2271
Victory ๐Ÿ™Œ (programming.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] superminerJG@lemmy.world 84 points 1 year ago

Even if it's Steam Deck, this just goes to show that desktop Linux is totally viable; it just needs more commitment from companies

[-] valkyre09@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

Maybe this is the year for desktop Linux!

[-] veroxii@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Man I remember when KDE came out and us young naive kids thought "this is it... It's virtually identical to win95/98... But without the bsod"

I feel old.

[-] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It definitely is! Now I feel silly for calling it a year early, last year.

[-] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Windows 10 has support into next year. Personally I use Linux and Windows but I'm sticking with gaming on Windows until support runs out. I think next year will be the year of linux

[-] atyaz@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago

A stable ABI wouldn't hurt either though

[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

.. Yes, but realistically the work to make the Linux ABI "more stable" can probably go to use elsewhere

[-] CapraObscura@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Yeah! That thing almost nobody touches because it's literally just there to run a proprietary storefront and act as a translation layer for games is totally going to win the desktop!

Just next year!

For the last twenty-five years or so.

[-] superminerJG@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

commitment from companies

The biggest of big tech refuses to accept Linux as a desktop OS. They need to port their software for Linux to get people over.

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

desktop Linux is totally viable

I think this shows the opposite.

If a FREE option that claims to be more efficient/faster (but usually isn't in real life) is less than 2% of the market, something is wrong. Very, very wrong. Since when do people turn down free stuff, unless that free item is that bad?

[-] herrvogel@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Because the vast majority of computers come with Windows preinstalled, and the vast majority of users can't be bothered to update their OS unless they're forced, let alone reinstall something else. I'm fairly certain the numbers would be very different if there were a significant number of blank laptops on the market, let alone ones shipped with Linux.

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm 100% certain there would be little difference because people need an OS that can run the software that they want, and just as importantly they need to be able to actually install and use it and Linux has never even tried to make that process anything but a nightmare. And I'll stop you right there with your various flavors of Mint or Ubuntu or Elementary or the dozens of other distros. Users don't care about endlessly tinkering. They want something that just works. Linux doesn't offer that.

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

But if you turn to science / engineering software, most stuff will work out of the box on Linux/ Mac, but is a pain in the ass to set up on Windows. Ease of installing software isn't an OS thing; it depends on the developer of the software in question.

[-] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's simply not true. The vast majority of CAD, CFD and FEA software is run on Windows (with many not even having Linux versions) and that has been the case for decades. The installation process on Windows is almost universally a straightforward process, and the times it isn't, is usually because that software has (or had) Unix roots from ages ago and the clunky nature of anything related to Unix comes through.

Someone's been feeding you bullshit.

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

CAD is an exception, yes. Also a lot of stuff related to commercial aviation, because of the regulations. I was talking about comp sci, statistics, big data etc.

that software has (or had) Unix roots from ages ago and the clunky nature of anything related to Unix comes through.

It's the other way around. It is extremely easy to make simple UNIX scripts. And it is extremely easy to string together a bunch of such simple scripts to make larger software. Windows does not follow the UNIX philosophy, making it difficult for different programmes to talk to each other.

Someone's been feeding you bullshit.

I'm talking from personal experience. I write R, python and bash scripts to take data from machines, analyse it and draw graphs and charts based on it. I use three languages and multiple machines. But thanks to the UNIX emphasis on modularity, I can connect all of this into one automated pipeline. And if tomorrow one machine is replaced, I will only have to change a few lines of the script, again thanks to modularity.

Don't get me wrong, Windows has its advantages - better gaming support, 'safety rails' that prevent you nuking your system, better drivers for peripherals, and so on. But software installation is not one of them.

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
2271 points (98.3% liked)

linuxmemes

20772 readers
1427 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS