3 ms·

Year of Linux on the desktop creeps closer as market share rises a little

16 points by dragonbonheur 3y ago

billy99k 3y ago
Linux doesn't have a dedicated team to make the desktop a smooth experience. I've tried it every couple of years for the last 20 years, and I always abandon the idea because it's so clunky. My best solution now? Windows as my host machine and run Linux in the WSL. It's a real game changer. Much faster than a traditional VM. I get a good GUI and the power of Linux.
- simonblack 3y ago
  Windows as my host machine and run Linux in the WSL. :) I do it the other way around. Linux as my host machine and run Windows in virtualbox. I look at Windows every now and then, but I always abandon the idea because it's so clunky. So it all boils down to what you're used to. I always feel claustrophobic when I use Windows. You're obviously the other way around. I have never used Windows as my 'daily driver'. I went from MSDOS to UNIX Desktop in 1991, then from UNIX to Linux Desktop in 2001. I consider Windows 7 to be 'peak Windows'. It's what I use in my virtualbox, and have done for probably about ten years. 'Second best Windows', IMO, is Windows XP. Since Windows 7 it's all been downhill for Windows. I did suggest to the Microsofties around 2003 that they 'do an Apple' by taking Linux and using that as the main operating system (like Apple's MacOS being BSD under the hood) and slap the Windows Desktop on top of that, which would greatly reduce the workload on the Microsoft development team.
  - im3w1l 3y ago
    It's lowkey flabbargasting me that I can't do both. Like install the OS's on one disk/partition each, and VM whichever one I'm not currently booted into. It feels like something that should be possible in current year. Edit: Actually maybe it is possible and I'm just not keepign up ig?
    - lproven 3y ago
      You can with FOSS OSes, but it's fragile. If an OS thinks it's got sole control of the boot sector, say -- because sometimes it does -- and it tries to modify it when it's in a VM, at best the VM breaks and at worst the whole system breaks. Summary: possible, but not recommended. But Windows fingerprints the hardware and a copy activated against the host isn't activated when in a VM, and vice versa. So this doesn't work.
      - simonblack 3y ago
        But Windows fingerprints the hardware and a copy activated against the host isn't activated when in a VM, and vice versa. So this doesn't work. FWIW, I took a raw image of a 'real' Win 7 system after I had reduced the size of the C: drive down to about 50 gig. I then converted it to a virtualbox .VDI and that worked very well. I later just installed a copy of my version of Windows 7 on a standard virtualbox system and used my own serial. That worked even better. It complains that it's not a validated system, but otherwise works normally. I suppose I have to get some return for those unused Windows 10 and Windows 11 systems I own. (Every month or two, I boot them up just to run the Windows updates. I don't know why I bother to do this. It's really just a waste of time.)
    - simonblack 3y ago
      You can do that. But I've never bothered. It would add an extra layer or two of cruft where it's not necessary. As well as use disk space unnecessarily when you could better allocate 90% or more of your disk space to your main OS. Just pick one (Linux or Windows) and use that one as your base system. Make your guest disk as small as practical. My guest Win 7's C: drive is only about 40 gigs, which in a 12 TB system is pretty much just loose change.
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
Snaps are such a disaster, they break in such unexpected ways. AppImage and flatpak are a bit better, but still involve permissions annoyances. Ubuntu doesn't offer upgrades to older versions for sufficiently long enough. I have to reinstall over old ubuntus a fair amount because the repos for non-LTS disappeared under them. Yes it's part of fine print, but when you want to go to "consumer OS" that won't fly. Balkanization is still a huge problem between the Debian, Redhat, and I guess pacman is in third on desktop because of SteamOS. ChromeOS did not help. Far too google-binding. But Wine is approaching holy-shit-magic good. Linux is arguably a better games platform than windows for compatibility now. Video driver support still sucks. Multimonitor is better, but still a bit wonky. The whiz-bang compiz fusion days also fell to the wayside, probably related to video driver issues. All the tools are there, but desktop linux just can't get its act together. I honestly think Intel or AMD should be the ones to push this. Because Windows is threatening the ARM move, Windows has always dragged its feet on supporting processor features. Linux allows a model where Intel/AMD can push capabilities to OS end users rapidly. It's rounding error on their total revenue to do this. They should have done it 20 years ago to keep Microsoft from walking over them. Intel and AMD are pushing these huge processor count CPUs. Windows will drag its feet on supporting that, but with Linux, Intel and AMD can push code to maximize massively parallel cores. Intel and AMD can push seamless virtualization, multi-OS, with good graphics passthrough. Intel and AMD can push video driver support and maximum utilization of their video chips. I mean, they won't. They just want to stamp chips and not deal with software.

16 points by dragonbonheur 3y ago

Linux doesn't have a dedicated team to make the desktop a smooth experience. I've tried it every couple of years for the last 20 years, and I always abandon the idea because it's so clunky. My best solution now? Windows as my host machine and run Linux in the WSL. It's a real game changer. Much faster than a traditional VM. I get a good GUI and the power of Linux.

simonblack 3y ago
Windows as my host machine and run Linux in the WSL. :) I do it the other way around. Linux as my host machine and run Windows in virtualbox. I look at Windows every now and then, but I always abandon the idea because it's so clunky. So it all boils down to what you're used to. I always feel claustrophobic when I use Windows. You're obviously the other way around. I have never used Windows as my 'daily driver'. I went from MSDOS to UNIX Desktop in 1991, then from UNIX to Linux Desktop in 2001. I consider Windows 7 to be 'peak Windows'. It's what I use in my virtualbox, and have done for probably about ten years. 'Second best Windows', IMO, is Windows XP. Since Windows 7 it's all been downhill for Windows. I did suggest to the Microsofties around 2003 that they 'do an Apple' by taking Linux and using that as the main operating system (like Apple's MacOS being BSD under the hood) and slap the Windows Desktop on top of that, which would greatly reduce the workload on the Microsoft development team.
- im3w1l 3y ago
  It's lowkey flabbargasting me that I can't do both. Like install the OS's on one disk/partition each, and VM whichever one I'm not currently booted into. It feels like something that should be possible in current year. Edit: Actually maybe it is possible and I'm just not keepign up ig?
  - lproven 3y ago
    You can with FOSS OSes, but it's fragile. If an OS thinks it's got sole control of the boot sector, say -- because sometimes it does -- and it tries to modify it when it's in a VM, at best the VM breaks and at worst the whole system breaks. Summary: possible, but not recommended. But Windows fingerprints the hardware and a copy activated against the host isn't activated when in a VM, and vice versa. So this doesn't work.
    - simonblack 3y ago
      But Windows fingerprints the hardware and a copy activated against the host isn't activated when in a VM, and vice versa. So this doesn't work. FWIW, I took a raw image of a 'real' Win 7 system after I had reduced the size of the C: drive down to about 50 gig. I then converted it to a virtualbox .VDI and that worked very well. I later just installed a copy of my version of Windows 7 on a standard virtualbox system and used my own serial. That worked even better. It complains that it's not a validated system, but otherwise works normally. I suppose I have to get some return for those unused Windows 10 and Windows 11 systems I own. (Every month or two, I boot them up just to run the Windows updates. I don't know why I bother to do this. It's really just a waste of time.)
  - simonblack 3y ago
    You can do that. But I've never bothered. It would add an extra layer or two of cruft where it's not necessary. As well as use disk space unnecessarily when you could better allocate 90% or more of your disk space to your main OS. Just pick one (Linux or Windows) and use that one as your base system. Make your guest disk as small as practical. My guest Win 7's C: drive is only about 40 gigs, which in a 12 TB system is pretty much just loose change.

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

Snaps are such a disaster, they break in such unexpected ways. AppImage and flatpak are a bit better, but still involve permissions annoyances. Ubuntu doesn't offer upgrades to older versions for sufficiently long enough. I have to reinstall over old ubuntus a fair amount because the repos for non-LTS disappeared under them. Yes it's part of fine print, but when you want to go to "consumer OS" that won't fly. Balkanization is still a huge problem between the Debian, Redhat, and I guess pacman is in third on desktop because of SteamOS. ChromeOS did not help. Far too google-binding. But Wine is approaching holy-shit-magic good. Linux is arguably a better games platform than windows for compatibility now. Video driver support still sucks. Multimonitor is better, but still a bit wonky. The whiz-bang compiz fusion days also fell to the wayside, probably related to video driver issues. All the tools are there, but desktop linux just can't get its act together. I honestly think Intel or AMD should be the ones to push this. Because Windows is threatening the ARM move, Windows has always dragged its feet on supporting processor features. Linux allows a model where Intel/AMD can push capabilities to OS end users rapidly. It's rounding error on their total revenue to do this. They should have done it 20 years ago to keep Microsoft from walking over them. Intel and AMD are pushing these huge processor count CPUs. Windows will drag its feet on supporting that, but with Linux, Intel and AMD can push code to maximize massively parallel cores. Intel and AMD can push seamless virtualization, multi-OS, with good graphics passthrough. Intel and AMD can push video driver support and maximum utilization of their video chips. I mean, they won't. They just want to stamp chips and not deal with software.