3 ms·

No. There is not. Without changing how "Linux" is built from the very C library to binary loader and graphics APIs, there cannot be either. Try finding alterna

by okanat 2y ago

No. There is not. Without changing how "Linux" is built from the very C library to binary loader and graphics APIs, there cannot be either. Try finding alternatives to Excel with its entire feature set (no cheating all SQL db integration and VBA equivalent scripting, plugin APIs should be there), PowerPoint with all the integration with other Office, Solidworks with its entire feature set, Altium with its entire feature set, Siemens NX, Catia, SAP, Ansys, Active Directory, Adobe Creative Suite or Affinity or CorelDRAW, Cubase, Sibelius just a start. And the software you mention has to have succesful companies behind them and has to be used widely.

29athrowaway 2y ago
> Try finding alternatives to Excel with its entire feature set (no cheating all SQL db integration and VBA equivalent scripting) If you need those many features you should not be using Excel. > PowerPoint with all the integration with other Office, Solidworks with its entire feature set, Altium with its entire feature set, Siemens NX, Catia, SAP, Ansys, Active Directory, Adobe Creative Suite or Affinity or CorelDRAW, Cubase, Sibelius just a start The most critical business software in the world never left the mainframe. The one that did now runs on Linux somehow or their competitors do. If it doesn't run then it can run on a compatibility layer like Wine or on a VM. > Active Directory The most overhyped software ever. Some phishing e-mail can bring an entire organization using Active Directory to its knees.
sancarn 2y ago
These are the reasons I struggle to leave Windows too. Also the open API ecosystem is great. You can do pretty much everything with win32 libraries.
paulmd 2y ago
GPL is also part of the problem. Linux will simply never support HDMI 2.1 properly because the license precludes it. It will never support OSS like ZFS properly because the license precludes it. It is a restrictive/closed copyleft ecosystem by design, and that’s actually completely unsuitable for a world where you must have some kinds of software (including open/libre software) and some parties simply will not license that way. (And I know people will object to the term but it undeniably is more restrictive and closed than BSD/MIT/CDDL-style licenses - intentionally, openly, and by design. The point is that you are supposed to license your software GPL too - and when that is not possible, your freedom is denied. Intentionally, by design. But it is a closed ecosystem - you are either in it, or not, and there are large swaths of code (even open/libre code) that is excluded by design. That is a closed model, just as much as, say, CUDA. You play by their rules or you play in a different sandbox. And open CUDA code exists too, etc - that doesn’t mean anything to the overall ecosystem if licensing precludes people from using it.) The minimum standard for even reaching usability would be to guarantee a BSD-style stable ABI such that kernel upstreaming is not required in the way that it currently is, and that’s a nonstarter with the current kernel leadership team. Actually they have in many cases gone out of their way to explicitly break compatibility to push others to relicense, even when they know that it’s not going to happen and their users will suffer. When you get to the point of rejecting interop with other libre code due to license, and actively take steps to break other libre code to prevent interop - you certainly are not fully libre in the typical sense anymore. There’s a degree of fairly open hostility to other libre code at this point, in fact. Again, it’s not 1992 anymore, Linux could absolutely maintain a stable ABI through major releases. Not only do they not want to do that, they are actively, willfully, maliciously breaking other libre code (GKH has done this repeatedly). Which gives sort of a different color to the former: kernel upstreaming is one of the most potent weapons at this point, for pushing more stuff into their closed ecosystem. It’s not exactly embrace-extend-extinguish, but certainly of a similar tone and kind - join or die.
- 29athrowaway 2y ago
  Almost everyone uses a "tainted" kernel with proprietary blobs these days. NVIDIA drivers being one example of that. If this is a problem to you don't use Windows.

by okanat 2y ago

29athrowaway 2y ago

> Try finding alternatives to Excel with its entire feature set (no cheating all SQL db integration and VBA equivalent scripting) If you need those many features you should not be using Excel. > PowerPoint with all the integration with other Office, Solidworks with its entire feature set, Altium with its entire feature set, Siemens NX, Catia, SAP, Ansys, Active Directory, Adobe Creative Suite or Affinity or CorelDRAW, Cubase, Sibelius just a start The most critical business software in the world never left the mainframe. The one that did now runs on Linux somehow or their competitors do. If it doesn't run then it can run on a compatibility layer like Wine or on a VM. > Active Directory The most overhyped software ever. Some phishing e-mail can bring an entire organization using Active Directory to its knees.

sancarn 2y ago

These are the reasons I struggle to leave Windows too. Also the open API ecosystem is great. You can do pretty much everything with win32 libraries.

paulmd 2y ago

GPL is also part of the problem. Linux will simply never support HDMI 2.1 properly because the license precludes it. It will never support OSS like ZFS properly because the license precludes it. It is a restrictive/closed copyleft ecosystem by design, and that’s actually completely unsuitable for a world where you must have some kinds of software (including open/libre software) and some parties simply will not license that way. (And I know people will object to the term but it undeniably is more restrictive and closed than BSD/MIT/CDDL-style licenses - intentionally, openly, and by design. The point is that you are supposed to license your software GPL too - and when that is not possible, your freedom is denied. Intentionally, by design. But it is a closed ecosystem - you are either in it, or not, and there are large swaths of code (even open/libre code) that is excluded by design. That is a closed model, just as much as, say, CUDA. You play by their rules or you play in a different sandbox. And open CUDA code exists too, etc - that doesn’t mean anything to the overall ecosystem if licensing precludes people from using it.) The minimum standard for even reaching usability would be to guarantee a BSD-style stable ABI such that kernel upstreaming is not required in the way that it currently is, and that’s a nonstarter with the current kernel leadership team. Actually they have in many cases gone out of their way to explicitly break compatibility to push others to relicense, even when they know that it’s not going to happen and their users will suffer. When you get to the point of rejecting interop with other libre code due to license, and actively take steps to break other libre code to prevent interop - you certainly are not fully libre in the typical sense anymore. There’s a degree of fairly open hostility to other libre code at this point, in fact. Again, it’s not 1992 anymore, Linux could absolutely maintain a stable ABI through major releases. Not only do they not want to do that, they are actively, willfully, maliciously breaking other libre code (GKH has done this repeatedly). Which gives sort of a different color to the former: kernel upstreaming is one of the most potent weapons at this point, for pushing more stuff into their closed ecosystem. It’s not exactly embrace-extend-extinguish, but certainly of a similar tone and kind - join or die.

29athrowaway 2y ago
Almost everyone uses a "tainted" kernel with proprietary blobs these days. NVIDIA drivers being one example of that. If this is a problem to you don't use Windows.