6 ms·

I don't know much about the Kernel or testing it, but I submitted one fix years ago that I ended up testing it manually, and that was enough for it to be accept

I don't know much about the Kernel or testing it, but I submitted one fix years ago that I ended up testing it manually, and that was enough for it to be accepted. I think that's just the culture, which might seem odd to some, but also I imagine it would make coordination almost impossible if they were sticklers for testing. I've also known companies to run full integration tests instead of using stuff like unit tests. Maybe that's more suitable for Kernel testing due to how complex the kernel space environment is. Wondering if anyone has more context. On a different note, I think it's true that the Linux desktop still sucks in 2024. At this point I would be willing to pay a substantial amount for stuff to be clean, consistent, and "just work" on the desktop. Doubt we will ever get there, but maybe companies like Valve will clean it up enough.

satiric 3y ago
Of the ones you listed, consistency is the big downside for me. It seems like there's multiple options for everything in the Linux ecosystem. From the beginner questions (e.g., which distro), to the nerdy questions (e.g., systemd vs sysvinit), to the ones in between (e.g., vim vs emacs). I sometimes wonder if GNU Herd would have been better at this, since everything would be designed by the GNU folks for one unified ecosystem. I don't think Valve will fix it TBH. They only care about Linux UX on their hardware, i.e. Steam Deck. I don't see why they would fund things like KDE, or features in the kernel beyond the ones that they need for their products to work. (Not that I think they're assholes for this; just that it's unfortunate)
- p_l 3y ago
  They are very much upstreaming things a lot, in ways that support more than just their hardware, which results in general boost for everyone. They definitely could have done it differently and in cheaper ways (just look at every embedded platform). As for KDE, Steam Deck runs KDE.
- massysett 3y ago
  > I sometimes wonder if GNU Herd would have been better at this, since everything would be designed by the GNU folks for one unified ecosystem. You just invented *BSD.
  - timeon 3y ago
    WhichBSD?
    - p_l 3y ago
      Considering Hurd is mentioned, I humbly nominate OSF/1
  - satiric 3y ago
    Which BSD has its own desktop environment? Which BSD has centralized, discoverable settings? (discoverable meaning I don't have to dig into man pages to figure out what to do). BSD is better but still doesn't go far enough IMO. FWIW, I have never needed to dig into Windows' help system or Google to figure out how to use Windows Settings or the old Control Panel.
    - massysett 3y ago
      None of them. But GNU does not have this either. For awhile GNOME was part of the GNU project, but isn't now, and even when it was, X was not a GNU project. GNU has this random assemblage of packages: https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html So add the Hurd to that, along with an actual distribution mechanism (not a trivial task), and what you get is something like a BSD.
      - satiric 3y ago
        Ah OK, I stand corrected. Looks like my pipe dream of getting a Unix derivative as unified as Windows stays unattainable then (although KDE Neon was pretty good last time I tried it, from a Settings point of view anyway)
        massysett 3y ago
        Oh, not at all unattainable - a Unix derivative as unified as Windows is macOS. I've got a terminal and an Emacs running on my Mac right now. But a free software one? No - that's the point of this article: the free software desktop users aren't willing to put up the resources it would take to develop what you're seeking.
- internetter 3y ago
  Valve does fund KDE
candiddevmike 3y ago
> clean, consistent, and "just work" on the desktop In my experience, most Linux desktop environments are leaps and bounds ahead of Windows here. What specifically do you want fixed?
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  I hate having different install methods for every distro. I don't wanna build from source. Even if you give me a binary, I don't wanna manually make a symbolic link. I hate having multiple conflicting ways to do the same thing. Even within something like Ubuntu I can think of eight ways I've installed software. Steam regularly fails to open, and games compiled for Linux, not running through proton, regularly crash. Hardware features randomly don't work. My laptop won't go to sleep when closed and runs full power while in my backpack. My extra mouse buttons that could be bound in windows without an issue didn't work on Linux. Everything about Linux irritates me these days. I don't want to use other OSes for ideological reasons, but my problems have only increased since moving to Linux on my personal machine.
  - gorjusborg 3y ago
    I'm sorry you are so annoyed, I've been there too. That said, I wonder if some of the pain you are feeling is self-imposed. If you just use a single linux distribution, it is generally consistent in its install methods. Wouldn't you find it weird if someone complained about how the MacOS install process differed from Windows? That's roughly the equivalent of what you are saying. The power management issue is a real problem, and it plagues not just linux, but the PC ecosystem (x86 / intel,amd) in general. MacOS gets around this by tightly controlling their hardware and software to create a great experience. It's harder on the PC side due to the sheer number of configurations of hardware and software that have to cooperate to accomplish good power management. This is the same root cause w/ 'hardware feature' support. A PC is a collection of independently designed hardware and software, smooshed together into some sort of computer. Making that work is difficult due to the sheer number of combinations that are possible. My feeling is that this situation is ripe for solution by a company that treats their software and hardware as a complete system, and to deeply attack these challenges by curating (and eventually designing, if needed) components and software to polish the user's experience.
n0-n0-wait 3y ago
OT - yes, weekendmodus: check!! But an humoristic aproach, "There was a bug-request for v1.0: 'Copying parts of graphics overwrites the text-buffer, and copying text (for whatever use) overwrites the graphics buffer! Still no progress.', for whatever reason." (-;
Timber-6539 3y ago
> At this point I would be willing to pay a substantial amount for stuff to be clean, consistent, and "just work" on the desktop. Which alternative exists today that comes even close to this described utopian product?

satiric 3y ago

Of the ones you listed, consistency is the big downside for me. It seems like there's multiple options for everything in the Linux ecosystem. From the beginner questions (e.g., which distro), to the nerdy questions (e.g., systemd vs sysvinit), to the ones in between (e.g., vim vs emacs). I sometimes wonder if GNU Herd would have been better at this, since everything would be designed by the GNU folks for one unified ecosystem. I don't think Valve will fix it TBH. They only care about Linux UX on their hardware, i.e. Steam Deck. I don't see why they would fund things like KDE, or features in the kernel beyond the ones that they need for their products to work. (Not that I think they're assholes for this; just that it's unfortunate)

p_l 3y ago
They are very much upstreaming things a lot, in ways that support more than just their hardware, which results in general boost for everyone. They definitely could have done it differently and in cheaper ways (just look at every embedded platform). As for KDE, Steam Deck runs KDE.
massysett 3y ago
> I sometimes wonder if GNU Herd would have been better at this, since everything would be designed by the GNU folks for one unified ecosystem. You just invented *BSD.
- timeon 3y ago
  WhichBSD?
  - p_l 3y ago
    Considering Hurd is mentioned, I humbly nominate OSF/1
- satiric 3y ago
  Which BSD has its own desktop environment? Which BSD has centralized, discoverable settings? (discoverable meaning I don't have to dig into man pages to figure out what to do). BSD is better but still doesn't go far enough IMO. FWIW, I have never needed to dig into Windows' help system or Google to figure out how to use Windows Settings or the old Control Panel.
  - massysett 3y ago
    None of them. But GNU does not have this either. For awhile GNOME was part of the GNU project, but isn't now, and even when it was, X was not a GNU project. GNU has this random assemblage of packages: https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html So add the Hurd to that, along with an actual distribution mechanism (not a trivial task), and what you get is something like a BSD.
    - satiric 3y ago
      Ah OK, I stand corrected. Looks like my pipe dream of getting a Unix derivative as unified as Windows stays unattainable then (although KDE Neon was pretty good last time I tried it, from a Settings point of view anyway)
      - massysett 3y ago
        Oh, not at all unattainable - a Unix derivative as unified as Windows is macOS. I've got a terminal and an Emacs running on my Mac right now. But a free software one? No - that's the point of this article: the free software desktop users aren't willing to put up the resources it would take to develop what you're seeking.
internetter 3y ago
Valve does fund KDE

candiddevmike 3y ago

> clean, consistent, and "just work" on the desktop In my experience, most Linux desktop environments are leaps and bounds ahead of Windows here. What specifically do you want fixed?

zeroCalories 3y ago
I hate having different install methods for every distro. I don't wanna build from source. Even if you give me a binary, I don't wanna manually make a symbolic link. I hate having multiple conflicting ways to do the same thing. Even within something like Ubuntu I can think of eight ways I've installed software. Steam regularly fails to open, and games compiled for Linux, not running through proton, regularly crash. Hardware features randomly don't work. My laptop won't go to sleep when closed and runs full power while in my backpack. My extra mouse buttons that could be bound in windows without an issue didn't work on Linux. Everything about Linux irritates me these days. I don't want to use other OSes for ideological reasons, but my problems have only increased since moving to Linux on my personal machine.
- gorjusborg 3y ago
  I'm sorry you are so annoyed, I've been there too. That said, I wonder if some of the pain you are feeling is self-imposed. If you just use a single linux distribution, it is generally consistent in its install methods. Wouldn't you find it weird if someone complained about how the MacOS install process differed from Windows? That's roughly the equivalent of what you are saying. The power management issue is a real problem, and it plagues not just linux, but the PC ecosystem (x86 / intel,amd) in general. MacOS gets around this by tightly controlling their hardware and software to create a great experience. It's harder on the PC side due to the sheer number of configurations of hardware and software that have to cooperate to accomplish good power management. This is the same root cause w/ 'hardware feature' support. A PC is a collection of independently designed hardware and software, smooshed together into some sort of computer. Making that work is difficult due to the sheer number of combinations that are possible. My feeling is that this situation is ripe for solution by a company that treats their software and hardware as a complete system, and to deeply attack these challenges by curating (and eventually designing, if needed) components and software to polish the user's experience.

n0-n0-wait 3y ago

OT - yes, weekendmodus: check!! But an humoristic aproach, "There was a bug-request for v1.0: 'Copying parts of graphics overwrites the text-buffer, and copying text (for whatever use) overwrites the graphics buffer! Still no progress.', for whatever reason." (-;

Timber-6539 3y ago

> At this point I would be willing to pay a substantial amount for stuff to be clean, consistent, and "just work" on the desktop. Which alternative exists today that comes even close to this described utopian product?