Slashdot Mirror
Is The Linux Desktop In Trouble? (zdnet.com)
"I believe that, as Microsoft keeps moving Windows to a Desktop-as-a-Service model, Linux will be the last traditional PC desktop operating system standing," writes ZDNet contributing editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols.
"But that doesn't mean I'm blind to its problems." First, even Linus Torvalds is tired of the fragmentation in the Linux desktop. In a recent [December 2018] TFiR interview with Swapnil Bhartiya, Torvalds said, "Chromebooks and Android are the path toward the desktop." Why? Because we don't have a standardized Linux desktop. For example, better Linux desktops, such as Linux Mint, provide an easy way to install applications, but under the surface, there are half-a-dozen different ways to install programs. That makes life harder for developers. Torvalds wishes "we were better at having a standardized desktop that goes across the distributions."
Torvalds thinks there's been some progress. For software installation, he likes Flatpak. This software program, like its rival Snap, lets you install and maintain programs across different Linux distros. At the same time, this rivalry between Red Hat (which supports Flatpak) and Canonical (which backs Snap) bugs Torvalds. He's annoyed at how the "fragmentation of the different vendors have held the desktop back." None of the major Linux distributors -- Canonical, Red Hat, SUSE -- are really all that interested in supporting the Linux desktop. They all have them, but they're focused on servers, containers, the cloud, and the Internet of Things (IoT). That's, after all, is where the money is.
Linux desktop distros "tend to last for five or six years and then real life gets in the way of what's almost always a volunteer effort..." the article argues. "It is not easy building and supporting a Linux desktop. It comes with a lot of wear and tear on its developers with far too little reward."
His solution? Having a foundation create a common desktop for all Linux distros, so the Linux world could finally reap the benefits of standardization. "This would mean that many more Linux desktop developers could make a living from their work. That would improve the Linux desktop overall quality.
"It's a virtuous cycle, which would help everyone."
"But that doesn't mean I'm blind to its problems." First, even Linus Torvalds is tired of the fragmentation in the Linux desktop. In a recent [December 2018] TFiR interview with Swapnil Bhartiya, Torvalds said, "Chromebooks and Android are the path toward the desktop." Why? Because we don't have a standardized Linux desktop. For example, better Linux desktops, such as Linux Mint, provide an easy way to install applications, but under the surface, there are half-a-dozen different ways to install programs. That makes life harder for developers. Torvalds wishes "we were better at having a standardized desktop that goes across the distributions."
Torvalds thinks there's been some progress. For software installation, he likes Flatpak. This software program, like its rival Snap, lets you install and maintain programs across different Linux distros. At the same time, this rivalry between Red Hat (which supports Flatpak) and Canonical (which backs Snap) bugs Torvalds. He's annoyed at how the "fragmentation of the different vendors have held the desktop back." None of the major Linux distributors -- Canonical, Red Hat, SUSE -- are really all that interested in supporting the Linux desktop. They all have them, but they're focused on servers, containers, the cloud, and the Internet of Things (IoT). That's, after all, is where the money is.
Linux desktop distros "tend to last for five or six years and then real life gets in the way of what's almost always a volunteer effort..." the article argues. "It is not easy building and supporting a Linux desktop. It comes with a lot of wear and tear on its developers with far too little reward."
His solution? Having a foundation create a common desktop for all Linux distros, so the Linux world could finally reap the benefits of standardization. "This would mean that many more Linux desktop developers could make a living from their work. That would improve the Linux desktop overall quality.
"It's a virtuous cycle, which would help everyone."
... again (the guy is just an computer nerd: he's views on the real life are, mostly, laughable)
Yes, because the average user wants their desktop to break when they update their OS because their nvidia driver didn't compile correctly because someone thought it was a good idea to rev the GCC version and they GCC folks thought it would be a good idea to enable some weird compiler check from 1997 that nobody in the C/C++ world knows about because this the first time it was implemented. Sigh, any little amount of customization on your desktop and you likely run into a bunch of weird problems that pop up because nobody tested this specific set of of hardware and software configurations. Standards help with those issues but nothing can fix everything and these are all just patched for the core problem. Most distros just don't have the (QA) resources to test and maintain a complex software stack in a modern OS. And when some dumb 25 yro kid decides the problem is in how packages are installed (clearly indicating that they know nothing about the core problems caused by complexity) all they do is increase the workload of the developers. The core problem is that there isn't enough developer time put into bug fixing and testing. Thus the solution only makes the problem worse.
Your comment illustrates the core problem here. You seem to think you have some sort of insight into the problem when there is no real reason for you to believe this. You so overestimate your understanding as to propose and implement "solutions" that do nothing to fix the problem (in this case even making it worse) but you got to put that you work on an opensource project on your CV so who cares. The fact that the world would be a better place without your efforts never enters your mind. Either help out (by learning about how hard it is to keep a distro working it the face of a shifting set software projects that are rarely working together) or fuck off. Linus has likely done more to help others in the last 24 hours than you will do in your entire life and your sad little attempt to tear him down says more about you than Linus.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Despite being a regular user of Xubuntu, I agree with Linus about preferring Flatpak over Snap for this reason: Flatpak docs refer to repositories, plural. A publisher could run its own repository. Snap docs, by contrast, refer to "the Snap Store", singular, and it is considered --dangerous to install a snap from any source other than Canonical Ltd.
XFCE are a pretty example of robust GUI standard (my desktop is practically the same for more than 10 years now...)
The OP was probably referring to the fact that Microsoft required any vendor who sold DOS/Windows to pay them for every PC sold no matter if it had Microsoft software on it or not. That makes it tough to enter the market.
IBM was able to get OS/2 pre-loaded on PCs in Germany without those restrictions and gained 25% marketshare in the few months the vendors were doing it. Even IBM had to give up trying to get an alternative OS on PC hardware and their OS also ran Windows applications...
I ran BeOS on a machine for a short period and was stunned at how well it handled tough tasks.Playing multiple videos on different side of a 3D cube for example and the system was still very responsive.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Mint is actually good. Stop all this half assed duplication of effort and stand behind a superior distro to standardize desktop on.
Same here. XFCE is the reason I'm using a Linux desktop.
(And another annoyance - Torvalds sees Snaps and Flatpaks as the "solution" to the package management/distro issue? Really? Yeah, let's just replicate the userland for each application you install to deal with what was a non-issue.)
Yes really. It's the natural end game for an entire system where libraries are maintained and update completely individually and programmers are forced code against a moving target. This shouldn't be a surprise. The whole point of a distribution, and what makes the maintaining of a distribution so difficult is the endless juggling of new versions of software and libraries and the inevitable incompatibilities between them.
If you want the most up to date software where you can happily install without any affect on your system what the vendor provides on they day of release then your only safe solution is a packaging system like Snaps or Flatpaks. The alternative is screwing with your system in ways the distribution maintainer doesn't expect.
The only time I've ever given up trying to repair a Linux system and flat out reinstalled the OS (aside from obvious malicious damage like deleting root recursively) was when someone years ago tried to get the latest version of some CCTV software on their Debian system. The distro version didn't support some feature so they added a repo for the current version, installed it, force updated some libraries, and by the time he was finished X stopped working, and the entire apt database was so screwed up that it was basically impossible to revert to a working system thanks to the library structure of Linux.
Snaps didn't get created in a vacuum. They are a solution to a real problem.
Actually CTRL-P on Windows brings up the Print Menu, to paste you use CTRL-V. But to address the comments, one of the reasons Windows is the predominate OS in corporations is because Windows can be totally centrally managed, security policies can be forced onto the machines that prevent everything from changing the screen saver to ignoring USB drives. Where I work it is mix of Macs and Windows and the help desk has a harder time locking down the Macs but they keep trying. Locking down Linux desktops is not something they're wanting to have to figure out.