4 ms·

For the longest time, I was convinced it was an abomination that Linux did not succeed on the desktop. Now, I am not so sure.

krallja 14y ago
Linux does not have Raymond Chen - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/ http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/ EDIT: or cek, Charlie Kindel :)
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
One of the advantages of open source is that things like that don't tend to happen. If a change to X breaks Y, the X maintainers don't include a horrible hack to avoid breaking it, they just submit a patch to Y. Then the package manager makes sure nobody installs new X without installing patched Y.
- simula67 14y ago
  What if Y is closed-source? What if source for Y is not available for some other reason? What if your patch breaks Y's behavior on other platforms?
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >What if Y is closed-source? What if source for Y is not available for some other reason? What if your patch breaks Y's behavior on other platforms? Advantages of open source may not apply to closed source.
    - simula67 14y ago
      OK, let me elaborate. Unless you believe all software must be open source ( which is hopelessly unrealistic ) the question becomes how we can bring about most openness. Surely, closed software on an open platform is better than open software on a closed platform? But to do stuff like this takes a lot of resources. Group of volunteers may not have the resources to do so on their spare time. So we may all be better off because we have good engineers highly paid and with lots of resources to work on such an important platform as the OS. TL;DR: Reading the comment fully recommended before snarking.
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        Let's put aside that what you're saying is a red herring. (RedHat makes a lot of money and to do it they pay professionals to develop free and open source software. Samsung, Intel, Google, IBM and Oracle make a lot of money and to do it they pay professionals to develop free and open source software. "Open source running on open source" is entirely practical and just because closed source software exists doesn't mean you can't refrain from using it, see Debian et al.) But let's address the original point. Suppose I want to run Steam on Linux. Some bug in Steam requires me to put an ugly hack in the kernel to address it. +1 ugly hack in the kernel, the same as it would be on Windows. Meanwhile in a hundred other cases where the thing with the bug was open source, I can fix it on the other end and it doesn't require an ugly hack to be put in the kernel. So the Linux kernel gets one ugly hack while the Windows kernel gets a hundred and one. It doesn't stop being an advantage just because there are exceptions to the rule.
- konstruktor 14y ago
  This may be true for X, but concerning the kernel, Linus Torvalds states very clearly that whatever change breaks existing client code is a kernel bug.
  - estebank 14y ago
    That is true, but it is also true that it is very unlikely for a hack to make a single application run will be added to the Kernel in the first place.
    - makomk 14y ago
      Dunno - I think there was a fairly lovely hack a while back to deal with the fact that the autofs ABI for 32-bit applications on 64-bit kernels wasn't compatible with the ABI for 32-bit applications on 32-bit kernels, and this was breaking stuff. Someone inserted a hack to fix this, which then broke another application which had its own hack to work around the kernel bug. So Linus had to add a hack to unbreak this other application's hack to work around a kernel bug that no longer existed: http://lwn.net/Articles/494993/ http://lwn.net/Articles/494993/
- noselasd 14y ago
  The flip side of this is that you have to keep up with breaking changes all the time. I've developed numerous in house apps that run on linux, and it is hard to keep up with every minute details that changes in all parts of such a system. It is exceedingly hard to justify that you have to spend a day figuring out what they changed in gtk that now makes the text appear a bit different, or why the init.d script that has never had a problem now sometimes fail to stop the service etc. ISVs, at least small ones, simply cannot keep up with the frequent external changes on such platforms, and the fewer people there are developing applications, in-house, open source, proprietary or what not, less people will use that platform.
  - psionski 14y ago
    Why is this downvoted? It voices an honest concern! Linux has often been compared to living in a house full of carpenters, where your bed might disappear at night while you sleep. If this observation is incorrect, write a comment so the rest of us can understand WHY it's incorrect, if it's correct then upvote it, but there's no excuse to downvote!

krallja 14y ago

Linux does not have Raymond Chen - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/ http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/ EDIT: or cek, Charlie Kindel :)

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

One of the advantages of open source is that things like that don't tend to happen. If a change to X breaks Y, the X maintainers don't include a horrible hack to avoid breaking it, they just submit a patch to Y. Then the package manager makes sure nobody installs new X without installing patched Y.

simula67 14y ago
What if Y is closed-source? What if source for Y is not available for some other reason? What if your patch breaks Y's behavior on other platforms?
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >What if Y is closed-source? What if source for Y is not available for some other reason? What if your patch breaks Y's behavior on other platforms? Advantages of open source may not apply to closed source.
  - simula67 14y ago
    OK, let me elaborate. Unless you believe all software must be open source ( which is hopelessly unrealistic ) the question becomes how we can bring about most openness. Surely, closed software on an open platform is better than open software on a closed platform? But to do stuff like this takes a lot of resources. Group of volunteers may not have the resources to do so on their spare time. So we may all be better off because we have good engineers highly paid and with lots of resources to work on such an important platform as the OS. TL;DR: Reading the comment fully recommended before snarking.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      Let's put aside that what you're saying is a red herring. (RedHat makes a lot of money and to do it they pay professionals to develop free and open source software. Samsung, Intel, Google, IBM and Oracle make a lot of money and to do it they pay professionals to develop free and open source software. "Open source running on open source" is entirely practical and just because closed source software exists doesn't mean you can't refrain from using it, see Debian et al.) But let's address the original point. Suppose I want to run Steam on Linux. Some bug in Steam requires me to put an ugly hack in the kernel to address it. +1 ugly hack in the kernel, the same as it would be on Windows. Meanwhile in a hundred other cases where the thing with the bug was open source, I can fix it on the other end and it doesn't require an ugly hack to be put in the kernel. So the Linux kernel gets one ugly hack while the Windows kernel gets a hundred and one. It doesn't stop being an advantage just because there are exceptions to the rule.
konstruktor 14y ago
This may be true for X, but concerning the kernel, Linus Torvalds states very clearly that whatever change breaks existing client code is a kernel bug.
- estebank 14y ago
  That is true, but it is also true that it is very unlikely for a hack to make a single application run will be added to the Kernel in the first place.
  - makomk 14y ago
    Dunno - I think there was a fairly lovely hack a while back to deal with the fact that the autofs ABI for 32-bit applications on 64-bit kernels wasn't compatible with the ABI for 32-bit applications on 32-bit kernels, and this was breaking stuff. Someone inserted a hack to fix this, which then broke another application which had its own hack to work around the kernel bug. So Linus had to add a hack to unbreak this other application's hack to work around a kernel bug that no longer existed: http://lwn.net/Articles/494993/ http://lwn.net/Articles/494993/
noselasd 14y ago
The flip side of this is that you have to keep up with breaking changes all the time. I've developed numerous in house apps that run on linux, and it is hard to keep up with every minute details that changes in all parts of such a system. It is exceedingly hard to justify that you have to spend a day figuring out what they changed in gtk that now makes the text appear a bit different, or why the init.d script that has never had a problem now sometimes fail to stop the service etc. ISVs, at least small ones, simply cannot keep up with the frequent external changes on such platforms, and the fewer people there are developing applications, in-house, open source, proprietary or what not, less people will use that platform.
- psionski 14y ago
  Why is this downvoted? It voices an honest concern! Linux has often been compared to living in a house full of carpenters, where your bed might disappear at night while you sleep. If this observation is incorrect, write a comment so the rest of us can understand WHY it's incorrect, if it's correct then upvote it, but there's no excuse to downvote!