3 ms·

Main reasons why I am not using Linux on desktop are as follows: the complexity and broken-ness of audio and video drivers and frameworks, poor state of unified

by 127 15y ago

Main reasons why I am not using Linux on desktop are as follows: the complexity and broken-ness of audio and video drivers and frameworks, poor state of unified user interface. Poor state of backwards compatibility on the user experience, not on software necessarily. If everyone would have just stopped at KDE 3.5 and improved upon it I would have been happy. As an ecosystem, there are too many options and ways of doing things. Yet, there is no single obviously good one. Ubuntu ameliorates most of this. But... There's still the huge problem of support. Flash works much better on Windows. Games are made for Windows, not for Linux. Interfacing with Microsoft Office environment works better on Windows. Where Linux completely eviscerates Windows is on server and web development based on command line. New language and platform innovation. >However, even if Linux isn't particularly popular, it already delivers the most compelling desktop and laptop environment to those who bother installing it; in that sense, it is already the year of the Linux desktop This is simply incorrect. Only reason I would use Linux is for development and servers, Windows is still superior in all other aspects. There's hardly no mental overhead moving from Windows interface and software platform of 2000 to that of 2011. There is a huge mental overhead from moving between Xmonad, Window Maker, Gnome, KDE, various versions of Ubuntu, Gentoo, Debian, Arch, everything. But... You do realize that if we count devices, Linux on desktop has already gone past Windows. It's called Android.

tikhonj 15y ago
In my experience the audio and video issues vary greatly with hardware; for example, my old laptop had endless audio issues that I never fully fixed while my new laptop just worked. This is yet another issue that a computer sold with Linux would not have. As for the unification of the interface, I do not see why it would be good for all versions of Linux to be the same. Linux is, after all, just the kernel. Within Unity or Gnome or KDE (4.7 is really awesome) the UI is consistent; you're only going to run into weird issues if you customize heavily. Besides, you can also run XMonad on a Mac (and I know a couple of people who do); this does not mean Mac OS is inconsistent, does it? The whole consistency thing, of course, is also something you worry about only when choosing your distro--if you didn't care and could just buy a computer with Ubunutu (or whatever) it would not be an issue at all. Games are an issue on Linux; however, I think the first niche it would occupy would be cheap $300-600 laptops that people wouldn't use for games anyhow. On my old computer, flash just worked; on my new one, I've decided to go all out on free software and use Gnash instead which works for Youtube (but not for ads :)). If you absolutely have to use Microsoft Office, you would obviously want to stick to Windows. However, most people can get by with LibreOffice/Google docs. Serious people, of course, use LaTeX and GnuPlot exclusively ;). As for backwards compatibility, I agree that Linux UIs do change a lot. However, you are also underestimating how much Windows has changed (perhaps you are just more familiar with it?). My mother is not particularly computer literate, but could use XP fairly well. When she first saw Windows 7 she couldn't even launch a browser. I really don't understand why you're constantly moving between all the different window managers--just because they're there doesn't mean you have to use them. These days I exist almost solely in KDE and am completely happy; admittedly, I'm probably a bad example because I was happy when I was moving between KDE,FluxBox, Gnome and some weird Sun DE for school. Just because Linux gives you lots of options does not mean you have to use them, or even consider them--you're always free to exclusively use Ubunutu or Gnome or KDE or whatever. As I mentioned earlier, if you don't care and you had gotten a computer with Linux on it, you wouldn't have to make any choices--just keep whatever came on the computer.

by 127 15y ago

tikhonj 15y ago

In my experience the audio and video issues vary greatly with hardware; for example, my old laptop had endless audio issues that I never fully fixed while my new laptop just worked. This is yet another issue that a computer sold with Linux would not have. As for the unification of the interface, I do not see why it would be good for all versions of Linux to be the same. Linux is, after all, just the kernel. Within Unity or Gnome or KDE (4.7 is really awesome) the UI is consistent; you're only going to run into weird issues if you customize heavily. Besides, you can also run XMonad on a Mac (and I know a couple of people who do); this does not mean Mac OS is inconsistent, does it? The whole consistency thing, of course, is also something you worry about only when choosing your distro--if you didn't care and could just buy a computer with Ubunutu (or whatever) it would not be an issue at all. Games are an issue on Linux; however, I think the first niche it would occupy would be cheap $300-600 laptops that people wouldn't use for games anyhow. On my old computer, flash just worked; on my new one, I've decided to go all out on free software and use Gnash instead which works for Youtube (but not for ads :)). If you absolutely have to use Microsoft Office, you would obviously want to stick to Windows. However, most people can get by with LibreOffice/Google docs. Serious people, of course, use LaTeX and GnuPlot exclusively ;). As for backwards compatibility, I agree that Linux UIs do change a lot. However, you are also underestimating how much Windows has changed (perhaps you are just more familiar with it?). My mother is not particularly computer literate, but could use XP fairly well. When she first saw Windows 7 she couldn't even launch a browser. I really don't understand why you're constantly moving between all the different window managers--just because they're there doesn't mean you have to use them. These days I exist almost solely in KDE and am completely happy; admittedly, I'm probably a bad example because I was happy when I was moving between KDE,FluxBox, Gnome and some weird Sun DE for school. Just because Linux gives you lots of options does not mean you have to use them, or even consider them--you're always free to exclusively use Ubunutu or Gnome or KDE or whatever. As I mentioned earlier, if you don't care and you had gotten a computer with Linux on it, you wouldn't have to make any choices--just keep whatever came on the computer.