Raspberry Pi's Linux-Based PIXEL Desktop Now Available For PC and Mac (betanews.com)

From a report on BetaNews: If you own a Raspberry Pi, you're probably familiar with PIXEL. The desktop environment is included in the Raspbian OS. The Raspberry Pi Foundation describes PIXEL as the "GNU/Linux we would want to use" and understandably so. It offers a smart, clean interface, a decent selection of software, the Chromium web browser with plug-ins, and more -- and from today it's available for PC and Mac. The version of Debian+PIXEL for x86 platforms is described as "experimental" but having taken it for a spin, it seems pretty stable to me. To run PIXEL on your PC or Mac, download the image, burn it onto a DVD or flash it onto a USB memory stick, and boot from it. The desktop environment will load ready for use.

Comments

In case you're wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's basically LXDE reskinned to look more like GNOME 2.32 with some pretty icons.

Slashdotted

[Dark$ide]

Oh shit, this means https://raspberrypi.org/ is going to get Slashdotted. I hope their ISP has got some spare capacity ready for the deluge.

Re:Slashdotted

[FudRucker]

they should have had a bittorrent file ready, when will people managing servers with large Linux ISOs, it is best to have several mirrors offering only bittorrent files so downloads can spread the load not only among servers but the downloaders can help to share the load too

Re:Slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

Torrent is available here :
https://downloads.raspberrypi.org/pixel_x86/images/pixel_x86-2016-12-13/

Re:Slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a lot of capacity (>40Gbps). We're about to find out if it's enough :-)

Re:Slashdotted

[Mr0bvious]

Slashdotted? hahahaha, you're funny!

idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

there are a lot more raspberry pis than there are slashdot readers

Re:idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, and they all go there at the same time. you fucktard.

Fragmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the world really need yet *another* Linux variant? Makes me wonder if one of the reasons for 20xx never being The Year Of Linux On The Desktop is that observers see a situation where every time someone want Linux on the desktop of something, they create a new version of it...like none of the versions that are already out there are up to the job

Re:Fragmentation

[MayeulC]

Well, to be fair, I also know a handful of Windows "distributions" (custom windows installers/live environments). I guess OEM installation media could also count as various distributions (and if you are not convinced, see what Alienware tried to do with its Alpha, with Kodi as a GUI).
Most of those are unknown to the general public, and we can see the same pattern here. To my dad, Linux=Ubuntu, because that's something he heard somewhere, even though I installed Linux mint on his computer. And he's still referring to it as "Ubuntu".

I believe that fragmentation is not an issue. It can merely repel people who are afraid of it because they were told it was a "bad thing" (TM); while not realizing that installing any software (say Firefox) on windows was already making it somewhat different from the original one; and the only reason why this is not called a distribution is that you (in this case) do not distribute your new windows installation with Firefox freshly installed as a Windows spin. That's all.

Minor problems such as libraries distribution are what they are, minor (and considered solved) problems with a plethora of solutions.
I usually like the idea of a distribution for a specific purpose. I wouldn't install DD-Wrt on my desktop, or ChromeOS on my NAS, although both are possible. I hope you do not feel overwhelmed when opening your wardrobe and noticing that you have more than one kind of cloth, or that you do not only have hammers in your toolbox :D

Talking about Linux versions, just to nitpick (here, the correct terminology is distributions)... yes, they are fragmented too, but the current stable is generally regarded as being the one from kernel.org, currently 4.8.15.

like none of the versions that are already out there are up to the job

This is an interesting argument, that I partially answered above: installing a new piece of software, then distributing it makes it a different distribution. But why create something from scratch? Ok, most of the time it's not completely from scratch. But sometimes, they are indeed not completely up to the job, or they would like to try and do something different, showcase a new piece of technology. At other times, distribution makers like to be in complete control of the experience they provide, and that seems to be the reason here. Provide something that's configured out-of-the box like they intend it to be; without any additional tweaking necessary for the end user. Plus, it's not like they are starting from scratch either. They just took a Debian, installed their software plus a few other utilities, and called it a ~day~ distribution :)

(off-topic) Seriously, slashdot? no strike/s/del or small html tag?

Re:Fragmentation

[Osgeld]

mint is ubuntu with a different set of skins

Re:Fragmentation

[DeBaas]

hmm, while I get your point, I think that's not quite fair. I've been a user of Mint for a while, then went back to Ubuntu when Ubuntu Mate came into play. Now I'm back on Mint Cinnamon due to the fact that Cinnamon works great on a 4K HDPI laptop. I'm just not into KDE, really don't like Unity and Mate doesn't handle 4K well. Mint Cinnamon handles 4k quite well, has all the other advantages of Ubuntu and has an even better update system. So IMO it's a lot more than just a skin

Re:Fragmentation

[Osgeld]

dollars to doughnuts if I put cinnamon on ubuntu and got the exact same theme, you couldnt tell the difference

Unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the unusual cases where "PC" still means x86 and not Windows. I'm so used to PC meaning Windows by now, that I expected it to be the about a desktop theme now being available for Windows and OSX.

Re:Unusual

[MayeulC]

I agree, and I might bi biased, but I always use PC designate the x86 (IBM-compatible) platform.
Mac is misleading here, though, since:

1. Mac isn't a computer architecture
2. This Debian/PIXEL spin has no PowerPC image

Re:Unusual

[bn-7bc]

Well macs have been X86 for a lot ng time now, do the split betwenn psc and mac is largly an os difference and som hw on laptops

Re:Unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

Well macs have been X86 for a lot ng time now, do the split betwenn psc and mac is largly an os difference and som hw on laptops

Could be a lot of wisdom in that comment - any chance we could have it in English so that we could see?

Re:Unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

Macs may have x86 processors but they are not IBM-compatible.

Re:Unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

> Mac isn't a computer architecture

No, but it *is* a platform distinct from others.

Re:Unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

So is Windows no longer for PC-compatibles or am I imagining that I'm running Windows on my MacBook?

Still not the year of the desktop on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the reason it's never the "year of Linux on the desktop" is because of the toxic combination of no standard system GUI and the GPL's viral nature when involved with proprietary source code. You'll never get a critical mass of pro applications, so you'll never get a critical mass of pro application users.

It's the year of Linux as a server OS, a niche OS, and a hobby OS. It's almost always been that year. It'll always be that year unless the anti-commercial application types stop steering the policies that underlie Linux in general.

No sane large-scale developer wants to try to support some random, always mutating selection of desktop managers; none of them wants to take the risk of even going near GPL'd software; any lawyer worth their weight in pennies will, quite correctly, tell them to look elsewhere. That's just what the anti-commercial types want to happen, and that is what keeps Linux from being taken seriously in this particular context.

That's why both OS X and Windows kick Linux right to the bottom of the stats when it comes to your average desktop user. You want "the year of the Linux desktop", then it will have to be made attractive to the majority of commercial developers, large and small. It has to be able to generate revenue, and not put the IP behind that revenue at risk.

If your answer is, as is often the case with Linux fans, "we don't need no steenking commercial developers", okay, then fine. You won't get them, either, so all's good in Linux-land, right? But when that whole "year of Linux on the desktop" desire comes up, you're really saying you want the "year of Linux stepping away from its rabid anti-commercial stand."

Re:Still not the year of the desktop on Linux

[DickBreath]

Desktop Linux may arrive, indeed may already have arrived in a form nobody expected 15 years ago. Chromebooks have been outselling Windows laptops for years now on Amazon for example.

Just as IBMs computer monopoly was disrupted, but not in a way anyone (at the time) expected. These nuisance "toy" microcomputers came along. They were under IBMs radar because they were not a threat. Just as Linux was under Microsoft's radar for a long time. Before long, a manager could buy, within their own purchasing authority an Apple II with VisiCalc and have it on their desktop -- without involving any of the mainframe people and the attendant hassles of dealing with them. When IBM introduced their PC they thought there was a market for maybe a couple million units. Little did they know that a de-facto standard of clones would unleash a huge software industry that would drive the need for more of these cheap "toy" computers. And you know the rest. Those "toys" now dominate the industry and then formed the basis of large data centers full of hardware derived from these "toy" computers.

Disruption sometimes arrives in forms you don't expect. Microsoft was also quite unprepared for Android and still hasn't found an effective response.

Microsoft stated that the reason for the Linux on Windows subsystem was to attract developers back to Windows. WTF? A direct admission that open source was more attractive to developers? Yet in all the innovative things I've seen developers present in public, they largely seem to be running open source -- even if on Mac hardware.

Re:Still not the year of the desktop on Linux

[Immerman]

>the GPL's viral nature when involved with proprietary source code

What does that have to do with anything? If you're modifying the desktop software itself, or other parts of the OS, then yes, you need to give back your modifications, you can't simply claim 1,000,000 man-hours worth of code as your own because you added another 10 with something clever in it.

But if you want to make an application that runs on the OS, then you have no problem. You can even use most of the platform libraries which are under the LGPL, which explicitly grants the right to link to them from proprietary software.

Any lawyer that simply issues blanket advice of "stay away from the GPL" isn't worth their salt, they've just proven that they can't even be bothered to read to read the license, or lack the software-domain expertise to be able to understand it (in which case you really shouldn't be consulting them about anything software related). Now, if they said "Don't even look at GPLed code", that would be far more understandable - but when you're developing for a proprietary platform you wouldn't even have the option to look at the analogous code in the first place.

Re:Still not the year of the desktop on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

What commercial paid for desktop applications still exist these days? Microsoft visual studio, Microsoft Office, photoshop, some audio editors? Much of it is now online, where the operating system is irrelevant.

I think any lawyer worth their salt that can read, could advise clients that its perfectly fine to develop on linux, as long as they have a fifth grade reading comprehension and are content with the terms of the licenses of the libraries they wish to build upon.

I think the real difficulty in the past has been developing software that works on multiple distros and won't be broken by updates. Both Xorg's Flatpack and Ubuntu's snap packages should help prevent that problem and make it way easier. But considering my first point, it might be too late.

Re:Still not the year of the desktop on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

All of Adobe's suite (Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere), Avid's suite (including ProTools, Sibelius, etc.), Imagineer's Mocha, The Foundry's NUKE suite, all of Autodesk's offerings, are all desktop applications I use daily (obviously not every single application in every single suite). Some certainly exist and work well on Linux, some don't, my point is merely that the range of desktop applications encompass more than Office suites, with much of the functionality not really translatable to online/cloud.

Re:Still not the year of the desktop on Linux

[Wootery]

if they said "Don't even look at GPLed code", that would be far more understandable

Not really. The learning aspect of studying Free software is never bound by viral licensing. See: Freedom 1.

Re:Still not the year of the desktop on Linux

[Immerman]

Quite true. But looking at the code opens the possibility of accidental infringement, hence clean-room reverse-engineering of proprietary software, where the folks doing the reverse engineering never type a single line of code for the re-implementation.

And of course there's also the perpetual temptation to simply cut and paste - it seems like a great many developers have trouble with the idea that just because you can look at the code doesn't mean you can reuse it as you see fit. Or maybe it's a management decision and the developers just go along with it trusting that they won't be made the fall guy if/when caught. Either way, making it corporate policy to "not even look at GPLed code" bypasses the problem entirely, while still allowing the LGPL compiled libraries to be used freely. It could also make a good "official" policy in that individual developers might well look at similar GPLed projects for insight anyway, but give them incentive to hide that fact - i.e. not copy and paste or re-implement in too similar a manner. Which is exactly what you wanted to begin with.

Re:Still not the year of the desktop on Linux

[Immerman]

I should also further clarify that I'm talking about your average "What's the GPL?" development house, where "Don't look at the code" is a huge step up from "don't use the programs or link to the LGPLed libraries"

If you're actually looking to work more closely than that with GPLed software (without GPLing your own work), then it's probably worth investing in a lawyer who's already familiar with it, as well as engaging in systematic developer training, as there truly are a lot of grey areas in the license, including some situations where the legalese and the declared intent contradict one another, and you have to decide whther you want to play by the "community rules" or the actual legally stated requirements. (Can't remember any offhand, but I recall a couple being brought up on Groklaw back in the day)

Re:Still not the year of the desktop on Linux

[Lotus456]

You don't need a lawyer, it's a pretty simple rule: GPL is designed to keep code free and open.

If you plan to share your code, consider using/linking GPL. If not, don't use any GPL code in your project/product.

Re:Still not the year of the desktop on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft stated that the reason for the Linux on Windows subsystem was to attract developers back to Windows. WTF? A direct admission that open source was more attractive to developers?

No, nothing to do with open source. It's that UNIX is attractive to developers.

Chromebooks have been outselling Windows laptops for years now on Amazon for example.

Android tablets are a dime a dozen and they're mostly rubbish, Chromebooks are really Google's competitor to the iPad. They let you browse the web and run web apps but their advantage is just that they're cheap, there is no innovation or differentiation there that Linux is offering, you can do those tasks equally well on pretty much any personal computing device these days. They could replace Linux with BSD or even whack that shell on Windows and it would make no difference because there is no disruptive feature there.

Chromebooks are a great way for people to do the most basic computing tasks on the cheap and not be tied to a platform but Linux itself doesn't offer any attractive features, in fact none of the hundreds of distros have done anything to attract significant amounts of users or developers to supplant Windows (or even OSX) in the professional space. Last I looked even Windows Vista had half the market share of all the Linux distros combined, Windows fucking Vista!

For economies of scale (with respect to development) and critical mass to kick in Linux needs to offer something disruptive to users and/or developers just like Apple did with the iPhone, being just another option for those with platform agnostic computing needs doesn't get it anywhere, it's trivially replaced.

Re:Still not the year of the desktop on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're doing image editing, audio production, video production, architectural design, BIM, most simulation (solvers often have the ability to run on Linux but pre & post are most often Windows), product design, solid modeling, visualization, game development (while engines are portable editors usually aren't, unity for example), most of the professional industry.

Each computing niche there adds up and what remains is largely the kind of platform-agnostic computing that can be done on anything from a smartphone to a an ipad to a chromebook to a highend workstation.

PIXEL is a nice dist

[DrXym]

It's basically a rethemed and polished version of Rasbian with LXDE or some other light weight desktop. But I can't see much reason I would want it on a PC or Mac, other than perhaps for development purposes, i.e. for writing code that targets PIXEL or the Pi without suffering the intolerably slow speeds of the Pi while I do so.

Otherwise there are already lots of Linux dists and few of them need to cut as many corners as Rasbian to get it to run on a slow embedded device.

Re:PIXEL is a nice dist

[605dave]

Development is exactly why they are releasing it. They want people to be able to build on the platform without having to have the hardware. Very smart move.

just another DE

[unixisc]

So just one more DE for Linux. Quite a waste, given the plethora of choices there already are aside from KDE and GNOME - things like XFCE, LXDE, LX/QT, Razor-qt, Unity, Cinnemon, et al. Just not worth the real estate on storage. I just installed TrueOS, and I like the fact that only Lumina gets installed by default, and anything else would have to be separately installed from AppCafe

Incompetently written headline

[Stormwatch]

What an incompetently written headline: "desktop now available for PC and Mac" makes one understand that it is just a desktop environment running on top of Windows and macOS, replacing Explorer.exe and the Finder, but still the same operating systems underneath running the same applications. Which is not the case at all.

Re:Incompetently written headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems you missed this part of the headline: "Linux-based".
Anybody not involved with Linux already probably would not be seeing that headline to misinterpret in the first place (aside from you?).

Re:Incompetently written headline

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I took that to mean it originated on Linux, but the headline should read:

"Raspberry Pi's Linux Distro with PIXEL Desktop Now Available For PC and Mac"

Re:Incompetently written headline

[Anonymous Coward]

What an incompetently-written comment. PC and Mac are widely known as the names of hardware platforms; Windows and MacOS are the primary software platforms run on those hardware platforms. If the headline had said "desktop now available for Windows and MacOS", you'd have had a point. It didn't; you don't.

Re:Incompetently written headline

[Anonymous Coward]

My goodness, that sounds as if you're running Linux as a layer on top of Windows or MacOS.

/sarcasm mode off

Re:Incompetently written headline

[Anonymous Coward]

http://xkcd.com/169/

Re:Incompetently written headline

[Anonymous Coward]

What an incompetently-written comment. PC and Mac are widely known as the names of hardware platforms; Windows and MacOS are the primary software platforms run on those hardware platforms. If the headline had said "desktop now available for Windows and MacOS", you'd have had a point. It didn't; you don't.

Say it with me now - A computer is a computer, no matter what Apple or Windows wants to call it.

Don't feed into the hype. There is no hardware platform that is specifically for Windows/Mac/Whatever. This is why Linux can be installed on an Xbox.

Google cease and desist?

[t4eXanadu]

So, who's taking bets on how long before Alphabet or Google sends them a cease and desist notice for using the PIXEL name? Surprised it hasn't happened yet.

Re:Google cease and desist?

[networkBoy]

If they were using it first (I believe they were) then Google won't likely do this.
Additionally they are in a different space, one is a phone, one is an OS distro.

Though...
Can I run PIXEL on my Pixel to drive my pixels? it's pixels all the way down! (need an ARM derivative named Pixel to run it on :)

Re:Google cease and desist?

[Anonymous Coward]

For one it probably doesn't actually infringe on their trademark, as who exactly would be confused by a Linux DE and a google device both being called "Pixel"? Two, Google are smart enough to know any action of this sort would make them look bad for zero actual gain. Three, a name like "Pixel" as a trademark is really hard to defend. Often when companies use a dictionary word for their name they change the spelling for trademark purposes, Google itself is an example of this they were named after the number googol, but changed the spelling.

Re:Google cease and desist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't. Not the same area of products.
If they came out with a PHONE called PIXEL, then it would be an issue.

Also, Pixel Qi wants a word. Oh wait...

Re: Google cease and desist?

[t4eXanadu]

But they sent a cease and desist letter to the developers of the Linux distro Chromixium (now Cub Linux) because the name included the prefix "Chrom-", and suggested it was too similar to "Chrome". I have no idea if that would hold up in court, but they did send the letter. So, wouldn't be surprised if they send one in this instance too.

Re: Google cease and desist?

[Blaskowicz]

That's not unreasonable since they have Chrome OS in the same broad category of product or service : software, and in the same specific category, operating systems.
A few ages ago there was another dist. named 'Lindows' that ended up dropping that name. Kind of like naming your sugar beverage Bepsi or Cauke.

seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would honestly use this interface over the default MacOSX interface? C'mon guys, this isn't even news.

Gnu?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is a Gnu/Linux? It sounds like something made by children.

Re:Gnu?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here. Welcome. The coffee and donuts are over there.