20 years of Linux on the Desktop (part 3) | Hacker News Reader

20 years of Linux on the Desktop (part 3)

ploum.net

35 points_vqgb12 comments

> Where would I go next?

Today we finally have Librem 5 and Pinephone, which can run different GNU/Linux distributions and offer the full freedom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librem_5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PinePhone

I’m not sure if tiling window managers are a paradigm most people can get behind, but after using hyprland for a year I can’t imagine going back to a floating WM. That’s on top of all the other shortcomings of MacOS and Windows. The only caveat is the configuration part. A Wayland based tiling WM running on Debian that “just works” would go a long way in showing people the light. The decision paralysis of all the options in desktop Linux does not help the cause either.

HN discussions (#1 is rather lacklustre)

Part 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41913156

Part 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42435282

IMO, the Linux desktop has been moving in a direction I do not like. Wayland may be the last straw for me. The current direction forces me to have a lot of things running along side the DE, like dbus, key*rings, auto* and other things. In reality it seems to be trying to emulate Microsoft instead of what UN*X was like ages ago.

I like simple Window Managers as opposed to desktops, and Wayland will force me into a DE. (no tiling for me either).

I am holding out hope the *BSDs will consolidate on/around OpenBSD's xenodm, but seems the largest BSD seems intent on following Linux.

With the masses living on cell phones these days, I would think Linux would just improve what most of the users are happy with instead of moving towards Windows.

I am not sure that Wayland forces you to run all those things. That might be the case if you use Gnome, but e.g. sway is much more minimalistic.

To be fair, Microsoft pre-Windows 8 was really good in term of desktop UI, arguably the best though you might prefer MacOS if you are into the Apple ecosystem.

Copying Microsoft is not a bad thing, even if some purists dislike it. And I say that as someone who uses a minimal Debian with Window Maker, X11 and no DE. When other see my environment, they call me crazy, and it is not as if I was using some keyboard-only tiling window manager. Crazy is not great for general adoption.

Despite all that, you can still be crazy. X11-based distros still exist, Wayland doesn't prevent you from having minimal window managers. It is a bit complicated at the moment because compositors need to do a lot more than window managers, but thanks to efforts like wlroots, things are improving. I am not a fan of Wayland, but it is not so broken as to make it impossible to use anything but GNOME or KDE. I wish we could work with it instead of against it, but in 16 years, it looks like they are starting to get something usable.

"The masses" may be living on cell phones, but not everyone with a desktop computer is a UNIX greybeard. Plenty of people don't even work in tech. Accountants, artists, gamers, etc... they could all benefit from a Windows-like Linux desktop.

"The Linux desktop" can be what you want it to be jsut as much now as it was when Linux was just becoming a thing. In my case that means:

   - Debian because it works and remains stable between updates
   - X11 because it works and is widely supported
   - Xmonad because it gets out of my way while allowing me to tailor it to my needs
   - Pipewire for audio
   - Parts of Mate (i.e. Gnome 2 under a different name) to remain compatible with software made for 'modern' systems
   - servers use Proxmox-managed containers running Debian

You can do the same, all it takes is for you to create a base configuration - a set of packages to install and the configuration to apply to those packages - and use that whenever you install a new system.

Windows? If anything when it comes to "technical things" macOS is what gets copied.

Roughly speaking Gnome follows the fruit factory while KDE goes to Redmond for its ideas. In turn the commercial actors keep a close eye on each other as well as on what is going on in the free software world and attempt to implement their own versions of popular features like comprehensive package management. The same happens in the mobile space where both large actors freely imitate each other.

> KDE goes to Redmond for its ideas.

? Since 20 years ago KDE was more advanced than Microsoft.

No it wasn't. KDE was built on top of Linux which was a more stable base than the house-of-cards-built-on-quicksand that was Windows 9x from which KDE got most of its aesthetics and initial user interface paradigm which made it preferable over whatever MS was (and is) pushing. While KDE excelled in bells and whistles stability did not use to be all the great. KDE 1 and 2 were a bit clunky but they got the job done, KDE 3 ended up being quite good, KDE 4 got off to a rough and unstable start but has since found its way while losing its synchronised numbering scheme - KDE is now split in several components with different version numbers.

Honesty in advertising goes a long way, especially when you have most of the winning cards in your hands. While Microsoft is busily chipping away at customer loyalty by making its products more obnoxious with every new release free software like KDE gains more and more appeal. There is no need to glorify the past, it is glorious enough as it is - warts and all. I've been there, I've lived through the crashes and frustrations but never felt the slightest need to use anything made in Redmond or Cupertino.

> Windows? If anything when it comes to "technical things" macOS is what gets copied.

macOS is what was copied. A long time ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com