Hacker News Reader

Comment by gorio | Hacker News Reader

Despite the wording I don't think that is the original definition? The idea is to make Linux viable as a desktop operating system, and whatever comes with that. Not running Linux as an application on another desktop. Which is almost the opposite as in leveraging capabilities outside of Linux.

Maybe more importantly redefining the goal isn't helping Linux much. I remember everyone raving about Android, but now look at the lack of vanilla graphics drivers for embedded platforms.

That said, I have nothing against WSL.

View on HN

I keep seeing this angst over whether Linux will ever be ready on the desktop. Well, I've been using it exclusively for something like 15 years.

Me too, since 2004 with Fedora 3 back then. And I'm growing more and more frustrated with it the last few years.

Maybe I just have less time and patience nowadays :-)

I was on Linux desktop 99% of the time between 2006 and 2014 (I now use a Windows workspace with GPU passthrough on my main system), and just today my frustration with Windows was piquing to the extent that I'm ready to go back to a nix desktop.

Maybe people just get fed up with the same grating pain points and need to spread the frustration around. Periodic changes in scenery are healthy. :)

Windows and MacOS have their frustrating points as well, I don't think any of these systems are perfect. I suspect the vast majority of computer using people could get by with a Linux desktop with about the same amount of frustration they suffer already.

At least on Linux I can fix the things that are really making me nuts.

So your opinion is that it's ready?

For most purposes, it has been ready for years. There are a handful of proprietary programs that individual people may need for work that aren't available, and you aren't going to be able to play the latest games on Linux. Most people, however, could switch to one of many Linux distributions and be just as productive if not moreso.

Then we disagree. Linux works until is doesn't, which is the problem. It isn't a handful of programs so much as a wide range of capabilities. We can all speculate the taste of the average user, but do you think companies wouldn't love running desktop Linux instead of paying millions to Microsoft? That is what everyone did when Linux actually became good enough as a server OS.

I guess we do, as I've said elsewhere, it has literally been years since I've encountered anything I couldn't do on Linux just the same as on Windows. I firmly believe the reason more organisations haven't changed is inertia. To paraphrase a cliché, no one was ever fired for choosing Microsoft.

I don't see how inertia would be the reason if you also believe that it has been good enough for 15 years. I would say desktop Linux simply doesn't offer enough unique value for the effort involved in large scale deployments, unless you are someone like Google. Most things that have improved for users in recent years, like web application, actually favours Windows. Because the primary use case for desktop operating systems are becoming what is beyond that of web or smart phone applications. Leaving desktop Linux with the lowest common denominator.

I said I've used it for 15 years not that it would've necessarily been a good choice for a non-technical user that long ago. On the other hand, non-technical users usually require significant IT support on Windows as well. That's where inertia comes in. Linux may not offer a significant value proposition over Windows, so Windows stays. That doesn't necessarily mean Windows offers a significant value proposition over Linux either. Inertia.

> That doesn't necessarily mean Windows offers a significant value proposition over Linux either.

But as far as I know that is this case. That Microsoft's offering is much stronger when it comes to large scale corporate deployments. Unless you want to make the claim that e.g. RedHat's offering is on par or better, which isn't something I have heard in the wild.

As much as I love Linux (I'm typing this from my IBM Thinkpad running Arch with a KDE desktop) There are far too many warts to call it "ready". Every morning, I plug into my widescreen monitor, and watch as application windows randomly decide which monitor they'll appear on. Then begins the fight with my bluetooth mouse. I enable bluetooth, then turn on the mouse. It's recognized and "connected". But it does not work. I have to disconnect and reconnect. I can't in good conscience advise my mother or wife that this is a "normal" experience, therefore, it's not "ready".

Now, does using Ubuntu cover some of these glaring warts? Perhaps. But that often opens its own set of problems. Each comes with its own set of workarounds. Where macOS and Windows excel, is their sense of "polish". Most happy path things just work, and work 99% of the time.

All that said, I'm die-hard Linux ALL THE WAY! I just couldn't say that it's ready for most purposes. For the things that I'd use a tablet for? Sure.

>I keep seeing this angst over whether Linux will ever be ready on the desktop. Well, I've been using it exclusively for something like 15 years.

>For most purposes, it has been ready for years.[...] Most people, however, could switch to one of many Linux distributions and be just as productive if not moreso.

If "most people" includes non-technical users, I doubt they could switch to Linux without difficulties.

E.g. a typical non-geek user might be my friend that runs Windows. Some examples of showstoppers that makes Linux totally a non-option:

- Intuit Quicken which she's been using for 20 years. Yes Linux Mint was a possible alternative but its early releases (inside of your 15-year time period) didn't have reliable online downloads from financial institutions. Mint's later partnership with Yodlee api for transaction downloads still didn't make it equal to Quicken. Yes, Quicken is terrible and buggy software but early Mint was even worse for online banking scenarios.

- Netflix streaming was not easy to run on Linux until recently[0]

- AAA games (including recent ones like Fortnite) don't run easily on Linux. Valve Steam Proton is a recent effort.

- iPhone sync with Apple iTunes - running on Linux requires googling for articles of running a Windows vm or Rhythmbox on Ubuntu which may not work with certain iOS updates

- sewing machine embroidery software all runs on Windows and not Linux or even MacOS. The software also requires a dongle for copy-protection and the hardware drivers for the dongles only exist for Windows. Running Windows as a vm inside of a Linux Desktop and exposing the host USB port to the client vm won't fool the dongle software. If the ultimate solution to "Windows in a virtual machine" shortfalls is to dual-boot Windows and Linux, that advanced configuration adds more complexity and it contradicts the ideal of "run Linux desktop exclusively".

For people to run Linux without issue, the person would need to possess technical skills equivalent to you (e.g. a HN poster) -- or the person has a "guardian angel" as on-call tech support (e.g. a son/daughter/friend) to get them over technical issues (like Netflix) with workarounds.

I don't doubt you've been able to run Linux exclusively and there are more examples like you. Nevertheless, it still required a very atypical usage profile to run a Linux desktop exclusively for the last 15 years.

Even today in 2019, I would not recommend the Linux desktop to any of my non-programmer and non-sysadmin type of friends & family unless I was willing to be their on-call tech support to handle their inevitable Windows compatibility issues.

For Linux to work in a mass-consumer-facing situation, it has to be an "appliance" type of installation and "invisible" such that the user doesn't realize they're running Linux. E.g. as the underlying os in Android smartphones, or the os in smart TVs, or the os in Tesla cars.

[0] https://itsfoss.com/watch-netflix-in-ubuntu-linux/

I agree with this sentiment. I'm not a hacker, gamer or coder. I'm an architect who enjoys tech. I've used Ubuntu and other distros. The one thing that stops Linux from becoming mainstream for desktop use is software. Software for enterprises and software for consumers.

The tech community doesn't realize that there is more than just office applications and browsers that people use. I can not install BIM (Revit) software on Ubuntu for example. I can't install Lightroom on Ubuntu. I know that there are alternatives and work arounds to software, but consumers only understand what they understand and is easy and mainstream.

The tech community can't expect consumers to spend time looking for alternative software. I feel that this is why the Windows Phone failed, because there was a lack of mainstream software (apps).

The day that BIM (Revit) is available to install on Ubuntu is the day I switch.

>I can not install BIM (Revit) software on Ubuntu for example.

Yes, a lot of Linux desktop enthusiasts only include "web browsing and email" scenarios in their mental models. Therefore, they are not aware of how the Windows os is an unavoidable platform dependency in many critical workflows. This perspective is why "Linux desktop exclusively" appears totally realistic to them.

A similar scenario to yours just happened to me last month. A land surveyor gave me some 3D laser scan point cloud files. (Trimble RealWorks files which are ".rwcx" files generated by the Trimble SX10.) The software (Trimble Business Center) to import those files only runs on MS Windows. I tried running it on VMware but the Trimble software required DirectX 11 so it crashed with an unrecoverable error[0]. Well, VMware only supports up to DirectX 10[1]. It's another example of "just run Windows in a vm" on Linux Desktop doesn't always solve the problem.

This also highlights another underappreciated and unseen difficulty with Linux desktops: You often don't know you will have a roadblock with Linux until you encounter that roadblock. It's not easy to predict your future incompatibilities!

[0] https://imgur.com/a/PRHnR4r

[1] https://communities.vmware.com/thread/608743

In some fields (3D modeling, PCB CAD) FOSS software could be considered mainstream, in others (audio, photography, vector graphics) just really good.

Yes, unfortunately, architecture CAD and BIM are not among those fields :(

Few of those fields have professional software available for Linux i.e. what is actually used in the industry. It's the students, engineers and artists that are invested enough to switch platforms. Most people are just going to use the FOSS software on Windows instead.

I have been watching netflix on linux for the past couple of years using Chrome. Install. Just works.

Gaming is still very game dependent. Think of it like a console. Some "exclusives" just wont run.

If someone is using their computer to surf, write emails, watch netflix, alongside lite gaming, I find linux to be more enjoyable. I don't have to do any command line oriented stuff at all for general use. The initial install is also very simple. On a desktop :)

We will have to agree to disagree. I think it is more an issue of framing perspective than anything.

I too have been using it as my primary OS even when gaming for years now too. No issues.

In fact I would recommend it for anyone who only uses their computer for general, basic use.

When people on hacker news say "no problems" what I have found is they generally mean "no problems I don't consider trivial or easy to handle."

We are far, far past the point where the general population is going to spend effort to learn about something as simple as using apt-update or even a GUI application update manager, ever. Phone operating systems give the user everything they care about (mostly content consumption, a little creation) without having to read or learn anything. If you ask that of people (to read and learn about an operating system) it's a non-starter for >80% of users.

For general, basic use I would recommend a chromebook or ipad. That's what most people are looking for - something that lets them do the handful of things they want to do with as little overhead as possible.

Given that drivers are Linux's biggest problem, isn't there benefit to leveraging Windows drivers and then running Linux on top of that virtualized hardware?

I don't see why you couldn't run x11 in the window manager with the new Linux kernel in Windows.

You can run X11 today with Cygwin.

You can run X11 on Windows today without Cygwin, too.

Can we just have Linux kernel but without that XXX thing please?

Sure, you can pick between ChromeOS and Android.

Wayland... Try Fedora?

Windows has less hardware support than Linux. Most single board computers can run mainline Linux, whereas just a handful support Windows IoT.

AMD, ARM (CPUs & Mali GPUs), Intel, VIA, Qualcomm (Adreno) all have support in kernel 5, whereas Microsoft is still stuck subsetting a small group of ARM GPUs and branding Windows 10's OpenGL ES support as DirectX 11. This is a repeat of the troubles Microsoft had with supporting Windows Phone, but now the userbase is significantly smaller despite a wider array of hardware to support.

There are things that don't work well though, classic example are laptops that dynamically switch between discrete and integrated graphics. You'll probably run everything on the dedicated GPU which hurts battery life.

Still, my old desktop scanner that the manufacturer stopped publishing drives for during the Windows Vista era? Yeah Linux runs it like a boss. No looking up drivers or config parameters on the internet, it just works.

> classic example are laptops that dynamically switch between discrete and integrated graphics

YMMV, but as far as I know that's more or less a solved problem by default (for X anyway) with DRI3.

This particular complaint echoes folks (I was one) who booted Ubuntu desktop a decade ago and couldn't get wifi to work, and proceeded to complain about shoddy driver support (to present day, clearly), using only that single outdated* example as an argument. Of course this is compounded by a ~months to ~years delay in most desktops getting those improvements thanks to the glacial pace at which the mainstream desktop distros update their repos.

Was there a point when Optimus/Bumblebee/Prime was a shitshow? Yes. Is that still reality? No.

What this ignores is that Linux driver support is generally fantastic, works out of the box in a way that desktop architects at MS dream about and is infinitely more current in practice since you go to one place to update all your software, including driver software, something MS hasn't been able to get right in a decade of trying.

Regardless, mobile battery life's still worse on Linux. And as much as some things are super convenient compared to the Windows/Apple world, the truism a friend told me as I wrestled with Ubuntu ten years ago remains true today: Linux is for folks that enjoy configuring Linux.

* I have to use a combo of DKMS and an AUR package to get WiFi on my one year old IdeaPad, so outdated may be the wrong word there. Better to say that realtek and broadcom chips have gotten hit hard by Intel's move into consumer networking.

Worth pointing out that 'year of the Linux desktop' probably predates that.

The last time I was shopping for a laptop (a year ago), Arch's wiki said it was all broken for the models that interested me. Here's an example, if you have better information maybe update the wiki.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Dell_XPS_15_9570#Graphi...

I'm not updating the wiki for a device I don't own, or plan on owning.

Especially when the relevant part of the wiki is correct.[1]

[1]https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PRIME#PRIME_GPU_offload...

> What this ignores is that Linux driver support is generally fantastic, works out of the box in a way that desktop architects at MS dream about and is infinitely more current in practice since you go to one place to update all your software, including driver software, something MS hasn't been able to get right in a decade of trying.

Generally, yes, it's pretty decent on first go and there's a nice default happy path.

Unfortunately in my own experience, that path isn't particularly wide, and there's a huge number of gaps.

Version compatibility is a major issue, imo. One driver or package works great on one kernel version is completely broken on the next.

A few hours ago I tried to install the official AMD drivers for Ubuntu. It's not until the install script has already gone and screwed up my system that I get told that they don't support 19.04.

I just don't have that issue on Windows as a rule. I'm not claiming Windows is perfect by any means, it's got it's own set of issues.

Linux driver support is fantastic because it's not made by manufacturers.

This is not correct.

Many manufacturers contribute drivers to the kernel.

Version incompatibility is expected, because Linux kernel changes a lot. You need the correct driver for your kernel. The amdgpu driver is a part of Linux distribution, your best option is to install it from Ubuntu apt repository, not from manufacturer's website. Which now explicitly and clearly says the driver is for Ubuntu 18.04 only - did you not see that?

> Version incompatibility is expected, because Linux kernel changes a lot.

Expected by whom, though?

I could understand it if it was major kernel versions or something like that, but it seems that a whole bunch of things are really tightly linked.

> Which now explicitly and clearly says the driver is for Ubuntu 18.04 only - did you not see that?

I honestly didn't. I went back and checked - yep, it does say for 18.04[1].

I have to say though that I wouldn't have automatically assumed it was ONLY for 18.04 though without it being more explicit about that. If the official drivers are available within the repo from now on, then it'd be great for AMD to actually say that. (I realise this isn't Ubuntu's fault)

[1] https://www.amd.com/en/support/graphics/amd-radeon-hd/amd-ra...

Of course, not expected by a basic user. But if you follow Linux, it is quite well known that the Linux project intentionally does not promise stable internal api in the kernel, they "run a tight ship" where if a program needs to use kernel api, it has to be maintained in the Linux tree. Given this modus operandi of the Linux project, breakage of the old drivers with the new kernel version is expected.

Advice to Linux users: one would best get their the graphics driver and a matching Linux kernel from the same source, either the Linux project, or the OS distribution. Mixing versions downloaded from AMD website with random kernel is supported by nobody and is testing your luck. That is a Windows model and kind of works with Linux only with nvidia drivers for their hardware, although it brings a lot of headaches too.

I agree that the installer should have warned you about the incompatibility at the beginning of the install, not at the end. That sucks.

With graphics, it is usually best to run the newest drivers with Linux, that means the newest kernel possible. Except for the older cards, which are not supported by AMD anymore (which sucks), where one can only use old drivers with appropriate old kernel.

Those are pretty old cards though (I've had amdgpu support for my six year old 7970 since kernel 4.9, and I think they've extended it back to a generation or two older architectures now), and you can use the open source radeon drivers with any kernel.

I think the folks using Catalyst for better 3D acceleration have probably moved on to cards supported by amdgpu by now.

Version compatibility is not an issue for in-kernel drivers, only for the few remaining external ones. On Windows you have this issue much more often if you are trying to use an older device, in particular if it's one that came out before Vista, on Linux, once a driver is in the kernel it's continuously adjusted to driver API changes and will keep working. You can still run a current kernel on a 386 if you want to.

I'm running a quite current Dell on an essentially unpatched kernel (just includes Gentoo's default patches) with no additional modules involved and everything I tested up until now works, even fancy things like Dell's mini-dock.

> On Windows you have this issue much more often if you are trying to use an older device, in particular if it's one that came out before Vista,

I think that's a bit of a difference though. Vista came out nearly ~13 years ago, and we're talking things breaking a year or less later.

Heck, for more obscure drivers[1], it seems necessary to recompile for every kernel patch. Perhaps that's the fault of that driver's developer for not following the correct way to build kernel drivers, or there's something unique about this particular device - I don't know.

[1] an example: https://github.com/milesp20/intel_nuc_led

> > On Windows you have this issue much more often if you are trying to use an older device, in particular if it's one that came out before Vista,

> I think that's a bit of a difference though. Vista came out nearly ~13 years ago, and we're talking things breaking a year or less later.

I'm not. I'm talking about the fact that drivers for devices older than me that have been merged into the kernel keep on working today while on Windows for some subsystems (like graphics or sound) you can't expect things to work after "just" 15 years. I admit that this is a long time, it's still a huge difference.

And yes, on Linux you are expected to recompile drivers for every new kernel version, that's intentional (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...). Since the driver API is reasonably stable, the code doesn't need to be adjusted for every version, and if the driver has landed in the kernel, this is done while changing the API.

I spent a lot of time trying to get dynamic switching working and after countless hours I gave up.

Optimus is definitely not a "solved problem", unless you know some method I didn't find in my dozens of hours of googling how to get it to work on a system76 laptop (Linux preinstalled) and a 2012 MacBook.

The "solved problem" is using the kernel implementation of muxless hybrid graphics (PRIME), not Nvidia's proprietary one (Optimus).

Yeah, the "happy path" here is applicable if you don't attempt to install janky/poorly maintained proprietary out of tree drivers. The reason these drivers are out of tree is usually due to either serious hardware flaws, incompetent/inept vendors, or a combination of both. AMD has (in large part) fixed this by reusing the kernel shim from AMDGPU (open source & mainlined in kernel) for their proprietary driver (AMDGPU-Pro).

Nvidia meanwhile has stated they will not support Wayland, and has sandbagged the integration of their Linux Kernel patches for their single board computers (like the ones that are used in Tesla's cars). They don't give a fuck if their clients are stuck on broken, insecure BSPs, and frankly they operate as a malicious vendor: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/03/nvidia_server_gpus/

Yes, Nvidia provides terrible support for Linux, but it doesn't matter whose fault it is. That is the basis of many, many complaints about drivers for Linux. Nvidia ships in a great many laptops. If Nvidia sucks on linux, linux has a problem with drivers, full stop.

I'm not sure how the bubble you live in came to be but for ordinary desktop/laptop hardware that is as false as can be.

And there is a very simple reason for that. All desktop PCs and laptops are sold with windows, if no support exist the hardware as a whole will not exist.

Meanwhile in linux land I still can't use my three monitors because displayport MST doesn't work with the open source AMD driver. Support has existed for quite a while, but it seems none of the five people on the internet that have actually tried it has gotten it to work. Just one of the many driver issues I currently have on a couple of machines with linux.

> YMMV, but as far as I know that's more or less a solved problem by default (for X anyway) with DRI3.

Just no.

It is not false. Complaining about obscure gpu driver feature not working in Linux kind of proves the parent's point. Most usual hardware works out of the box on Linux now, except for the nvidia cards, but even that can be made to work with their binary driver. If the AMD driver does not support some obscure feature, that is on AMD. They work on it, complain there, but naturally some things have higher priority than driving multiple monitors from a single port.

I'm not blaming linux for manufacturer not supporting linux well enough. But I'm stating drivers are an immense issue for linux - regardless of who is to blame.

Maybe I shouldn't have started with an "obscure" example. Maybe that the driver crashes if displays are awakened from sleep? Mind you - only waking the screens from sleep, not the entire system (that doesn't work either, but I don't know which driver that is to blame for that yet).

Or that ubuntu LTS are just incapable of turning off most machines I've installed it on? (machines that did exist for a while when the LTS version came out).

Yeah, those other issues are real and they suck, especially when one uses the most up-to-date software and they still happen. Point taken.

For what it's worth it is my experience that displayport MST has never worked reliably on any OS or hardware whatsoever. I gave up on it and am thankful I can now just buy a thunderbolt dock with multiple video outputs.

MST on a NUC was pretty seamless for me when I used it.

I do not enjoy configuring Linux, but I hate fixing Windows issues. I just reboot, deinstall, reinstall and at the end I have not learned anything and I do not even know if the problem will occur again. When I fix a problem in Linux, it is a journey that makes me discover unknown territories. At the end, I have improved my experience and knowledge.

For linux, I am in control. For windows I am a puppet of Microsoft will.

Drivers are far from the biggest problem for Linux adoption. The biggest problems are:

  + Network Effects
  + Brand recognition in the general public
  + Indifference to FOSS principles
  + Resistance to change

One more: OEMs like Dell and HP aren't allowed (by Microsoft) to sell PCs that dual-boot between Windows and something else, such as GNU/Linux so the only people that get to try Linux are those that have it pre-installed as the only OS, or those willing and able to install it themselves. Source: read about it somewhere or other; main topic was the history of BeOS.

This (the OEM deals) is really by far the biggest problem that Linux has on the desktop.

Microsoft still plays dirty and has done that for a long time.

Why? As far as I am concerned these are all legacy problems. Drivers mostly work, people are aware of Linux and it can be e.g. run off an external drive. The problem is desktop Linux just isn't good enough. From a macro perspective it takes significant effort to manage, significant effort to develop for and provides significantly less value to users, developers and organizations alike. And exceptions doesn't make that less true. There is no conspiracy against Linux, or at least not an effective one. If there is anything hurting Linux it is its mainstream proponents like Google, who like to take but not give back agency. If desktop Linux was good enough, or more precisely great at what people need, they would be using it.

Drivers are sometimes a bit slow to come to Linux, but it's been years since I've had a problem with any hardware more than about 1 year old. The community is large and talented and has a diverse range of interests. Some truly old and obscure stuff is supported. Most new hardware is supported with a reasonable time after release.

You pinpointed exactly the rub I was experiencing. Reminds me of "Rules as Written" vs "Rules as Intended" dichotomy I see mentioned on the Dungeons and Dragons stack exchange.

If this really is the year of the linux desktop, it's not what I had imagined.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com