Hacker News Reader

Comment by caiocaiocaio | Hacker News Reader

When I started using Linux, in college, the advantages were that Ubuntu, and others, were super light-weight and a great way to give life to old hardware. Also, if you were interested in programming, it was a pretty good way to discover how things work.

Benefit one was destroyed by Gnome3 (and, for a while, Unity) being the default in the beginner's distros. Benefit two was destroyed by SystemD wrapping its tentacles around more and more things, and making a modern distro an obtuse, ugly system to learn from, or to work with.

Is there any persuasive reason for a college student today to try desktop Linux? Is there a good pitch anymore?

View on HN

Someone who wants to understand their system and perhaps program it in C is advised to join those of us in the world of desktop (well, laptop mostly for me) BSD. A fresh OpenBSD install couldn't be more pleasant to hack on, IMO.

If you want lightness, or need the Linux kernel for something, Alpine Linux is a tiny and solid project.

No systemd to be found (not even an option on BSDs; Alpine Linux is OpenRC).

The BSDs are great for that vintage Unix feel, but I find that hardware support is not adequate enough to run it as a desktop OS on modern hardware. Worse yet, a minor OS upgrade can break hardware support that was there before: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230172

Also Void Linux is a systemd-free distro I can recommend.

Hilariously, OpenBSD is closer to systemd in its philosophy than anything else — one umbrella project developing all parts of the OS, often depending on each other.

They also couldn't be further from its philosophy.

Systemd: let's break and change how everything works. You need to relearn everything.

OpenBSD: things work largely the way they've worked for decades. Even as parts of the system are rewritten, the user experience remains very much like it was before, and often the old way of configuring and using things works exactly as before even if the underlying tools have seen a complete rewrite.

> They also couldn't be further from its philosophy.

> Systemd: let's break and change how everything works. You need to relearn everything.

> OpenBSD: things work largely the way they've worked for decades. Even as parts of the system are rewritten, the user experience remains very much like it was before, and often the old way of configuring and using things works exactly as before even if the underlying tools have seen a complete rewrite.

You're arguing a different point. *BSD's focus on 'experience stability' is completely tangential to the fact that it's a curated series of different utilities, tools and programs designed to work together. Much like systemd.

> Hilariously, OpenBSD is closer to systemd in its philosophy than anything else ...

Hilariously, this is premise is entirely wrong.

> ... one umbrella project developing all parts of the OS, often depending on each other.

Systemd is not the OS. Full stop.

> Systemd is not the OS.

Certainly seems to want to become it.

> > Systemd is not the OS.

> Certainly seems to want to become it.

touché

> Hilariously, this is premise is entirely wrong.

Then take KDE as example (an umbrella project with many separate, independent projects below it, all of which are separate binaries, but many work better when used together, or depend on another). Or Gnome. Or any other such umbrella project.

> > > Hilariously, OpenBSD is closer to systemd in its philosophy than anything else ...

> > Hilariously, this is premise is entirely wrong.

Note that you originally asserted:

  one umbrella project developing all parts of the OS

And I responded with what I feel confident is a statement of fact:

  Systemd is not the OS.

> Then take KDE as example (an umbrella project with many separate, independent projects below it, all of which are separate binaries, but many work better when used together, or depend on another). Or Gnome. Or any other such umbrella project.

The examples you provide are umbrella projects, no doubt, but none are Operating Systems. Neither is systemd.

While the term "OpenBSD" can be used in the context of a distribution (common), OS (common), and the tools used to initialize same (uncommon), systemd only qualifies for the latter.

> Systemd is not the OS. Full stop.

Do you mean the project, or the unit system? I'd argue an init system is very much a key part of the operating system, as important as the kernel. You can't really do much without one.

If you mean the project, then you've missed the point.

I’ve wanted to.

I tried netbsd a couple times but I’ve never gotten it to compile.

Laptops are the new desktops. :)

If you want lighter weight Ubuntu GUI, check out Xubuntu or Lubuntu (or just select Xfce or LXDE as your desktop at install time).

There is e.g. Elementary OS (also an Ubuntu derivative) with another lightweight GUI.

I personally run Void Linux (which lives happily without both systemd and sysvinit) with Xfce.

I haven't tried it, but many are saying the Deepin desktop is better than all of the above.

Deepin is developed by China-based "Wuhan Deepin Technology", and is pre-shipped by Huawei on their Linux laptops. That's all I need to know to not use it.

Gnome 3 is great. Also, there is no platform that beats Unix for programming. Absolutely none.

Gnome3 is great if you want to disable 4323 hotkey combinations to open their overlay (except the one that can't be disabled), and download an extension that makes it so moving the cursor over 15% of the upper left corner of the screen doesn't open the overlay.

But it is slow. The overlay barely works well on a new mid-range system. A cheap laptop that is as old as Gnome3 has no chance of running Gnome3 in a satisfying way. Even if you ignore the overlay and install dmenu (which a noob isn't going to know about) it is slower than not only other wm's for Linux, but Windows and OSX. It's not a good way to get new people interested in Linux.

I think it's fine. I'm not sure that new linux users would honestly prefer something extremely fast like i3, and unity is extremely clunky and unappealing.

> Is there any persuasive reason for a college student today to try desktop Linux?

I think not if we look at Ubuntu, Red Hat, etc. But maybe small ones like Alpine Linux?

This brings up a good question: What good free and open source operating system is out there that would be persuasive for a college student or someone who wants to learn an operating system as opposed to merely using it?

I submit: https://www.openbsd.org

I found Linux From Scratch[1] invaluable when I built a system with it almost two decades ago (but I assume it's still awesome). The trick is to not use the automated build portions and read and follow their page on every step. It takes a while, but you come away with a much better understanding of how the system works.

1: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

This seems to imply that the only advantage of Linux was its low system requirements, and I don't think it was ever true that that was the only advantage.

I'm not talking the only advantage, I'm talking what's going to convince people to use Linux for desktop in the first place. What would be a good one-minute pitch in 2019? Because when I first started, nearly 15 years ago, Linux had a really good one-minute sales pitch that was extremely persuasive.

>Benefit one was destroyed by Gnome3 (and, for a while, Unity) being the default in the beginner's distros

That statement seems inconsistent with itself. It's the default, you can change it.

What sold Linux for me was trying Ubuntu on an old dusty laptop that had been sitting in my closet for a few years. It installed fast and ran fast and I got a good feeling for it in less than an hour. If the default windowing system was slow back and awkard, I would never have had no idea there was another windowing system because I'd have had no motivation to learn more.

I think that in this statement 'default' with the word 'beginner' can be read as 'unchangeable' for the sake of this conversation.

It's no more difficult than installing any other program

It's free

> Is there any persuasive reason for a college student today to try desktop Linux?

What is this college student studying?

If it's something technical then yes, 100%, you need exposure to multiple different systems, and sticking to your MS enclave is going to seriously limit your abilities.

Despite SystemD Linux is better than ever as a coding OS and as a desktop OS. It works great on a huge range of hardware and it provides frictionless access to tools to code in more languages than you can shake a stick at.

If Gnome is too heavy or restrictive for you (and I haven't gone near it since 3 launched) then try a different DE like Xfce. There's a selling point right there - switch DEs at the drop of a hat.

I never got the "good for programmers to learn on" argument. If anything Windows has better IDE support and is easier to install things on for a beginner. Not so bad on Linux with VS Code these days at least.

I've had the opposite experience.

On Linux, you just open up a text editor, write some C/Python, then pop open a terminal and directly invoke gcc/python. There's typically nothing that needs to be installed - and if something's missing, it's just an 'apt install' away. As a beginner you can see how everything fits together since there's no IDE in the way. And if you want to dig deeper into how things work, everything is documented in the man pages.

On Windows, you need to go online, find the right downloads, then install various developer utilities just to get to a working build environment. From there everything is typically done from the IDE - which means setting up projects and dealing with more abstraction.

I'm firmly of the belief that IDEs are a great tool, but aren't something that should be introduced until after students have a firm grasp of the underlying fundamentals.

> I've had the opposite experience

Me too. Professionally, I develop for a number of operating systems, including Linux and Windows. I much prefer developing on a Linux system over the others, in part because it's easier to get going (most of what you need is installed with the OS), and in part because it's more flexible.

Ironically I remember the days when using Python on UNIX, not only I had to go online, I also had to compile it.

Or get the IT to install the respective C compiler.

What self-respecting UNIX distribution doesn't come with a C compiler?!

All of them since Sun started selling developer tools as an additional package?

Plus just because there is a C compiler, it doesn't mean IT has made it available to common mortals, or allowed exec on $HOME for the clever dudes that try to sneak in one.

That's just depressing…

"Windows has better IDE support"

Why would having better IDE support make for a better learning environment? It masks what is going on, and complicates it (for the benefit of people doing much more complicated things). But if you're bashing out helloworld.py you've just made it hard to disambiguate what the file is doing, what the runtime, and what the IDE.

Windows/VS: Type some stuff in the window and hit F5, get shown visually the line that went wrong. Install other things with easy setup utilities.

Linux/CLI: Learn an obtuse (beginners, remember) command line text editor, save the file, run another text command to run it, remember the error as you go back in. Fight with apt to get things to work, pray there are no dependency conflicts/errors, learn sudo, go find an IRC channel to help with a package not working with some obscure error about "but it depends on .. which is not installed, try (command that won't fix anything)"

First one sounds much easier for a beginner to me. Making programmers learn on linux is like making student drivers start on manual tractor trailers.

> First one sounds much easier for a beginner to me

They didn't say it wasn't easier, just that they'd learn less. A better platform to learn on doesn't result in you learning less.

This is even true among "professional" developers, they think somethings impossible just because it can't be done inside visual studio because they don't know how all the parts fit together, all they can do is hit F5.

> Linux/CLI: Learn an obtuse (beginners, remember) command line text editor, save the file, run another text command to run it, remember the error as you go back in. Fight with apt to get things to work, pray there are no dependency conflicts/errors, learn sudo, go find an IRC channel to help with a package not working with some obscure error about "but it depends on .. which is not installed, try (command that won't fix anything)"

Aside from the command line text editor you have deal with almost similar issues with VS, different but similar. You can end up in DLL hell from nuget, you can fight with click once deploys, you can find useless "answers" on MSDN, etc.

You can always learn the hard way later. Less distractions and friction is better for initial learning.

Can't say VS has ever given me problems outside very complex large projects that are out of scope here while the Linux part is based on experience.

Installing a new language is way easier on linux - apt-get install <language> and you're getting started.

You seriously underestimate the amount of work people have to do to get started in an IDE.

apt is prone to catastrophic failure that's very hard to diagnose but setting up an IDE is as simple as clicking OK on a few prompts in an installer. For some real data nobody in the high school class I took that used visual studio had any issue with the fact it was visual studio.

Really though, thinking on it the best environment for a total beginner is probably one of those web-based things like codeacademy.

I don't want to start a huge argument or anything but it's years since apt has failed for me, and I run a bunch of systems. IDEs have a learning curve over and above learning the language, and really, locating and installing an IDE is easier than typing apt-get install <language>?

Let's agree to disagree.

Installing and navigating through enough of the VS interface (what is a "Project"? Why are there so many different types? Doesn't the book say I just need a text file???) to even get started in Windows is a huge challenge. The original reason I wanted to use Linux was precisely that "make a text file and run a command" appeared simple enough I could understand all the moving parts.

None of the first timers in my high school class that used VS had any issue.

Why would you rely on CLI?

As an example I write papers using latex.

On Windows I have to:

- Figure out that I need miktex.

- Find its website and download the installer and install it.

- Find an "IDE" like TeXniccenter.

- Find its website, download it and install it. - Configure it.

- I have buttons to click, great. I click on them and pray that it works. What if it doesn't? Error messages are buried somewhere and problems are horribly difficult to fix (e.g. utf8 problems or missing perl).

- I need to convert some graphics from one type to the other. Can Windows do that? What do I need to install? Photoshop?

On linux:

- Open the software center/appstore/whatever.

- Search "latex".

- Click on all the stuff I like. Done.

- Everything works out of the box and does not need fiddling.

The second one is much, much easier for a beginner.

As somebody who uses both and comes from Windows I must say, that you learn a lot more in a Linux environment. The tooling is also better, because you are not made reliable on one IDE, but instead use a ton of well tested little tools that you can probably use the same way in two decades still.

Don’t get me wrong, IDEs can be great, but they come and go or change significantly over a decade and the knowledge you build with it won’t work once you SSH into a headless server.

Why not both?

Check the state of clojure eco system, it works all fine on Linux, but on Windows it is harder to set up and to find help on the internet.

It is the UNIX cargo cult that 100% programmers use UNIX and software on other OSes just appears out of thin air as their users wish for its existence. /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com