4 ms·

Thats the consequence of wasting effort rewriting the screensaver app (and all other basic apps) over and over and over, instead of focusing effort on writing m

Thats the consequence of wasting effort rewriting the screensaver app (and all other basic apps) over and over and over, instead of focusing effort on writing more important things like Adobe CS and the like. Once they fix all embarassing bugs, they'll simply throw everything away and start rewriting everything from scratch again. The main reason Linux desktop is dead is because Linux desktop developers treat it like the latest fashion fad instead of a commercial product you have to live off and be responsible for.

TillE 12y ago
This is an unfortunately common pattern. KDE4 killed Linux on the desktop for me. I loved KDE3, used it for years. And then they stopped maintaining it, and the next version was unusable for years. It's still not particularly good or better than KDE3, it's just different.
- Touche 12y ago
  What does this have to do with Linux? Every OS evolves, free or not free. At least with linux you occasionally have things like MATE happen (forking a previous, popular version). And you have xfce, dwm, fluxbox, and dozens of other choices that fit to your liking. KDE kind has the market corners on that style of WM though. The only others like it are lightweight like LXDE.
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  The same thing happened to me. KDE3 was one of the best desktops. Then things where going downhill, at least from my perspective. There was also Kmail, once a very usable tool for me (I think, the best version also came with KDE3). Then after the update (I guess with KDE4) there where some bugs on receiving eMail that happened again and again. It was nasty (I still can't get it, how they managed to kill the simple POP3 handler) but I could use my mail still. After that with the next update came a version that did not manage to import my old mailboxes that I had managed with Kmail for years. They simply killed this once good application for me! Just for gimmicks. Today I use webmail, though I don't like it. Also they managed to cripple KDE4 more and more ... The desktop applications did not do what was documented and they fixed bugs, that did not exist, thus removing or crippling once valuable options ... There was also a bug filed for that, but the developers just did not listen. Now I use another desktop, but I fear, one day I also need to kick this one, since I see similar behavior -- adding or removing features, complete rewrites, just because it is a nice mind-game or in fashion. I also where thinking to use a really old desktop that nobody uses anymore, just to be free from feature-creep and fashion-ism. I need the computer to work with, not playing mind-games and update-platformers!
- k00pa 12y ago
  Exactly, KDE3 was just awesome, I don't see point of fixing something thats not broken. I still think KDE4 is missing lot of the "feel" that KDE3 had. Applications in the KDE3 time were also better, good example is Amarok.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  XFCE is a pretty fine replacement.
- cabalamat 12y ago
  > I loved KDE3, used it for years. There's always trinity (http://trinitydesktop.org/ http://trinitydesktop.org/) > It's still not particularly good or better than KDE3, it's just different. You're right, it isn't better. When I last tried using it (November last year), parts were unusable -- for example on the workspace switcher (the panel that shows your workspaces) I couldn't see the windows that were on each workspace, because the idiot who had coded it thought it more important to make the control look shiny than to display the windows. I use xubuntu/xfce now. I've no time for fuckwits who just want to jump on the newest trendiest technology bandwagon
rdtsc 12y ago
You are assuming that the same brain pool that writes (re)writes the screensaver, will be just as interested to (re)write Adobe CS for Linux.
- coldtea 12y ago
  Even if that's not so, his core idea is right. Linux needs more people writing stuff like Adobe CS replacements (and tons of other tools and core functionality besides), than it needs people rewriting the screensavers.
  - Touche 12y ago
    People write what they want to write. There's no Adobe CS alternative because the people using Linux don't need/want that tool. The people who want it (designers) overwhelmingly use OSX and aren't looking to switch. It would be a wasted effort to make such an application, but if you think there's a market I'd love to be proven wrong.
    - sp332 12y ago
      Well you may have cause and effect backwards. More likely the people who need Adobe CS won't consider Linux simply because it won't run it and has no replacement!
      - nwh 12y ago
        Basically. I don't think there will be ever a replacement just due to the overwhelming complexity of it. Unless we can deal with Pantone and other weird colour spaces on linux, nobody will switch.
      - Touche 12y ago
        I don't think so. It's available on Windows. I wonder what % of its users are Windows vs. Mac.
        12y ago
Touche 12y ago
So dead that this is #1 on HN.
- coldtea 12y ago
  Scheme, Lisp, Smalltalk, heck even APL and J posts make it to the top of HN too, and those languages have been dead for the vast majority of developers for decades. It's not like HN is a representative sample of the computing users at large.
  - Touche 12y ago
    We have different definitions of "dead" it seems.
cabalamat 12y ago
> The main reason Linux desktop is dead is because Linux desktop developers treat it like the latest fashion fad instead of a commercial product you have to live off and be responsible for. My thoughts exactly.
Brakenshire 12y ago
I don't really agree about the importance of putting effort into these things- almost every user wants well-designed, polished interfaces for launching applications, reading email, surfing the web, listening to music, etc, and a very large percentage of users only want that. You could well be right about a lack of discipline in writing and rewriting, rather than improving what's there. But then I look at elementary OS, which has focused on doing exactly what you are complaining about, and that seems to be a major success.
crdoconnor 12y ago
>The main reason Linux desktop is dead is because Linux desktop developers treat it like the latest fashion fad instead of a commercial product you have to live off and be responsible for. Xscreensaver is a thing and you can use it. It's no secret that ubuntu's desktop has been a basket case, but it's not the only available option even with ubuntu - let alone on linux. kubuntu is fine, and xubuntu is awesome (neither of which use this screensaver). The reason why the linux desktop never took off was because microsoft used its not insignificant market power to squash it each time it was about to take off. Not because of a silly screensaver that got rewritten.
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  The linux desktop never took off because of petty things like rewriting the screensaver every few years, while letting things users care about, like backwards compatibility, incremental change, etc, all get in the way. I gave up on the linux desktop because every other version seemed to be a jarring change along the lines of windows 7 to windows 8. After a while, one gets tired of having to relearn things and just wants a system that works.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  I think you're giving Microsoft too much credit. Linux on the desktop failed for a lot of reasons. Major fragmentation and lack of focus are some major ones.
colanderman 12y ago
JWZ said it best: http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html
- asveikau 12y ago
  He also wrote about why it's important not to take too many library dependencies in a screen lock program: http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html Something tells me this kind of reasoning does not stop Ubuntu.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
vacri 12y ago
The most popular desktop in the world made a major change on things like this in its last revision, following fashion, and it's not dead.
- lutusp 12y ago
  No, but it's certainly on life support. http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/rejected-74-of-organizations-have-no-plans-to-deploy-windows-8/6828/ http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/rejected...
- akoeht 12y ago
  Because it was already the most popular desktop in the world. It's so big that they can make bad decisions and still take the whole market in the direction of said bad decisions.
danford 12y ago
1. This bug was filed before Ubuntu 14.04 was released 2. This bug was patched before Ubuntu 14.04 was released 3. You're an obvious troll account based on the username "muuh-gnu" 4. Most of your arguments are unfounded and opinion based. This is an exaggeration you had to make to prove your point (and the reason you had to exaggerate is because you don't actually have a point, which anyone can see by actually doing some research). Most Linux threads on HN seem to end in an anti-linux circle jerk, while the people who are actually presenting the facts get downvoted. The actual usefulness of Linux based operating systems are highly and disproportionately discounted on HN as it is a fact that the majority of computer users spend most of their time inside a browser talking on social media. Now this would be a good point to refute, but whenever the subject comes up the replying comments always seem to diverge from this subject and postulate a different argument that supports their view point while completely disregarding the point the parent comment made. If you believe that 90% of computer users need photoshop and advanced features of word and excel (you can use both word and excel online though, without windows installed), then fine, show me some proof, don't just say "It'll never happen you guys are dumb", come up with some evidence to support your claim. I mean, new versions of Linux are as easy to use as an iPhone (app stores, home screens, big pretty icons) so if people can learn to use iOS they can obviously learn to use Linux. This week I'm switching over 4000 computers to Ubuntu 14.04 for a tech support company. Last week I did around 2000 for a call center based around ordering small sausages and cheese. Currently I have about six more contracts that are being negotiated to set up even more Linux based machines. I have the ability to switch about a thousand a day because of how the computers in these places are networked. Can you believe they were running Windows 7 to emulate DOS? One of the contracts I'm currently negotiating involves switching a thousand computers from XP to Ubuntu 14.04 and all they use the computers for is a web app that the workers use to send what they call "technical requests" using browser based web apps that all work in firefox. I could go on. The few people in these companies that are actually skilled workers and need Windows compatibility for some reason are either using "Windows labs" that we set up specifically for them or we're running a remote version of windows on a server and streaming whatever they want to a Linux box. In my experience Windows is not needed in 90% of cases and when it is it's for a skilled task that involves skilled workers. It's a fact that skilled workers do not make up even close to a majority of the work force. Also, Ubuntu is certified to run on 70% of desktop computers: http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/desktop/ http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/desktop/ . One of the the manufacturers I work closely with is Dell and for the most part I haven't had any problems installing Linux on any business model Dell desktop that there is. Business models don't typically come with high end nVidia GPUs and other unnecessary hardware, so upgrading to Linux is no problem most of the time. On budget and typical business systems Linux seems to be the king of resume times and performance (at least in my experience). I've only used windows 8 on an employees laptop and from what I can tell, it wasn't made to perform well on his Toshiba to say the least. I've seen both windows 7 and windows 8 running very well on the right hardware though. The performance of windows on budget hardware (~75% of consumer) is mediocre at best, which is unfortunate, but what's even more unfortunate is that because a select few can get Windows performing amazingly on great hardware, the consumer market seems to think it runs amazingly everywhere. Hopefully soon it will, or people will come to their senses and realize installing windows on a low budget (average consumer grade) system is more trouble than it's worth. If we want to talk about an insecure OS we can start with windows which is the king of insecurities. Do I even need to get into all the bugs people find after the release. At least this was found before the official release. If anything there's a circle jerk around "why Linux can't be used for anything" which is pretty sad considering the people who come here consider themselves to be tech oriented but can't even use Ubuntu. I'd also like to mention that I have a friend who installs Linux for animation companies, including pixar, who use Blender and other open source technologies to make professional quality animated films. Can we stop pretending that Linux has no uses for anything?

TillE 12y ago

This is an unfortunately common pattern. KDE4 killed Linux on the desktop for me. I loved KDE3, used it for years. And then they stopped maintaining it, and the next version was unusable for years. It's still not particularly good or better than KDE3, it's just different.

Touche 12y ago
What does this have to do with Linux? Every OS evolves, free or not free. At least with linux you occasionally have things like MATE happen (forking a previous, popular version). And you have xfce, dwm, fluxbox, and dozens of other choices that fit to your liking. KDE kind has the market corners on that style of WM though. The only others like it are lightweight like LXDE.
PythonicAlpha 12y ago
The same thing happened to me. KDE3 was one of the best desktops. Then things where going downhill, at least from my perspective. There was also Kmail, once a very usable tool for me (I think, the best version also came with KDE3). Then after the update (I guess with KDE4) there where some bugs on receiving eMail that happened again and again. It was nasty (I still can't get it, how they managed to kill the simple POP3 handler) but I could use my mail still. After that with the next update came a version that did not manage to import my old mailboxes that I had managed with Kmail for years. They simply killed this once good application for me! Just for gimmicks. Today I use webmail, though I don't like it. Also they managed to cripple KDE4 more and more ... The desktop applications did not do what was documented and they fixed bugs, that did not exist, thus removing or crippling once valuable options ... There was also a bug filed for that, but the developers just did not listen. Now I use another desktop, but I fear, one day I also need to kick this one, since I see similar behavior -- adding or removing features, complete rewrites, just because it is a nice mind-game or in fashion. I also where thinking to use a really old desktop that nobody uses anymore, just to be free from feature-creep and fashion-ism. I need the computer to work with, not playing mind-games and update-platformers!
k00pa 12y ago
Exactly, KDE3 was just awesome, I don't see point of fixing something thats not broken. I still think KDE4 is missing lot of the "feel" that KDE3 had. Applications in the KDE3 time were also better, good example is Amarok.
crdoconnor 12y ago
XFCE is a pretty fine replacement.
cabalamat 12y ago
> I loved KDE3, used it for years. There's always trinity (http://trinitydesktop.org/ http://trinitydesktop.org/) > It's still not particularly good or better than KDE3, it's just different. You're right, it isn't better. When I last tried using it (November last year), parts were unusable -- for example on the workspace switcher (the panel that shows your workspaces) I couldn't see the windows that were on each workspace, because the idiot who had coded it thought it more important to make the control look shiny than to display the windows. I use xubuntu/xfce now. I've no time for fuckwits who just want to jump on the newest trendiest technology bandwagon

rdtsc 12y ago

You are assuming that the same brain pool that writes (re)writes the screensaver, will be just as interested to (re)write Adobe CS for Linux.

coldtea 12y ago
Even if that's not so, his core idea is right. Linux needs more people writing stuff like Adobe CS replacements (and tons of other tools and core functionality besides), than it needs people rewriting the screensavers.
- Touche 12y ago
  People write what they want to write. There's no Adobe CS alternative because the people using Linux don't need/want that tool. The people who want it (designers) overwhelmingly use OSX and aren't looking to switch. It would be a wasted effort to make such an application, but if you think there's a market I'd love to be proven wrong.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Well you may have cause and effect backwards. More likely the people who need Adobe CS won't consider Linux simply because it won't run it and has no replacement!
    - nwh 12y ago
      Basically. I don't think there will be ever a replacement just due to the overwhelming complexity of it. Unless we can deal with Pantone and other weird colour spaces on linux, nobody will switch.
    - Touche 12y ago
      I don't think so. It's available on Windows. I wonder what % of its users are Windows vs. Mac.
      - 12y ago

Touche 12y ago

So dead that this is #1 on HN.

coldtea 12y ago
Scheme, Lisp, Smalltalk, heck even APL and J posts make it to the top of HN too, and those languages have been dead for the vast majority of developers for decades. It's not like HN is a representative sample of the computing users at large.
- Touche 12y ago
  We have different definitions of "dead" it seems.

cabalamat 12y ago

Brakenshire 12y ago

I don't really agree about the importance of putting effort into these things- almost every user wants well-designed, polished interfaces for launching applications, reading email, surfing the web, listening to music, etc, and a very large percentage of users only want that. You could well be right about a lack of discipline in writing and rewriting, rather than improving what's there. But then I look at elementary OS, which has focused on doing exactly what you are complaining about, and that seems to be a major success.

crdoconnor 12y ago

>The main reason Linux desktop is dead is because Linux desktop developers treat it like the latest fashion fad instead of a commercial product you have to live off and be responsible for. Xscreensaver is a thing and you can use it. It's no secret that ubuntu's desktop has been a basket case, but it's not the only available option even with ubuntu - let alone on linux. kubuntu is fine, and xubuntu is awesome (neither of which use this screensaver). The reason why the linux desktop never took off was because microsoft used its not insignificant market power to squash it each time it was about to take off. Not because of a silly screensaver that got rewritten.

Sanddancer 12y ago
The linux desktop never took off because of petty things like rewriting the screensaver every few years, while letting things users care about, like backwards compatibility, incremental change, etc, all get in the way. I gave up on the linux desktop because every other version seemed to be a jarring change along the lines of windows 7 to windows 8. After a while, one gets tired of having to relearn things and just wants a system that works.
WorldWideWayne 12y ago
I think you're giving Microsoft too much credit. Linux on the desktop failed for a lot of reasons. Major fragmentation and lack of focus are some major ones.

colanderman 12y ago

JWZ said it best: http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html

asveikau 12y ago
He also wrote about why it's important not to take too many library dependencies in a screen lock program: http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html Something tells me this kind of reasoning does not stop Ubuntu.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

vacri 12y ago

The most popular desktop in the world made a major change on things like this in its last revision, following fashion, and it's not dead.

lutusp 12y ago
No, but it's certainly on life support. http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/rejected-74-of-organizations-have-no-plans-to-deploy-windows-8/6828/ http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/rejected...
akoeht 12y ago
Because it was already the most popular desktop in the world. It's so big that they can make bad decisions and still take the whole market in the direction of said bad decisions.

danford 12y ago

1. This bug was filed before Ubuntu 14.04 was released 2. This bug was patched before Ubuntu 14.04 was released 3. You're an obvious troll account based on the username "muuh-gnu" 4. Most of your arguments are unfounded and opinion based. This is an exaggeration you had to make to prove your point (and the reason you had to exaggerate is because you don't actually have a point, which anyone can see by actually doing some research). Most Linux threads on HN seem to end in an anti-linux circle jerk, while the people who are actually presenting the facts get downvoted. The actual usefulness of Linux based operating systems are highly and disproportionately discounted on HN as it is a fact that the majority of computer users spend most of their time inside a browser talking on social media. Now this would be a good point to refute, but whenever the subject comes up the replying comments always seem to diverge from this subject and postulate a different argument that supports their view point while completely disregarding the point the parent comment made. If you believe that 90% of computer users need photoshop and advanced features of word and excel (you can use both word and excel online though, without windows installed), then fine, show me some proof, don't just say "It'll never happen you guys are dumb", come up with some evidence to support your claim. I mean, new versions of Linux are as easy to use as an iPhone (app stores, home screens, big pretty icons) so if people can learn to use iOS they can obviously learn to use Linux. This week I'm switching over 4000 computers to Ubuntu 14.04 for a tech support company. Last week I did around 2000 for a call center based around ordering small sausages and cheese. Currently I have about six more contracts that are being negotiated to set up even more Linux based machines. I have the ability to switch about a thousand a day because of how the computers in these places are networked. Can you believe they were running Windows 7 to emulate DOS? One of the contracts I'm currently negotiating involves switching a thousand computers from XP to Ubuntu 14.04 and all they use the computers for is a web app that the workers use to send what they call "technical requests" using browser based web apps that all work in firefox. I could go on. The few people in these companies that are actually skilled workers and need Windows compatibility for some reason are either using "Windows labs" that we set up specifically for them or we're running a remote version of windows on a server and streaming whatever they want to a Linux box. In my experience Windows is not needed in 90% of cases and when it is it's for a skilled task that involves skilled workers. It's a fact that skilled workers do not make up even close to a majority of the work force. Also, Ubuntu is certified to run on 70% of desktop computers: http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/desktop/ http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/desktop/ . One of the the manufacturers I work closely with is Dell and for the most part I haven't had any problems installing Linux on any business model Dell desktop that there is. Business models don't typically come with high end nVidia GPUs and other unnecessary hardware, so upgrading to Linux is no problem most of the time. On budget and typical business systems Linux seems to be the king of resume times and performance (at least in my experience). I've only used windows 8 on an employees laptop and from what I can tell, it wasn't made to perform well on his Toshiba to say the least. I've seen both windows 7 and windows 8 running very well on the right hardware though. The performance of windows on budget hardware (~75% of consumer) is mediocre at best, which is unfortunate, but what's even more unfortunate is that because a select few can get Windows performing amazingly on great hardware, the consumer market seems to think it runs amazingly everywhere. Hopefully soon it will, or people will come to their senses and realize installing windows on a low budget (average consumer grade) system is more trouble than it's worth. If we want to talk about an insecure OS we can start with windows which is the king of insecurities. Do I even need to get into all the bugs people find after the release. At least this was found before the official release. If anything there's a circle jerk around "why Linux can't be used for anything" which is pretty sad considering the people who come here consider themselves to be tech oriented but can't even use Ubuntu. I'd also like to mention that I have a friend who installs Linux for animation companies, including pixar, who use Blender and other open source technologies to make professional quality animated films. Can we stop pretending that Linux has no uses for anything?