3 ms·

linux-on-the-desktop is also like statistically zero of linux installations (modulo mobile) but if that's counter to a belief of yours then we're definitely not

linux-on-the-desktop is also like statistically zero of linux installations (modulo mobile) but if that's counter to a belief of yours then we're definitely not going to make progress here so (shrug) like i'm not sure you understand the scale of enterprise linux. a single organization of not-that-very-many people can easily create and destroy hundreds of millions of deployed systems every day, each with a novel configuration of installed software. i've seen it countless times.

bscphil 4y ago
I think we're arguing on multiple fronts here and that is confusing things. 1. My point about Linux on the desktop is that there are in practice users like me who are already getting the (many) advantages of dynamic linking, and don't want to give up those advantages. To the point that some of us are going to support and work on distributions that continue the traditional Linux way in this area. In your view, the ecosystem has moved to software being built and distributed by private corporations. I don't think this has happened - on Windows software was always built and distributed this way; on (desktop) Linux it never was and largely still isn't! 2. My point about the desktop in general is that this use case matters to the vast majority of computer-using human beings much more than enterprise. The number of deployed containers that get created and destroyed every day doesn't change that fact, nor does the fact that Linux users are merely a tiny fraction of this desktop use case. This is what creates the myopia I was talking about - you're thinking about metrics like "number of systems deployed" whereas I'm thinking of number of human-computer interactions that are impacted. I don't think you can just discard what matters on the desktop or paint it as irrelevant. Desktop computing shouldn't be subordinate to the technical requirements of servers! So to summarize the argument: (a) desktop use cases still matter because they comprise the majority of human-computer interactions, (b) dynamic linking and the maintainer model are the superior approach for desktop computing, and in fact complement each other in important ways, and (c) even if most desktop users can't take advantage of this model because of the dominance of closed source software and the corporate development model, desktop Linux can and does, and will hopefully continue to do so into the future.
- preseinger 4y ago
  > Desktop computing shouldn't be subordinate to the technical requirements of servers! i guess this is the crux of the discussion linux desktop computing for sure _is_ subordinate to linux server computing, by any reasonable usage metric i'm not trying to deny your experience in any way, nor suggest that dynamic linking goes away, or anything like that -- your use case is real, linux on the desktop is real, that use case isn't going away but it is pretty clear at this point that linux on the server is wildly successful, linux on mobile is successful (for android), and that linux on the desktop is at best a niche use case the majority of human interactions with linux occur via applications, services, tools, etc. that are served by linux servers, and not by software running on local machines like desktops or laptops linux is a server operating system first and foremost
  - rektide 4y ago
    whether we want unobservable ungovernable far off machines running the future forever, or whether we want a future where actual people can compute & see what happens seems to matter. the numbers may perhaps stack up to suborn PC needs to industrial computing needs now, but is that the future anyone should actually want? should the invisible hand of capital be the primary thing humanity should try to align to? and where is the growth potential? is the industrial need going to become greatly newly empowered & helpful to this planet, to us? will it deliver & share the value potential out there? PC may be a smaller factor today, but i for one am incredibly fantastically excited to imagine a potential future 10 years from now where people start to PC again, albeit in a different way. individual PCs have no chance. it's why the cloud has won. on-demand access wherever you are, consistent experience across devices is incredibly incredibly convenient. but networks of PCs that work well together is exciting, and we've only so very recently started emerging the capability to have nice easy to manage ops/automated multi-machine personal-computing. we've only recently emerged to maturity where a better, competitive personal computing is really conceivable. it's been the alpha linux geeks learning how to compute and industrial players learning how to compute, and the invisible hand has been fat happy & plump from it, but imo there's such a huge potential here to re-open computing to persons, to create compelling interesting differently-capable sovereign/owned computing systems, that are free from so many of the small tatters & deprevations & enshittifications that cloud- that doing everyting on other people's computers as L-Users- unnerringly drops on us. we should & could be a more powerful, more technically-cultural culture, and i think we've severely underrated how much subtle progress there's been to make that a much less awful, specialized, painful, time-consuming, low-availability, disconnected effort than it used to be.

bscphil 4y ago

I think we're arguing on multiple fronts here and that is confusing things. 1. My point about Linux on the desktop is that there are in practice users like me who are already getting the (many) advantages of dynamic linking, and don't want to give up those advantages. To the point that some of us are going to support and work on distributions that continue the traditional Linux way in this area. In your view, the ecosystem has moved to software being built and distributed by private corporations. I don't think this has happened - on Windows software was always built and distributed this way; on (desktop) Linux it never was and largely still isn't! 2. My point about the desktop in general is that this use case matters to the vast majority of computer-using human beings much more than enterprise. The number of deployed containers that get created and destroyed every day doesn't change that fact, nor does the fact that Linux users are merely a tiny fraction of this desktop use case. This is what creates the myopia I was talking about - you're thinking about metrics like "number of systems deployed" whereas I'm thinking of number of human-computer interactions that are impacted. I don't think you can just discard what matters on the desktop or paint it as irrelevant. Desktop computing shouldn't be subordinate to the technical requirements of servers! So to summarize the argument: (a) desktop use cases still matter because they comprise the majority of human-computer interactions, (b) dynamic linking and the maintainer model are the superior approach for desktop computing, and in fact complement each other in important ways, and (c) even if most desktop users can't take advantage of this model because of the dominance of closed source software and the corporate development model, desktop Linux can and does, and will hopefully continue to do so into the future.

preseinger 4y ago
> Desktop computing shouldn't be subordinate to the technical requirements of servers! i guess this is the crux of the discussion linux desktop computing for sure _is_ subordinate to linux server computing, by any reasonable usage metric i'm not trying to deny your experience in any way, nor suggest that dynamic linking goes away, or anything like that -- your use case is real, linux on the desktop is real, that use case isn't going away but it is pretty clear at this point that linux on the server is wildly successful, linux on mobile is successful (for android), and that linux on the desktop is at best a niche use case the majority of human interactions with linux occur via applications, services, tools, etc. that are served by linux servers, and not by software running on local machines like desktops or laptops linux is a server operating system first and foremost
- rektide 4y ago
  whether we want unobservable ungovernable far off machines running the future forever, or whether we want a future where actual people can compute & see what happens seems to matter. the numbers may perhaps stack up to suborn PC needs to industrial computing needs now, but is that the future anyone should actually want? should the invisible hand of capital be the primary thing humanity should try to align to? and where is the growth potential? is the industrial need going to become greatly newly empowered & helpful to this planet, to us? will it deliver & share the value potential out there? PC may be a smaller factor today, but i for one am incredibly fantastically excited to imagine a potential future 10 years from now where people start to PC again, albeit in a different way. individual PCs have no chance. it's why the cloud has won. on-demand access wherever you are, consistent experience across devices is incredibly incredibly convenient. but networks of PCs that work well together is exciting, and we've only so very recently started emerging the capability to have nice easy to manage ops/automated multi-machine personal-computing. we've only recently emerged to maturity where a better, competitive personal computing is really conceivable. it's been the alpha linux geeks learning how to compute and industrial players learning how to compute, and the invisible hand has been fat happy & plump from it, but imo there's such a huge potential here to re-open computing to persons, to create compelling interesting differently-capable sovereign/owned computing systems, that are free from so many of the small tatters & deprevations & enshittifications that cloud- that doing everyting on other people's computers as L-Users- unnerringly drops on us. we should & could be a more powerful, more technically-cultural culture, and i think we've severely underrated how much subtle progress there's been to make that a much less awful, specialized, painful, time-consuming, low-availability, disconnected effort than it used to be.