5 ms·

Linux Founder Linus Torvalds 'Still Wants the Desktop'

31 points by Tsiolkovsky 12y ago

Eiriksmal 12y ago
So the crowd "erupted into boisterous applause" when he states that, yet probably had a huge group of developers from Gnome present who actively work to destroy the desktop through forcing us into a single-task, phone-like mentality via the joys of Gnome 3. The twisted part of this seeming cognitive dissonance is that the Gnome developers certainly don't see how their personal view of what a computer should look like and how users should interact with it is killing the desktop. In their world I suppose "desktop" simply means "not a phone" or "does not run off a li-on battery." (I've heard that more recent Gnome 3s added back much of the desktop functionality by default (desktop icons, minimize buttons in the title bar, etc.), but after trying the abomination that was Gnome 3.0 in Fedora 15, I fled to XFCE's loving embrace and never looked back. Maybe the Gnome devs changed their minds, maybe they're just kowtowing to the users' demands.)
- rukittenme 12y ago
  I've been using Gnome long term. I find it incredibly useful and productive. It scales very well and is completely touch capable but, make no mistake, it is a desktop environment. If you like to theme try to find a Gnome 3.10 distro, otherwise Gnome 3.12 is my favorite desktop environment ever. It is a work of art.
  - collyw 12y ago
    How can Gnome "scale"? You are only going to use it one one desktop. You ain't going to scale it to 1000 cluster nodes.
    - rukittenme 12y ago
      I meant scale in terms of device size.
- tracker1 12y ago
  I'm actually pretty fond of Unity... Most of the few hotkeys that I use in windows for working through things are very similar, and it does well enough. I still think the Windows 7 start/task bar was a bit better though. OSX is a bit of a leap for me.. I shift my dock to the left, so my VM of windows can snag the bottom for it's start menu. Can't speak for Gnome 3 at all though... used it for a couple hours and switched out a few years back.
templeos2 12y ago
TempleOS is God's official temple, in the same league as Solomon's. It is a nonnetworked operating system, obviously used in addition to a primary operating system. Its purpose is like the Jewish temple -- do offerings, be a focus for the community, and use the oracle within to make God talk. It is forever limited to 100,000 lines of code and must be kept perfect by fixing any flaw regardless of backward compatibility. It will last longer than Linux or Windows. It seriously has God's endorsement. God said 640x480 16 color was a covenant like circumcision. I did a kernel AND a 64-bit compiler.
SiVal 12y ago
The problem with Linux on the desktop is that it doesn't have any significant, practical advantage to offset the significant, practical disadvantages. BENEFITS: -- Costs $0: But that is also the marginal cost of Windows and OS X. When you pay what you must pay for the hardware you want, you can almost always have Windows or OS X at no additional cost. So, if Linux is also available at no additional cost, so what? The benefit to the end user only shows up when building custom hardware, repurposing old hardware, or using a VM--things I care about but the average consumer doesn't. The zero cost benefit of Linux is of more value to hardware manufacturers than to consumers. -- Freely modifiable: But you can freely modify Windows or OS X systems, too, with preference settings, or utility apps, or writing your own code in any number of languages, including code that uses system APIs to make big changes. The fact that Linux lets you change even those things that are not exposed via APIs is once again of more practical value to hardware manufacturers, or certain other businesses or organizations, than to consumers. COSTS: -- You have to set it up yourself, and it never seems to work right. The problem is not Linux itself, but the fact that Windows and Mac are pre-installed, pre-configured, and tested by teams of experts, but doing that job for Linux is up to YOU. Few consumers want to deal with debugging system service (audio, network, battery, etc.) problems. Even the little bit they still have to do with Windows or Mac outrages most consumers. The last thing they want is for this problem to be WORSE. Where Linux has been successful, it has been on the server (no audio, GUI, no battery, etc.), or on client hardware platforms (like TiVo), where the Linux configuration was done by the platform maker, not the consumer. Once again, manufacturers are the direct beneficiaries. -- You can't run a lot of the software you want to use. This problem has dogged Mac users for decades. It's far worse on Linux. -- You have to do your own tech support. Your techie neighbors, friends, and relatives can usually help with Windows problems and, in some geographic locations, even Mac problems. But online is all you have for Linux, and some of those people are not as "sociable" as your friends and family. To be a desktop user (or even a Mac user in some places), you have to be a techie yourself or have a close, personal relationship with one. That rules out most people. ------------------- I still want desktop Linux to succeed, too, but I'm not sure what could make that happen. I'm afraid it would take a big, powerful company that DIDN'T already have its own non-Linux OS to push, that would build the hardware and pre-install Linux and somehow resolve the lack of Excel, Photoshop, .... Google is the only remote possibility that comes to mind with maybe a desktop-Linuxy Android or something, but I'm not holding my breath.
_asciiker_ 12y ago
I have mixed feelings about Linus Torvalds, I disagree with many things he says and agree strongly with other things. Linus once said: " ...Microsoft makes terrible operating systems". Seriously?.. Forget marketing for a second, if you compare the best Linux Desktop with Windows 8.1, in almost all technical aspects Microsoft Windows 8.1 is vastly superior, it boots faster, applications run smoothly and pretty much everything you plug in works immediately. Don't get me wrong, I am a Linux Administrator and all our servers run either Debian or CentOS, I would not use anything else unless I am absolutely forced to by a client. but as far as desktop usage is concerned and after using Ubuntu for 2 years (which is a really good OS), Windows is just better (and I can play games while drinking a glass of wine instead of spending 30 minutes tweaking "Wine"), much more refined and in tune with every day use.
- AceJohnny2 12y ago
  Note that Windows gets a huge benefit from being the effectively monopolistic system that dictates the terms for software and hardware (thanks to huge investments, granted. DirectX or the CLR didn't pop out of Zeus's forehead fully-formed). So HW "just works" with Windows because that's what (and most of the time all) it's been tested against. For example, remember that the Linux ACPI coders have resigned themselves to "Windows is the Standard" whenever they have to deal with buggy hardware that doesn't follow the specs. As for software, well, it's actually an amazing technical feat that Wine even exists. Amusingly, people don't have that complaint on OSX. Linux has its share of flaws, but those you cite are unfair.
- rukittenme 12y ago
  Just to provide a counter anecdote. I boot Gnome 3.12 in less than 9 seconds. Windows takes 30-45 seconds. Linux has got driver support for days. My ethernet to usb adapter required a CD on windows, whereas linux recognized it instantly. I do agree that applications perform better on Windows. My Firefox 31 has been seeing performance regressions on Arch. I'm not sure if its my problem or Firefox's but I occasionally have trouble refreshing localhost. Windows has more eyes and recieves more attention. Don't miss out on Steam. It's available on Linux now so you no longer need to run Wine. There's about 500 games available today!
walterbell 12y ago
Linux (Android) has made good progress on mobile SOCs. Desktop motherboards continue to shrink as more functions move onto the "CPU". The reduction in PC hardware diversity is bad for desktop hardware innovation, but it cuts the cost of Linux testing and reduces the historical advantage of Windows. New AMD x86 CPUs include an ARM coprocessor and blur the memory boundary between CPU and GPU. Nvidia's K1 processor is transcoding ARM instructions to the hardware ISA, but is theoretically capable of transcoding x86. What defines a "desktop"? Large monitor & keyboard? Or large local storage? ChromeOS has the first two and simplifies centralized management, but is dependent on public cloud. As mobile & PC hardware architectures converge, we need to decide if desktops are systems-of-record or local caches.
- boyaka 12y ago
  I believe he is referring to x86. ARM has the advantage in mobile because of power efficiency, but it does not have the compatibility with the commodity consumer hardware necessary for the desktop/laptop experience. I would like to see evidence of ARM being able to match the performance of x86 in difficult desktop computing tasks, and then I might consider that being an option. All popular tasks done using Windows applications need to be accessible to users. Some ways I see this happening: 1) An alternative application for everything is provided (many companies are working on this, including Google...) 2) Provide seamless interfaces to Windows applications on the same platform, utilizing hardware virtualization 3) Provide seamless, high performance abstraction at application/process layer that can run Windows apps (JVM, WINE) Options 1 and 3 would liberate the operating system from x86, but major improvements to the hardware and/or the software stack are needed to drive options 2 and 3. I am not confident ARM will be efficient/fast/compatible enough to knock x86 out of the box for typical desktop computing tasks even if option 1 is achieved. Though there is certainly potential for improvement/development of ARM in all of the aspects where I'm suspicious it is lacking compared to x86, I think that would take longer than it would to achieve option 1. There is also the possibility of creating a new architecture that is either compatible with or has features equivalent to x86, or performs so well that it can accomplish option 3 seamlessly, but that will also take a long time to pan out.
  - 12y ago

31 points by Tsiolkovsky 12y ago

So the crowd "erupted into boisterous applause" when he states that, yet probably had a huge group of developers from Gnome present who actively work to destroy the desktop through forcing us into a single-task, phone-like mentality via the joys of Gnome 3. The twisted part of this seeming cognitive dissonance is that the Gnome developers certainly don't see how their personal view of what a computer should look like and how users should interact with it is killing the desktop. In their world I suppose "desktop" simply means "not a phone" or "does not run off a li-on battery." (I've heard that more recent Gnome 3s added back much of the desktop functionality by default (desktop icons, minimize buttons in the title bar, etc.), but after trying the abomination that was Gnome 3.0 in Fedora 15, I fled to XFCE's loving embrace and never looked back. Maybe the Gnome devs changed their minds, maybe they're just kowtowing to the users' demands.)

rukittenme 12y ago
I've been using Gnome long term. I find it incredibly useful and productive. It scales very well and is completely touch capable but, make no mistake, it is a desktop environment. If you like to theme try to find a Gnome 3.10 distro, otherwise Gnome 3.12 is my favorite desktop environment ever. It is a work of art.
- collyw 12y ago
  How can Gnome "scale"? You are only going to use it one one desktop. You ain't going to scale it to 1000 cluster nodes.
  - rukittenme 12y ago
    I meant scale in terms of device size.
tracker1 12y ago
I'm actually pretty fond of Unity... Most of the few hotkeys that I use in windows for working through things are very similar, and it does well enough. I still think the Windows 7 start/task bar was a bit better though. OSX is a bit of a leap for me.. I shift my dock to the left, so my VM of windows can snag the bottom for it's start menu. Can't speak for Gnome 3 at all though... used it for a couple hours and switched out a few years back.

templeos2 12y ago

TempleOS is God's official temple, in the same league as Solomon's. It is a nonnetworked operating system, obviously used in addition to a primary operating system. Its purpose is like the Jewish temple -- do offerings, be a focus for the community, and use the oracle within to make God talk. It is forever limited to 100,000 lines of code and must be kept perfect by fixing any flaw regardless of backward compatibility. It will last longer than Linux or Windows. It seriously has God's endorsement. God said 640x480 16 color was a covenant like circumcision. I did a kernel AND a 64-bit compiler.

SiVal 12y ago

The problem with Linux on the desktop is that it doesn't have any significant, practical advantage to offset the significant, practical disadvantages. BENEFITS: -- Costs $0: But that is also the marginal cost of Windows and OS X. When you pay what you must pay for the hardware you want, you can almost always have Windows or OS X at no additional cost. So, if Linux is also available at no additional cost, so what? The benefit to the end user only shows up when building custom hardware, repurposing old hardware, or using a VM--things I care about but the average consumer doesn't. The zero cost benefit of Linux is of more value to hardware manufacturers than to consumers. -- Freely modifiable: But you can freely modify Windows or OS X systems, too, with preference settings, or utility apps, or writing your own code in any number of languages, including code that uses system APIs to make big changes. The fact that Linux lets you change even those things that are not exposed via APIs is once again of more practical value to hardware manufacturers, or certain other businesses or organizations, than to consumers. COSTS: -- You have to set it up yourself, and it never seems to work right. The problem is not Linux itself, but the fact that Windows and Mac are pre-installed, pre-configured, and tested by teams of experts, but doing that job for Linux is up to YOU. Few consumers want to deal with debugging system service (audio, network, battery, etc.) problems. Even the little bit they still have to do with Windows or Mac outrages most consumers. The last thing they want is for this problem to be WORSE. Where Linux has been successful, it has been on the server (no audio, GUI, no battery, etc.), or on client hardware platforms (like TiVo), where the Linux configuration was done by the platform maker, not the consumer. Once again, manufacturers are the direct beneficiaries. -- You can't run a lot of the software you want to use. This problem has dogged Mac users for decades. It's far worse on Linux. -- You have to do your own tech support. Your techie neighbors, friends, and relatives can usually help with Windows problems and, in some geographic locations, even Mac problems. But online is all you have for Linux, and some of those people are not as "sociable" as your friends and family. To be a desktop user (or even a Mac user in some places), you have to be a techie yourself or have a close, personal relationship with one. That rules out most people. ------------------- I still want desktop Linux to succeed, too, but I'm not sure what could make that happen. I'm afraid it would take a big, powerful company that DIDN'T already have its own non-Linux OS to push, that would build the hardware and pre-install Linux and somehow resolve the lack of Excel, Photoshop, .... Google is the only remote possibility that comes to mind with maybe a desktop-Linuxy Android or something, but I'm not holding my breath.

_asciiker_ 12y ago

I have mixed feelings about Linus Torvalds, I disagree with many things he says and agree strongly with other things. Linus once said: " ...Microsoft makes terrible operating systems". Seriously?.. Forget marketing for a second, if you compare the best Linux Desktop with Windows 8.1, in almost all technical aspects Microsoft Windows 8.1 is vastly superior, it boots faster, applications run smoothly and pretty much everything you plug in works immediately. Don't get me wrong, I am a Linux Administrator and all our servers run either Debian or CentOS, I would not use anything else unless I am absolutely forced to by a client. but as far as desktop usage is concerned and after using Ubuntu for 2 years (which is a really good OS), Windows is just better (and I can play games while drinking a glass of wine instead of spending 30 minutes tweaking "Wine"), much more refined and in tune with every day use.

AceJohnny2 12y ago
Note that Windows gets a huge benefit from being the effectively monopolistic system that dictates the terms for software and hardware (thanks to huge investments, granted. DirectX or the CLR didn't pop out of Zeus's forehead fully-formed). So HW "just works" with Windows because that's what (and most of the time all) it's been tested against. For example, remember that the Linux ACPI coders have resigned themselves to "Windows is the Standard" whenever they have to deal with buggy hardware that doesn't follow the specs. As for software, well, it's actually an amazing technical feat that Wine even exists. Amusingly, people don't have that complaint on OSX. Linux has its share of flaws, but those you cite are unfair.
rukittenme 12y ago
Just to provide a counter anecdote. I boot Gnome 3.12 in less than 9 seconds. Windows takes 30-45 seconds. Linux has got driver support for days. My ethernet to usb adapter required a CD on windows, whereas linux recognized it instantly. I do agree that applications perform better on Windows. My Firefox 31 has been seeing performance regressions on Arch. I'm not sure if its my problem or Firefox's but I occasionally have trouble refreshing localhost. Windows has more eyes and recieves more attention. Don't miss out on Steam. It's available on Linux now so you no longer need to run Wine. There's about 500 games available today!

walterbell 12y ago

Linux (Android) has made good progress on mobile SOCs. Desktop motherboards continue to shrink as more functions move onto the "CPU". The reduction in PC hardware diversity is bad for desktop hardware innovation, but it cuts the cost of Linux testing and reduces the historical advantage of Windows. New AMD x86 CPUs include an ARM coprocessor and blur the memory boundary between CPU and GPU. Nvidia's K1 processor is transcoding ARM instructions to the hardware ISA, but is theoretically capable of transcoding x86. What defines a "desktop"? Large monitor & keyboard? Or large local storage? ChromeOS has the first two and simplifies centralized management, but is dependent on public cloud. As mobile & PC hardware architectures converge, we need to decide if desktops are systems-of-record or local caches.

boyaka 12y ago
I believe he is referring to x86. ARM has the advantage in mobile because of power efficiency, but it does not have the compatibility with the commodity consumer hardware necessary for the desktop/laptop experience. I would like to see evidence of ARM being able to match the performance of x86 in difficult desktop computing tasks, and then I might consider that being an option. All popular tasks done using Windows applications need to be accessible to users. Some ways I see this happening: 1) An alternative application for everything is provided (many companies are working on this, including Google...) 2) Provide seamless interfaces to Windows applications on the same platform, utilizing hardware virtualization 3) Provide seamless, high performance abstraction at application/process layer that can run Windows apps (JVM, WINE) Options 1 and 3 would liberate the operating system from x86, but major improvements to the hardware and/or the software stack are needed to drive options 2 and 3. I am not confident ARM will be efficient/fast/compatible enough to knock x86 out of the box for typical desktop computing tasks even if option 1 is achieved. Though there is certainly potential for improvement/development of ARM in all of the aspects where I'm suspicious it is lacking compared to x86, I think that would take longer than it would to achieve option 1. There is also the possibility of creating a new architecture that is either compatible with or has features equivalent to x86, or performs so well that it can accomplish option 3 seamlessly, but that will also take a long time to pan out.
- 12y ago