Hacker News Reader

Comment by hashkb | Hacker News Reader

Sounds like perhaps Mac or Windows would be a better fit for you.

In fact, I think Linux's package management is too inflexible. You always need to wait for maintainer to package it for you, and it is not as fast as upstream. To have multiple version of a same package usually require to compile yourself, use a PPA or download a package and install it. Compiling a software not always easy, and it takes times. The PPA and install a random package from Internet isn't really securer than Windows's way of software distribution IMO.

Linux has the advantage of many choices so you can use what fits you best.

If your hardware has good Linux drivers and if the software you need has a Linux version then IMO you can find a distribution that will match your needs. Arch could be great for some people but an LTS will be more popular with other people. For example in my case I use Intellij for work and it comes in a tar.gz file format that I can use and I can keep the old version around when updating. The only time I compiled things was when I modified stuff to add my own changes to open source software.

If you are gaming I think you should still use Windows or a console, even some will claim Proton works with most games the experience can be frustrating with many of the games that are claimed to work.

Which is why I use Windows much more than Linux despite in principle preferring FOSS. It's a shame the Linux Desktop community is so hostile to criticism, otherwise maybe I could use Linux more.

The specific criticism I think that generates the hostility you're experiencing is something like "Linux should be easier to use / easy to use for the everyday computer user". In general I think most people would agree with you, but it comes across as an ignorant comment given the well-known economics; and especially in the context of a conversation about someone who is unwilling to contribute or at least build their own software.

Where am I saying that? I have a specific criticism, that package management is unnecessary complexity that introduces more problems and limitations than it solves. It has nothing to do with being easy.

> but it comes across as an ignorant comment given the well-known economics

What the fuck does economics have to do with it?

> and especially in the context of a conversation about someone who is unwilling to contribute or at least build their own software.

I do both of those things. Your condescending conclusion otherwise is emblematic of my problems with Linux Desktop as a community.

Why didn't you just build Krita and then come here to leave some relevant feedback instead of complain about package management in general?

Because I didn't have to build Krita myself just to use it, and I appreciate that fact and wanted mention it.

Consider: it's not that Linux users are hostile to criticism, it's that your criticism is of the laziest, least-intelligent part of the spectrum of criticism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com