribution (or distro) you'd prefer to use, be it Ubuntu, Arch, or Manjaro. There's a d

by ijidak 5y ago

> "One of the most enticing parts of Linux is choice. Even down to the distribution (or distro) you'd prefer to use, be it Ubuntu, Arch, or Manjaro. There's a distro for everyone and even after choosing one, it's possible to customize it to your heart's content." The blessing and the curse of Linux. All that selection is not helpful if you just need to get work done. Which is why most use macOS or Windows. Infinite flexibility also means infinite time researching and making choices. Granted, my experience is from 15+ years ago, but I remember wanting to play an MP3 on my new Linux desktop. Most articles explained, with a straight face, that I "just" needed to re-compile my OS to get audio output. I realized then, that this would not be a productive way to get serious work done day-to-day. I've been hesitant to go back since. In my opinion, to get the majority of developers to switch to desktop Linux, it would need to become an OS that most of today's proponents will dislike. It would need to have a dominant desktop distribution -- 60%+ market share of Linux installs -- so that most tutorials, software installations, and configuration options are optimized for it. It would need to eliminate 80% of the choices. It would need to handle 99% of desktop use cases with zero configuration. And finally, any configuration that is needed would need to be simple settings that can be configured via a GUI, with configuration via shell there only for those who want it. Note: The above numbers are just guesses. But hopefully they illustrate the point. The average knowledge worker, just needs to get work done. And that tends to trump infinite flexibility and openness. Until that is done, I fear desktop Linux will remain an OS for OS hobbyists. I love the idea of switching to Linux, but have a really hard time jumping back into the rabbit hole.

encryptluks2 5y ago
Windows and Mac has flexibility too. You could pay for software on Windows/Mac and find it doesn't meet your needs. Often many software vendors for Windows end up selling something akin to spyware. Really what it comes down to is what distro you choose, and audio hasn't been an issue for probably 10 years. Recent changes with Pulse Audio and then Pipewire makes audio "just work". You have to also remember that both Mac and Windows don't come without pain points and often I see people that are "set in their ways" simply because they don't like change, not because Windows/Mac makes things inherently easier. I personally find at this point Linux to be easier to get things done quickly. For example, with Windows installing the OS and then multiple updates, then re-configuring settings to disable telemetry, online account notifications, driver update shenanigans where Windows reverts drivers, etc takes far longer. Once you have a good dotfile setup on Linux things are a breeze. Windows unattended setups are just as frustrating. With Linux, everything is scriptable in a more common sense fashion from my experience. With Windows, depending on the tool you have to use Powershell, VBScript, Batch, or some half-baked EXE to get things done.
chungy 5y ago
> Granted, my experience is from 15+ years ago, but I remember wanting to play an MP3 on my new Linux desktop. Most articles explained, with a straight face, that I "just" needed to re-compile my OS to get audio output. Honestly, unless you're talking about the early 1990s, this should never have been your experience. Ever. > It would need to have a dominant desktop distribution -- 60%+ market share of Linux installs Ubuntu. > It would need to eliminate 80% of the choices. It would need to handle 99% of desktop use cases with zero configuration. A driving philosophy of GNOME, which Ubuntu uses by default. > And finally, any configuration that is needed would need to be simple settings that can be configured via a GUI, with configuration via shell there only for those who want it. Difficult to tell what's fully meant here, but since both Mac and Windows fail spectacularly at this requirement too, I imagine it's probably not actually that big of a deal.
- GuestHNUser 5y ago
  >> And finally, any configuration that is needed would need to be simple settings that can be configured via a GUI, with configuration via shell there only for those who want it. >Difficult to tell what's fully meant here, but since both Mac and Windows fail spectacularly at this requirement too, I imagine it's probably not actually that big of a deal. Not OP, but I use MacOS, Windows, and Linux (Debian & Fedora based) frequently. While finding how to configure obscure things is not intuitive for any OS, Linux faces the frustrating problem that different distributions require different solutions. Thus, Linux doesn't get the luxury of an answer that consistently works on all distributions and desktop environments. Mac and Windows can get pretty ugly (cough especially Windows), but I find that solutions are much quicker to find online comparatively. This doesn't even touch on the pains of NVIDIA graphics cards on Linux, but I digress.
nopenopenopeno 5y ago
I agree with all your criticisms and am pleased to inform you that Ubuntu actually addresses all of them.
algolindo 5y ago
I completely agree. Linux users tend to be extremely tolerant of endless configuration and maintenance, and support for gimped software (no pun intended). Gimp is not a suitable replacement for photoshop, it's clunky in comparison. Libre Office inter op with another collaborator using docx files can lead to wonky formatting problems. Gaming is still clearly better on PC. There are constant little problems, like screen share drawing not being available on Slack for call participants running linux. My Manjaro VM was failing to update, and the feedback online is to fresh install and that Manjaro sometimes has trouble updating if you wait too long between updates. I've had many issues like this trying to get linux stable, and I agree with what you suggest that there needs to be "the distro". It's also frightening that so many solutions for linux problems involve entering obscure terminal commands found from stack overflow or somewhere. I want to be able to easily use my OS without hitting google all the time. Personally I have been having a great experience with Windows 10 + WSL2 ubuntu, and can even target and build against both platforms from VSCode. It's the best of both worlds.

by ijidak 5y ago

encryptluks2 5y ago

Windows and Mac has flexibility too. You could pay for software on Windows/Mac and find it doesn't meet your needs. Often many software vendors for Windows end up selling something akin to spyware. Really what it comes down to is what distro you choose, and audio hasn't been an issue for probably 10 years. Recent changes with Pulse Audio and then Pipewire makes audio "just work". You have to also remember that both Mac and Windows don't come without pain points and often I see people that are "set in their ways" simply because they don't like change, not because Windows/Mac makes things inherently easier. I personally find at this point Linux to be easier to get things done quickly. For example, with Windows installing the OS and then multiple updates, then re-configuring settings to disable telemetry, online account notifications, driver update shenanigans where Windows reverts drivers, etc takes far longer. Once you have a good dotfile setup on Linux things are a breeze. Windows unattended setups are just as frustrating. With Linux, everything is scriptable in a more common sense fashion from my experience. With Windows, depending on the tool you have to use Powershell, VBScript, Batch, or some half-baked EXE to get things done.

chungy 5y ago

> Granted, my experience is from 15+ years ago, but I remember wanting to play an MP3 on my new Linux desktop. Most articles explained, with a straight face, that I "just" needed to re-compile my OS to get audio output. Honestly, unless you're talking about the early 1990s, this should never have been your experience. Ever. > It would need to have a dominant desktop distribution -- 60%+ market share of Linux installs Ubuntu. > It would need to eliminate 80% of the choices. It would need to handle 99% of desktop use cases with zero configuration. A driving philosophy of GNOME, which Ubuntu uses by default. > And finally, any configuration that is needed would need to be simple settings that can be configured via a GUI, with configuration via shell there only for those who want it. Difficult to tell what's fully meant here, but since both Mac and Windows fail spectacularly at this requirement too, I imagine it's probably not actually that big of a deal.

GuestHNUser 5y ago
>> And finally, any configuration that is needed would need to be simple settings that can be configured via a GUI, with configuration via shell there only for those who want it. >Difficult to tell what's fully meant here, but since both Mac and Windows fail spectacularly at this requirement too, I imagine it's probably not actually that big of a deal. Not OP, but I use MacOS, Windows, and Linux (Debian & Fedora based) frequently. While finding how to configure obscure things is not intuitive for any OS, Linux faces the frustrating problem that different distributions require different solutions. Thus, Linux doesn't get the luxury of an answer that consistently works on all distributions and desktop environments. Mac and Windows can get pretty ugly (cough especially Windows), but I find that solutions are much quicker to find online comparatively. This doesn't even touch on the pains of NVIDIA graphics cards on Linux, but I digress.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago

I agree with all your criticisms and am pleased to inform you that Ubuntu actually addresses all of them.

algolindo 5y ago

I completely agree. Linux users tend to be extremely tolerant of endless configuration and maintenance, and support for gimped software (no pun intended). Gimp is not a suitable replacement for photoshop, it's clunky in comparison. Libre Office inter op with another collaborator using docx files can lead to wonky formatting problems. Gaming is still clearly better on PC. There are constant little problems, like screen share drawing not being available on Slack for call participants running linux. My Manjaro VM was failing to update, and the feedback online is to fresh install and that Manjaro sometimes has trouble updating if you wait too long between updates. I've had many issues like this trying to get linux stable, and I agree with what you suggest that there needs to be "the distro". It's also frightening that so many solutions for linux problems involve entering obscure terminal commands found from stack overflow or somewhere. I want to be able to easily use my OS without hitting google all the time. Personally I have been having a great experience with Windows 10 + WSL2 ubuntu, and can even target and build against both platforms from VSCode. It's the best of both worlds.