Former Compiz Developer: Free Software Desktop Might Enter A Dark Age [editorial]

Zarathustra[H]

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
37,449
Here is one that sounds a little bit like sour grapes to me. A former Canonical Compiz developer decries Ubuntu's switch back to Gnome in a blog entry, saying it might lead to "a dark age" for open source desktops, with so few large organizations pursuing new ones.

Personally, I couldn't disagree any more. The heart and soul of the open source movement, including its desktops, is in community projects, not in efforts driven by large corporate interests. In fact, if you ask me, Ubuntu foisting its home-brew touch-compatible interface on the Ubuntu Desktop masses starting 6 years ago WAS the dark age. Unity is Canonical's Windows 8 Metro interface, except even notoriously stubborn Microsoft started later and noticed sooner that, while pretty decent for touch users, it more than anything was alienating traditional desktop users. Unity was the reason I stopped using Ubuntu 6 years ago, and there were very many like me.

I fully understand getting close to, and passionate about a project you have spent a lot of time working on, but sometimes you just have to kill your darlings, and I'm glad Canonical has. Not only was Unity an effort by Canonical to drive its interests in moving into the mobile space with a unified interface, at the expense of its traditional desktop users, but it was also an ugly resource hog, with buttons in the wrong places, hurting usability.

As far as I am concerned, desktop usability in Linux hit a peak with Gnome 2 and plunged into an age of darkness when Ubuntu made Unity their default desktop. There is no need to mess with the perfection that was Gnome 2. Certainly modernizing it through such efforts as Mate, or more modern work-alike's like Cinnamon is great, but there is no need to reinvent the wheel. It will almost certainly result in something that is worse.

Free software on the desktop might enter a dark age soon. There aren’t very many companies in this space now. Intel was out as of halfway through last year. Google is focused on Android and Chrome OS. Novell and Sun folded a long time ago. Nokia fell off a burning platform. IBM is nowhere to be found. And now Canonical is pivoting away too. Samsung’s Tizen is potentially an interesting player, but everyone knows its a plan B. Red Hat remains and so does Endless. An of course there is still Collabora, Codethink, Igalia and other free software contracting firms, though their existence arguably depends on the larger players.
 
+1 for Zarathustra's editorial. First thing I do on a Ubuntu box is install Gnome.

I think this speaks to the main problem with Linux: there is simply too much fragmentation of the various distros. It is very nice being able to customize your rig how you want, but it is a lot harder for open source projects to keep up with the features commercial products when everyone is working on their own baby.

Open source software is both amazing for the [H] like power users and horrible for everyone else at the same time.
 
Yeah I go straight to KDE and start downloading window decorations, moving things around and setting up effects.
I wish Solidworks and all my games ran in linux. I would use it full time. I hate windows 10 so much.
 
I installed Ububtu a couple of months ago, and quickly discovered I don't like Unity. I installed KDE, but display scaling didn't work, so I went back to square one and installed Kubuntu. It's working for me so far.

I think very few people will miss Unity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
Fully agree with dumping Unity. I used it a couple of times and found it brutal to use day to day. I always install Kubuntu or Gnome Ubuntu these days. I like the package system and applications that Ubuntu comes with but Unity was/is a no go.
 
I'll miss it as it runs my phone... Shame that the whole convergence idea sunk in the incredible delusions of grandeur and stubbornness demonstrated by Canonical, which is one of the points of the article.

Not worried about the dark ages just yet though.
 
I agree with Zarathustra. Ubuntu abandoning Gnome all those years ago threw us into the dark ages. To this day, while I guess there are people who like Unity, I haven't met one. ;)

When they abandoned Gnome it caused chaos because there was no major player backing Gnome anymore and right then Gnome 3 launched. Gnome 3 in itself was a huge shakeup because of the changes from Gnome 2. To this day I firmly believe that if Ubuntu had stuck with Gnome we would not have had the insane amount of forking of Gnome 2 and other DE's that we ended up getting. People hated Unity and hated Gnome 3 (again I think there would have been far less hate if backed by Canonical at that time) so they forked Gnome 2 or moved to another DE and then forked that b/c it wasn't what they wanted. So it was the dark ages because so many people were looking to make the next great DE.

All that forking led us to things like Cinnamon and MATE and I'm not saying choice is a bad thing, but how many desktop environments do we really need on Linux?

Unity
Gnome
KDE
XFCE
LXDE
LXQT
Cinnamon
MATE
Budgie
Deepin
Enlightenment
CDE
EDE
Liri
Pantheon
theShell
Trinity

And I'm sure I'm forgetting a few there...
 
Oooooo Vermillion is missing a cuople:

OpenBox
BlackBox
ROX Desktop
Fluxbox

I tend to stick to one of the big two KDE or Gnome... I am doing a bunch of Qt development these days and enjoy it much more than GTK, so that is biasing me.
 
I was never an Ubuntu fan so I don't actually have any experience with Unity although I have a feeling I'd dislike it considering the almost universal dislike for it. That said, I think the "dark ages" came about because about the same time Gnome 3 and KDE 4 came out. I didn't care for either one at all and I don't think I'm anywhere near the only one. When two of the biggest desktop environments came out with new versions which weren't exactly received well it probably caused the uptick in new DEs with a focus on a more traditional style. At the current time I mainly stick with KDE as it has evolved into something I like a lot better than KDE 4. I've tried some of the newer DEs but always find myself going back to KDE despite the higher resource usage compared to many others.
 
Unified interfaces. Just. Don't. Work. They sound great on paper, but always end with excessive compromise.

Microsoft learned this the hard way. It seems Canonical has finally also learned this.
 
ruffbytes said:
+1 for Zarathustra's editorial. First thing I do on a Ubuntu box is install Gnome.

I think this speaks to the main problem with Linux: there is simply too much fragmentation of the various distros. It is very nice being able to customize your rig how you want, but it is a lot harder for open source projects to keep up with the features commercial products when everyone is working on their own baby.

Open source software is both amazing for the [H] like power users and horrible for everyone else at the same time.
Click to expand...

This is like saying 'life is messy, we should whittle it down to a few species, just to make things easier.'
 
ruffbytes said:
+1 for Zarathustra's editorial. First thing I do on a Ubuntu box is install Gnome.

I think this speaks to the main problem with Linux: there is simply too much fragmentation of the various distros. It is very nice being able to customize your rig how you want, but it is a lot harder for open source projects to keep up with the features commercial products when everyone is working on their own baby.

Open source software is both amazing for the [H] like power users and horrible for everyone else at the same time.
Click to expand...


Keeping up with commercial products has nothing to do with various distros or fragmentation the difference is someone working on it on there free time and someone working on a product as there job.
 
hakstarr said:
Keeping up with commercial products has nothing to do with various distros or fragmentation the difference is someone working on it on there free time and someone working on a product as there job.
Click to expand...

That was my point.

EDIT: Sorry, too curt of a reply. Dreams of Linux for the Desktop where we are all living in our special Linux hippie bubble is not going to happen with all this fragmentation.

Ubuntu was supposed to be working on Linux for the Desktop like someone working on a product for their job! That was their job! But they flit around and fully back a project for a year or so and then completely remove all support. They make Unity and then make this Ubuntu Phone and then go onto their Ubuntu Store (or whatever it is called). They are working on their distro like everyone else working on their distro! It's all about their baby and what they are interested in at the time!
 
Last edited:
ruffbytes said:
If you want widespread adoption of Linux for the Desktop, yes, you do.
Click to expand...

You need widespread education on computing and computer science if you want that. People are lazy and stupid, so its never going to happen. I have been waiting on the 'Year of the Linux Desktop' for 20 years. Guess what it already happened, and its called Android. That is what you are asking for. Dumbing down for the masses is how mobile got where it is now, the land of mediocrity and centralized control.

Sent from my Ubuntu-based Unreal Engine 4 Workstation.
 
Last edited:
Spire3660 said:
You need widespread education on computing and computer science if you want that. People are lazy and stupid, so its never going to happen. I have been waiting on the 'Year of the Linux Desktop' for 20 years. Guess what it already happened, and its called Android. That is the what you are asking for. Dumbing down for the masses is how mobile got where it is now, the land of mediocrity and centralized control.

Sent from my Ubuntu-based Unreal Engine 4 Workstation.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I have been using Linux since 1999. I get what you are saying here.

I still think Canonical could have done more with the resources they had if they didn't push Unity. I think it fragmened the ecosystem and made it harder for developers to write software and users to use software on Linux as a platform.
 
I am gkad they are heading back to gnome. Ubuntu used to be one of the main distros I would suggest to new Linux users. After their switch to unity I started suggesting Mint and others like Manjaro. Truth is though for a completely new first time Linux user Ubuntu was still probably the most MS like in size and support. Glad they are now going to be defaulting to the same desktop experience people will be seeing more often at work with the RHEL CENT and SUSE also using Gnome as the default.

Having all the major big house distros using the same default desktop makes it far easier for new people switching. If after they come over they want to try out the KDEs Mates and all the other great options fantastic. The obscure options like the window mangers like Open Box are pretty much non options. Trying to go through and explain things like Open and Flux box to new people is always fun.... now its just much easier to say Gnome, that is the main stream standard Linux desktop.

PS Zarathustra editorial is spot on.
 
My family and SO actually like unity. It's very straightforward for those with basic needs. And with Ubuntu it's very easy to install and switch to another Gui. I personally prefer xfce, but I may prefer unity over gnome.
 
I swear Windows users have gone into retrograde... The biggest problem for the Linux desktop is the fact that the windows end user doesn't want to learn. You can't fix stupid.
 
LBJM said:
I swear Windows users have gone into retrograde... The biggest problem for the Linux desktop is the fact that the windows end user doesn't want to learn. You can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...

Sad thing is there are distros out there now where there is very little learning curve. XFCE with the Whisper plugin is very Windows esque so Xubuntu is simple to learn. Solus with Budgie is ridiculously easy for a newbie. Mint with Cinnamon is likewise easy.

So at times I don't think it's a matter of "you can't fix stupid." It's more of people are too lazy to bother even trying something new. Instead they prefer just being walked over.
 
Spire3660 said:
You need widespread education on computing and computer science if you want that. People are lazy and stupid, so its never going to happen. I have been waiting on the 'Year of the Linux Desktop' for 20 years. Guess what it already happened, and its called Android. That is what you are asking for. Dumbing down for the masses is how mobile got where it is now, the land of mediocrity and centralized control.
Click to expand...

Guess what? Android isn't a desktop OS.

It's even less accurate, than pretending that Linux Desktop has succeeding, because of Linux Server success. Linux Server and Linux Desktop and server at least are the same Kernel and application model, it is the same OS in different roles.

Android is NOT Desktop Linux. Android uses(emphasis on the uses) a heavily modified embedded Linux kernel. It has a lot less in common with Desktop Linux, and again, it's not a desktop OS.

Android is also a perfect example of exactly what the author in the original article was talking about.

Android doesn't succeed by community effort, it's success is entirely because Google put their time, money and backing into it, they could just have well chosen BSD as the kernel. The underlying kernel is almost irrelevant to the undertaking, which is mostly about Dalvik. The real core of Android is Dalvik, not the highly modified Linux Kernel.

So nice try, but it really helps highlight how wrong this Android == Linux Desktop nonsense is.
 
Vermillion said:
Sad thing is there are distros out there now where there is very little learning curve. XFCE with the Whisper plugin is very Windows esque so Xubuntu is simple to learn. Solus with Budgie is ridiculously easy for a newbie. Mint with Cinnamon is likewise easy.

So at times I don't think it's a matter of "you can't fix stupid." It's more of people are too lazy to bother even trying something new. Instead they prefer just being walked over.
Click to expand...


I understand why people don't want to switch. I mean, for a web browsing, YouTube and email machine that's a no brainer, but most people have completely replaced their computers with their phones for these purposes today.

The reasons not to use Linux these days come down to software availability. Some people will never be happy with a work-a-like like LibreOffice instead of Ms Office or Gimp instead of Adobe Photoshop, despite the fact that Ms. Office and Adobe Photoshop are really expensive, and Gimp and LibreOffice are completely free.

Gimp and LibreOffice are not 100% perfect, but they do 99.9% of what your typical user uses those tools for. (and did I mention they are free on a free OS, that is more secure and stable than Windows, and doesn't spy on you?)

People with lack of flexibility regarding the software they run will be very unlikely to want to run Linux, as for them its Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Photoshop only.
 
Snowdog said:
Guess what? Android isn't a desktop OS.

It's even less accurate, than pretending that Linux Desktop has succeeding, because of Linux Server success. Linux Server and Linux Desktop and server at least are the same Kernel and application model, it is the same OS in different roles.

Android is NOT Desktop Linux. Android uses(emphasis on the uses) a heavily modified embedded Linux kernel. It has a lot less in common with Desktop Linux, and again, it's not a desktop OS.

Android is also a perfect example of exactly what the author in the original article was talking about.

Android doesn't succeed by community effort, it's success is entirely because Google put their time, money and backing into it, they could just have well chosen BSD as the kernel. The underlying kernel is almost irrelevant to the undertaking, which is mostly about Dalvik. The real core of Android is Dalvik, not the highly modified Linux Kernel.

So nice try, but it really helps highlight how wrong this Android == Linux Desktop nonsense is.
Click to expand...


You are missing the point. Android filled the place where Linux might have went... You fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Linux Desktop was NEVER going to happen with the masses because we have seen that market requires removing all choice to function.
 
I switched to Linux, it has it's quircks at times, and sometimes I feel like I'm compromising when the windows version of a program is much better (ex: photoshop vs gimp) but generally it's nice to not be tied to MS, especially with the current terrible direction they're heading with what is basically a SaS approach. No, I don't want a service, I want a product that I own and fully control. Linux gives me that.

And yeah Unity was terrible, it lasted about 5 minutes for me. I hate this trend of trying to redesign the GUI. Stop it! A start menu, task bar and desktop is a concept that has been around for a while, and it works, there is no reason to change it.

In general though, most usage can easily be switched to Linux. I actually prefer Libre Office over the newer versions of MS Office. Anything after Office 2003 sucks. It's too bloated and convoluted.

Personally for the few apps that I have not found a proper replacement for in Linux I just use a VM. One thing Linux lacks is proper CAD software. I have not found anything remotely as good as Autocad.
 
Spire3660 said:
You are missing the point. Android filled the place where Linux might have went... You fundamentally misunderstand the issue.
Click to expand...

LOL! :D

I can only answer your fallacies as they are presented. So I answered your Android == Linux Desktop fallacy.

Now you moved to an entirely different fantasy, that Linux would have succeed in mobile in the absence of Android. That one is is also preposterous.

Without the cohesion of a big company behind it, Linux could go nowhere in Mobile. It would have even worse prospects, than the Linux Desktop showing, because there are additional barriers to entry in Mobile, with Telco approval/support.
 
Red Squirrel said:
In general though, most usage can easily be switched to Linux. I actually prefer Libre Office over the newer versions of MS Office. Anything after Office 2003 sucks. It's too bloated and convoluted.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with you.

Where most people get hung up - however - is when they demand that documents saved in Ms Office formats open and render identically to how they render in Ms. Office. This often isn't the case (especially if you haven't installed the optional proprietary Ms Fonts). It's a sad state of things, but proprietary Ms. document formats are the defacto standard, at least in th eminds of most users.

Also, if you try to use a spreadsheet with 100k lines, you'll see where LibreOffice has a ways to go. It will bring it to a crawl.

That being said, I use Linux for just about everything except games. I still dual boot to Windows for my games, because the performance drop is too large in most Linux titles, and I also don't want to mess around with Wine, which is a bloody nightmare.

For desktop stuff, I still keep a VirtualBox Windows 10 VM around for when I come across stuff I just cant do in Windows, but I often go months without even powering it up these days.
 
LBJM said:
I swear Windows users have gone into retrograde... The biggest problem for the Linux desktop is the fact that the windows end user doesn't want to learn. You can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...

No, people rather spend time actually doing work then relearning a system that worked perfectly fine for them, just because someone said hey we need to make a change to it so we can sell more software because its "new and improved". I see this over and over and over in my almost 20 years working in the IT profession...People hate change.

Linux is nothing more then playground for computer nerds and def not for the "unwashed" masses.
 
ruffbytes said:
+1 for Zarathustra's editorial. First thing I do on a Ubuntu box is install Gnome.

I think this speaks to the main problem with Linux: there is simply too much fragmentation of the various distros. It is very nice being able to customize your rig how you want, but it is a lot harder for open source projects to keep up with the features commercial products when everyone is working on their own baby.

Open source software is both amazing for the [H] like power users and horrible for everyone else at the same time.
Click to expand...

I actually think fragmentation is one of the biggest issues with linux. It makes finding out how to some basic tasks harder and brings up issues with not only getting apps to manually install but getting updated apps to various software repositories. I feel the vast majority of people don't care and just want something that works. I mean the amount of people who will not even change their desktop picture is very high.


Zarathustra[H] said:
I understand why people don't want to switch. I mean, for a web browsing, YouTube and email machine that's a no brainer, but most people have completely replaced their computers with their phones for these purposes today.

The reasons not to use Linux these days come down to software availability. Some people will never be happy with a work-a-like like LibreOffice instead of Ms Office or Gimp instead of Adobe Photoshop, despite the fact that Ms. Office and Adobe Photoshop are really expensive, and Gimp and LibreOffice are completely free.

Gimp and LibreOffice are not 100% perfect, but they do 99.9% of what your typical user uses those tools for. (and did I mention they are free on a free OS, that is more secure and stable than Windows, and doesn't spy on you?)

People with lack of flexibility regarding the software they run will be very unlikely to want to run Linux, as for them its Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Photoshop only.
Click to expand...

I think one of the problems here is that a lot of the people who express their love for linux seem to be very anti closed software. Ubuntu tried a software store(they were not the first) and it failed very badly. You have distro's like Debian that went crazy with fragmentation where they renamed firefox because the name wasn't free. A lot of distro's went out of their way to make installing propriety drivers harder than they should have(vs I believe mint was one of the first to have a pop up giving you an option to auto install them). I've also seen a lot of issues with things like copiers over the years with linux and mac os. You have an opensource driver that sucks but it kinda works so the company can claim support. You then find out it is black and white only or doesn't support a lot of the copiers features. In a way with the fragmentation I get them not wanting to deal with a bunch of installers for what ends up being a small market.

For home users that just surf the internet and do some other basic stuff libreoffice is fine. For many power users in business though it isn't a good option. This is coming from someone who started with staroffice like 4 or 5(star office is what became openoffice that was then forked to libreoffice for those who don't know). I might still have the old cds from when it was paid software.

I think the commercial software is one of linux's biggest problem. Pros are going to want to use the adobe products and don't care about other stuff unless it is better. The open source software has come a very long way but lets be honest for many it just isn't as good. For office use microsoft is king for a reason. You have many users that you will have to pry outlook from their cold dead hands. It with an exchange backend makes the alternatives look like complete jokes. The best options on linux(besides just supporting the exchange servers) pretty much try and copy it and don't do as good of a job.

A lot of us will give microsoft access noting but crap as it really isn't a good database system. Many would be amazed at how many companies rely on it from small to large. It is simple enough that a power user can make something in it vs having a programmer right something special. If that person leaves you can find someone else that can dig into it quick and fix issues and keep going. Same goes with excel. The spreadsheets that companies have that are critical means that unless open office can do full on 100% everytime compatibility it isn't an option. A crazy amount of software uses those jet databases as well.

Other areas where linux has really no option including like small business accounting. When you get into accounting systems costing tens of thousands of dollars you have many that can run on linux or use it as a host. Sage 50, 150, and things like quickbooks though don't really have a replacement system that is good enough(and that their accounting firm will support).

Other areas are pretty much every type of business, at least again on the desktop. Short of terminal based systems which will run on pretty much anything. Law firm practice management software, title writing software, automotive shop software, firearms dealers software, jewelry software, tax software, childcare, etc all pretty much are windows only or have far more options. I could go on. Same goes for like small business software geared towards an industry. Rental industry, specialized stores, etc all are going to mostly go towards windows(not counting the mobile app support in many).

Now as more of this software goes web based it will matter less and less. In many cases the web based software just isn't as good though.



I honestly think valve has one of the best chances to help push linux. The gaming part has helped a lot. If they expanded the store or had a software side using the same backend you might have a good push. That or some other software store that is cross platform.

I should add I like linux. I'd like it to do better. I mostly support windows environments with a few linux servers through in along with the random mac. Apple has pretty much dropped servers and hell seem to not care about the desktop which is sad as I really like mac os(which had been my primary os). Right now for portables I have an i5 surface pro 4 running windows 10 and the current 7th gen i7 xps developer edition running elementary right now(in place upgrade of ubuntu). I have to say I like that xps system but the surface pro 4 is a very hard package to beat. That along with both windows 7 and now windows 10 being good make it hard to switch. It is very rare that I want something that only runs on linux. Looking at it the other way there is plenty of software that only runs on windows though. It isn't that I can't get the same thing done on linux, it is that I can do it faster on windows.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Here is one that sounds a little bit like sour grapes to me. A former Canonical Compiz developer decries Ubuntu's switch back to Gnome in a blog entry, saying it might lead to "a dark age" for open source desktops, with so few large organizations pursuing new ones.

.
Click to expand...
I feel like we read different blog posts.

I read the story of a someone who poured a lot of time and effort into UNITY, commented on good times and bad times, pointed out his thoughts on why UNITY failed, told his prediction of where free software in general was going (based on support from various companies) and then asked the community to keep free software going. Where did you get that he thought dropping UNITY would lead to a dark age for open source. Where did you get that he decries Ubuntu's decision to switch?
 
LBJM said:
I swear Windows users have gone into retrograde... The biggest problem for the Linux desktop is the fact that the windows end user doesn't want to learn. You can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...

Classic Linux user arrogance. How much time have you looked into getting SteamVR to work on Linux? Linux folks are rabid about how wonderful it is. And time after time after time, the support just utterly sucks, too many things are well behind the state they are on Windows, virtually all of the alternative software desktop Linux folks taught runs on Windows, can you name one native Linux game that scales beyond one GPU and on and on and on this nonsense goes.

Desktop Linux just doesn't have the 3rd party support that Windows has because of market share. Linux folks are loath to acknowledge the benefits of popularity, oh wait Android! Of course Windows has it problems, so does Linux. Linux is universal no magic desktop cure. For people that don't need commercial software or play games of are into the latest and greatest PC hardware Linux might very well be viable.

But don't tell me I don't want to learn when I've spent countless hours looking to Linux compatibility of things you don't use because of the lack of Linux support.
 
Red Squirrel said:
I switched to Linux, it has it's quircks at times, and sometimes I feel like I'm compromising when the windows version of a program is much better (ex: photoshop vs gimp) but generally it's nice to not be tied to MS, especially with the current terrible direction they're heading with what is basically a SaS approach. No, I don't want a service, I want a product that I own and fully control. Linux gives me that.
Click to expand...

Sadly hard to argue on the lack of CAD software. On the Gimp V photoshop front... depending what it is your doing give Krita a try if you haven't already. I find Krita is far superior for Line work / colour (comic type stuff). It makes a passable basic photo editor, but of course GIMP is still more powerful for that type of work. Krita should be in every major distros repository. :)
 
Snowdog said:
LOL! :D

I can only answer your fallacies as they are presented. So I answered your Android == Linux Desktop fallacy.

Now you moved to an entirely different fantasy, that Linux would have succeed in mobile in the absence of Android. That one is is also preposterous.

Without the cohesion of a big company behind it, Linux could go nowhere in Mobile. It would have even worse prospects, than the Linux Desktop showing, because there are additional barriers to entry in Mobile, with Telco approval/support.
Click to expand...

Would another Linux kernel OS been adopted for mobile by some other company other then google ? Who cares its not relevant anymore. Google used the kernel and thanks to Google and Android the amount of $ being spent on Kernel development has increased even more. Not that the Kernel wasn't already having 100s of millions a year spent on it by the big server tech companies.

The simple fact is Android DOES run the Linux kernel. As I have explained to others no Android is not GNU/Linux... but it is still Linux. Yes of course the kernel is custom compiled, most phones run ARM hardware and require specific odd ball wireless drivers ect. Doesn't change what it is, its the kernel and the millions and millions that the worlds largest tech companies have been pouring into the kernel is a simple fact at this point.

The Linux Kernel was already well on its way to being the tech industry standard before Android... but of course Googles own development and the development they brought along is all their now.

Android and googles efforts like the ChromeOS sure are not running GNU/Linux still they make GNU/Linux better by improving the kernel. Fixes and support brought to the Kernel from companies developing and pushing hardware for both Android and ChromeOS improve the kernel. Just as the big data companies applying fixes and improvements aimed at their Server farms also improves the kernel for everyone. (there is no mistaking that the Linux Kernel is no longer relying on us Neck beard types adding lines of code to support our own printers or CPUs ect... people like to make big stories out of the kernel getting micro code added for new Intel CPU and GPUs ect before windows updates add it these days. Its not really a big deal its just that Linux Kernel development has caught up, the big tech companies see value now in getting that code into the kernel long before some hardware manufacture demands it).

Such is the power of having an open source kernel. It also means a company like Google sure can use it as a stable foundation for something closed source. They didn't choose the BSD kernel (like Sony did for the PS4) as they knew their OS was going to target many different hardware configs, and ChromeOS perhaps even more so.... the Linux kernel made far more sense mostly because of Chrome and the fact that Google has far more then just phones in their long term sights. Not to mention the fact they have been running their own internal Google GNU Distro internally for years prior to Android... and their own custom Headless (non GNU) Linux server package as well.

Without google who knows I guess the world would be either filled with more Iphones running their spin of the BSD kernel. Or perhaps Black Berry would have had more time to get the BB 10 OS with its QNX kernel (also BSD based) supported. Who knows perhaps BB wouldn't have rush bought QNX in 2010 and instead would have developed an OS that would have looked very much like Android with either the Linux or BSD kernel. One thing I think I am pretty much 100% sure of we wouldn't all be using Windows phones. lol
 
Last edited:
I could never understand the love for Gnome environment. Even Windows 95 was more configurable. Oh, you're using a wide screen and vertical space is not enough? Well, FUCK YOU, we know better than you.

Unity is not perfect but I'd take it any day over the idiotic Gnome 2/3 desktops. XFCE is where it's at.
 
dgz said:
I could never understand the love for Gnome environment. Even Windows 95 was more configurable. Oh, you're using a wide screen and vertical space is not enough? Well, FUCK YOU, we know better than you.

Unity is not perfect but I'd take it any day over the idiotic Gnome 2/3 desktops. XFCE is where it's at.
Click to expand...

I also love XFCE. :)

Still https://extensions.gnome.org/ Gnome is a lot more configurable then any windows desktop. Still yes it would be nice if there was some better advanced controls... its not a big deal installing the Gnome Tweak tool but sure it would be nice if those options where already there in an advanced tab.
 
LBJM said:
I swear Windows users have gone into retrograde... The biggest problem for the Linux desktop is the fact that the windows end user doesn't want to learn. You can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...
Windows 10 is providing a lot of incentive to want an alternative. I'll be happy to switch to Linux as soon as it can run all my games and has software that has specific functions I need for video editing, not just any video editor. Oh, I can't have that on Linux? Okay, go back to calling me stupid then.
 
I must be from the stone age, FVWM was perfectly acceptable back when I cut my teeth on HP-UX / VMS at Uni and as far as I'm concerned it's still just as acceptable now, virtually infinite configure-ability no bullshit eye-candy (unless you want it) and it was fuck fast even back in the day on 486's running RedHat as well as real Unix Workstations.

Real men use a shell to get stuff done (I still use Bash everyday at work), Most GUI's are a just a distraction for Unix/Linux power users. Desktop GUI's will always be a compromise because to appeal to the masses they have to be designed for the masses.

Case in point what's the quickest way to change the file extension of 1000 files. A GUI? No. A BASH one liner is the answer.

The golden days of the 'Linux with a Desktop GUI' were when KDE2 and Gnome2 ruled the world, but even then I used to stick to FVMW because it did all I ever required. All the talk of desktop fragmentation being bad is utter bullshit. Fragmentation actually means "The Right Tool for the Right Job for the Right Person'.

I should also point out there is NO SUCH THING as the 'Linux Desktop'. Linux is just a kernel, nothing more nothing less.
 
Last edited:
heatlesssun said:
Classic Linux user arrogance. How much time have you looked into getting SteamVR to work on Linux? Linux folks are rabid about how wonderful it is. And time after time after time, the support just utterly sucks, too many things are well behind the state they are on Windows, virtually all of the alternative software desktop Linux folks taught runs on Windows, can you name one native Linux game that scales beyond one GPU and on and on and on this nonsense goes.

Desktop Linux just doesn't have the 3rd party support that Windows has because of market share. Linux folks are loath to acknowledge the benefits of popularity, oh wait Android! Of course Windows has it problems, so does Linux. Linux is universal no magic desktop cure. For people that don't need commercial software or play games of are into the latest and greatest PC hardware Linux might very well be viable.

But don't tell me I don't want to learn when I've spent countless hours looking to Linux compatibility of things you don't use because of the lack of Linux support.
Click to expand...

And you wonder why people call you a shill. You come into a Linux based thread and think a comment about Windows users is all about you and other extreme gamers where Linux isn't an option. We get that. We've had to watch you and BulletDust hash that same argument over and over again for weeks now and we're all fucking sick of it.

However, this time around do us all a favor and try to get this through your hard head. NOT ALL WINDOWS USERS ARE LIKE YOU. IN FACT YOU HEATLESSSUN ARE THE EXTREME MINORITY IN THE WINDOWS WORLD.

Out of the roughly 270 million PCs sold in 2016 how many do you think were crazy high end systems like yours? Well based on the Steam Surveys not very many. You always brag about your 1080s or whatever stupidly expensive cards are in your "sig rig". Barely over 1% even use 1080. Titan's aren't even listed as something being used. Steam doesn't show who uses an mGPU setup but you can easily surmise that those numbers aren't exactly large either especially since 45% of the standard desktop resolution used is still 1080p where mGPU is hardly a requirement. A whole .39% percent use VR. Yet you keep talking about VR this and VR that when arguing against Linux when according to Steam 99.61% of the gaming world doesn't give a fuck about VR.

LBJM wasn't making that comment directly at you or any other die hard gamer. Again we've had to deal with you and Bullet arguing incessantly for weeks about that bullshit. LBJM was making it at the general population (and probably should have been more specific in his wording :p ).

My mother-in-laws laptop is this god awful bloated HP Windows 10 machine that takes at least 10 minutes to fully boot. She doesn't complain. She just thinks that's how Windows is. My father-in-law is looking at buying her a new laptop now. Sad thing is they could just drop some easy Linux version on that sucker and be more than fine. The hardware isn't the problem. It's all the bloat that gets added to Windows because of all that "software support" you so love to talk about. That bloat is something we in the Linux world don't have to even bother worrying about.

You know all that wonderful software like Adobe Reader that automatically adds extensions to Chrome or Java updates that install Yahoo security ridden bullshit. We here at the [H] understand what to watch for. However, users like my in-laws and my parents make up what? 90% (maybe more) of that 270 million PCs sold in 2016? Those are the people that DON'T know what to look for and simply click "next" because they just want that dialog box gone. Those are the people that don't give a shit about VR or games. Those are the people where a vast majority could be very happy using Linux and be worry free about shit like malware and ransomware.

But my in-laws are too lazy to even consider moving to Linux. They'd rather just buy a new laptop. On the flip side you do have the other ones though that are willing to try something different like my father. He ordered a Chromebook. Unfortunately, Amazon sent him the wrong laptop and he kept that instead when Amazon gave him the choice since it was technically a far more powerful laptop. Again some Windows 10 thing from ASUS that is now the bane of his existence. He hates Windows 10 and he hates having a Microsoft Live account. The only reason he has that account is because of the bullshit shady social engineering on the Windows 10 setup and you damn well know what I'm talking about. I can guarantee one thing...that ASUS will be the last Windows machine in my fathers house. Windows 10 has soured him that badly on it.

So yes the average person that has zero need to be on Windows but is unwilling to even consider or research another option is being lazy.
 
Vermillion said:
And you wonder why people call you a shill. You come into a Linux based thread and think a comment about Windows users is all about you and other extreme gamers where Linux isn't an option. We get that. We've had to watch you and BulletDust hash that same argument over and over again for weeks now and we're all fucking sick of it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one talking about how stupid and lazy people were. There are plenty of folks around here who have looked into desktop Linux or use it but don't find it to be the savior of civilization. There's plenty of issues with it, just not the same ones as Windows.

Vermillion said:
My mother-in-laws laptop is this god awful bloated HP Windows 10 machine that takes at least 10 minutes to fully boot. She doesn't complain. She just thinks that's how Windows is.
Click to expand...

What the hell kind of hardware takes 10 minutes to boot Windows 10? I've got Atom tablets that boot in 40 seconds.
 
Vermillion said:
And you wonder why people call you a shill. You come into a Linux based thread and think a comment about Windows users is all about you and other extreme gamers where Linux isn't an option. We get that. We've had to watch you and BulletDust hash that same argument over and over again for weeks now and we're all fucking sick of it.

However, this time around do us all a favor and try to get this through your hard head. NOT ALL WINDOWS USERS ARE LIKE YOU. IN FACT YOU HEATLESSSUN ARE THE EXTREME MINORITY IN THE WINDOWS WORLD.
Click to expand...

Yet he is a lot more civil and less insulting than most of the Linux apologists in these threads.

He was, after all, responding to a post, where a Linux Apologist was calling Windows users stupid because they won't use Linux. :rolleyes:

Linux user arrogance is a well known black eye for the community. Just after his post we get more of it:

"Real men use a shell to get stuff done (I still use Bash everyday at work)"

Too many Linux users, use their OS like some evangelicals use their religion, as self aggrandizement, and an excuse to look down on, and denigrate others who don't do thing their way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top