KDE for Windows 10 Exiles – Upgrade your software, not your computer
kde.org
kde.org
After that it was Konqueror with the different protocols like "wk:" in the address bar to search Wikipedia.
Then when I learned more, it just seemed like Qt was a much more capable foundation to build a desktop on, and I wanted to bet on the winner.
In the end KDE did win the desktop... because they built WebKit (as KHTML) and everything is now a webapp and the desktop is otherwise irrelevant.
When, why and how became this a good thing?
Why? Because that's what web devs are comfortable with.
How became this a good thing? When web apps became the easiest way to deploy cross platform.
There’s a reason KDE looks better, has better consistency across apps, does theming at the os level better etc. Html/javascript/css for your native app frontend is actually quite reasonable.
It just needs to be reasonable, easy to adapt to other platforms, and long-lasting. The web isn't even that good, the competition is just self-destructive to a point it can't be justified.
If you’re a small company, you can either build a web app which works everywhere; or you can deal with a distribution pushing out a buggy 3-year-old release against your will, with users harassing you about bugs.
Packaging on Linux for normal desktop apps was dead on arrival. It was never viable except for niche open source apps. The resistance to this fact makes the failure of the Linux desktop somewhat self-inflicted.
Windows, Mac? Bundle your own updater. Or use Steam. Download one file and run with a click.
PlayStation? Nintendo? Submit it, wait about two weeks, and out it goes.
The Linux desktop is single handedly the worst distribution platform for an app developer, both in fragmentation and being unable to update your own software. The Linux desktop also had the arrogance to claim developers should do it their preferred way; and to harass devs for using tools like Flatpak. Then they wonder and complain and can’t understand why devs refuse to make Linux versions even for cross-platform frameworks.
The idea that someone like Adobe should make a package for each distribution, and negotiate with each distribution if they are sending out some ancient version of Acrobat, was a stupid power-trip philosophy on day one with none of the clout required. Even Apple doesn’t reserve the right to stonewall releases purely because of version numbers.
You're neglecting all the parts where you've got to sign your install binaries.
> Steam
This is a third party marketplace that exists specifically to solve this problem and it carries all the baggage of any other third party marketplace, in the abstract.
> Video games
I'm not really shipping in these environments but I doubt it's that easy.
> Apple
They will happily stonewall you on many other small issues, however.
This takes less than 15 minutes when you know how to do it. Arguing with a distribution takes weeks. Arguing with dozens of distributions could take months.
You are approaching this solely as a solo indie dev would - which is why, with few exceptions, only solo dev software is on Linux.
> They will happily stonewall you on many other small issues, however.
You should see even a fraction of what developers on Linux have been stonewalled over. I will literally take Apple.
iOS
And as you can see, 99.9% of developers took Apple’s route. Market share can only partially explain this, as even tiny platforms like Palm had better support than Linux.
Um, well no they didn't, because most things are web applications. And most software actually targets Windows. And then most phone software that's big is cross platform.
Apples' model is cool, but it certainly has a lot of drawbacks, and in many ways they did not win. They, too, lost to the web.
I am glad Apple didn't do that and stayed native for nearly everything. This is a big selling point for me.
Yes. This is a cost and a benefit you weigh according to the capabilities of your development team. If there is nobody to outcompete you, that is factor into the decision.
As long as all the competition is more or less as bad as your product, there's very little incentive to improve on that.
Right, but Apple also perfectly exemplifies the problem with that approach - their software is incredibly limited, and can only run on a ridiculously small number of computers. Even if the software is good, which ehhh, but even if it is - there are cons to that approach.
To expand, this also hurts the customer in a lot of direct and non-direct ways. You're forced to buy Apple hardware, and that hardware might not meet your capabilities. This further fuels anti-consumerist anti-repair behavior, because they know that their computers are the only ones you can use.
And, since they create their own market, they kind of have you in golden handcuffs. If their prices go up, which they do and already are high, you're along for the ride.
It's plainly true that Apple software locks you into Apple devices, which are more expensive than they should be. In addition, those devices are some of the most anti-consumer computers made. You can't repair them, they're locked down.
What Apple does is impressive, sure. But let's not pretend that making mediocre software that runs on 1% of computers is anything compared to the Web. They have fundamentally different goals, which is why native Apple software doesn't compete with the web.
As for the repair? You can literally buy parts here and repair them yourselves. I have actually had to replace a USB-C port on my last M1 MBP and it was dead easy. https://selfservicerepair.com/ . I see this everywhere I go: parroting the same misinformed garbage about their repair situation.
You just dislike Apple and can't wait to tell everyone about it.
2. Apple devices are uniquely difficult to repair and this is done on purpose. For a long time, you couldn't do it at all. Now, you can... if you use Apple approved tools and parts.
It's just plainly dishonest to say Apple does not engage in some of the most rampant anti-repair anti-consumerist behavior in the industry. They do, and they have been for a long time.
Also yeah, O365 sucks. You know what else sucks? Webkit on IOS, iMessage, SwiftUI, Mantle. Apple loves loves loves their software vendor lock-in on technologies that nobody actually cares about. Just use real standards for fuck's sake.
> When, why and how became this a good thing?
Cheap instant all-terrain deployment trumps most other considerations, especially where technical onboarding is on the critical path to customer acquisition.
While we're talking about "webapps", generally, and not SaaS specifically... the two often go so hand in hand that it is the exception to see a webapp that is not also a SaaS product.. and as a consumer I kind of mostly hate SaaS.
With the above two advantages noted, lets look at the cons:
- Companies can, and routinely do, push unwanted UX changes on me without my opt-in. Pre-SaaS you would wait for a new version to come out and could see what the reviews were saying before deciding if you like the changes and want the new features. Now you're a guinea pig and get the new "features" whether they are a benefit to you or not.
- Forces me to have my data on someone else's computer
- The "other peoples' computer" issue means that if there is a software or a hardware failure that prevents me from being able to do urgent work that it is entirely outside of my hands and my ability to troubleshoot the majority of the time (though this is a double edged sword since for the average non-technical user it can be a big benefit)
- Can't work without an active Internet connection (though I'll concede that not having an active connection is becoming pretty rare these days)
- If the company goes out of business, say goodbye to your data in the majority of cases
- Often goes hand in hand with renting the software rather than paying a flat fee for a perpetual license. Given the choice, I will always opt for a perpetual license. I try hard to have as few recurring payments in my budget as possible. Utility bills are bad enough.
If, however, by "webapp" we just mean a desktop application that uses a DOM-based rendering engine then I couldn't care less. There are tradeoffs, but they are purely technical and rarely impact UX directly in the way that a general approach to software delivery and consumption does.
I think you're the last of a dying breed of users. The iPhone generation doesn't lose their internet connection, throw a hissy-fit when UX changes or even care all that much when data is on a remote server. They will pay for whatever is successfully marketed to them, and that company will be rewarded with success. This is what the App Store conditions users into wanting, if OnePass tells you to switch to their Electron app then you have zero choice in the matter.
My solution has simply been to never pay for software. Not native, not SaaS webapps, not Electron containers. It's all just one big scam when free alternatives to 99% of meaningful software exists if you're willing to eschew laziness.
Well there's your problem lol.
I still have paid software from the 90s that I can run. And if things get really sticky due to OS incompatibilities, you can spin up an old version of an OS in a VM. The retro gaming community does really well at running software that is now 40-50 years old too.
I hear you about not paying for software. For most applications I use FOSS when possible. There are applications though where using proprietary is the lesser evil because the FOSS options - if they exist at all - are really bad.
And yeah, I might be in the extreme minority when it comes to users. I'm neurodivergent so that definitely contributes to my aversion to change. It doesn't mean my opinion isn't valid or that I don't have the right to complain though. What I want is software that won't change on me without my opt-in, and that will let me keep my data locally. Maybe most users don't want that, but there are those of us out there and that speaks to untapped niche. Maybe you won't get rich making software for us, but there are far more small mom & pop shops in the world than there are massive rich mega-corps. I'm happy giving them my money.
A modern classic absurdity: Linux enthusiasts who purchase MacBooks and use them to do all their computing in shitty web apps.
Realistically, many people will use registry hacks and other forms of piracy to get those updates for free, of course, just like people did with Windows 7. Only businesses or people afraid of viruses will pay, but that's probably enough for Microsoft.
I find it quite confusing to seemingly target people still unaware that Windows 10 is going out of support, but also list FTP/SSH/git/SVN integration as a feature. The people who use version control probably know what alternatives are or aren't available (even if they'd rather not need to find an alternative).
If they wanted to make the offer look good, I think they would've put out special offers with OneDrive storage and a year of extra security support for $5 per month rather than $2.50 a month for just updates.
For me, every one of the older machines in my household (laptops and desktops) that are currently on Windows 10 that cannot run Windows 11 in a fully supported manner will be migrated to a KDE based Linux distro.
I have friends and family that will continue to run EOL Windows 10 which is worse unless I convince them to migrate to Linux.
If you employ snake oil like Crowdstrike or "secure boot" (when the key stays on MS servers).
A lot of the users of 10 we're talking about wouldn't know how to get Windows 11 working again after updates were stripped again.
The situation with Windows 10 feels quite different, because most people I know that use Windows are on Windows 10 currently.
ESU costs $30 for one year, $60 for two years. That's a lot cheaper than a new laptop.
YMMV but this isn't a real option for a lot of people.
One cost me a 100 mile round trip to turn airplane mode off after I assume she'd accidentally whacked the mouse wheel button on the icon instead of the browser which for some completely unknown reason does that?!?!?!?! I'm not sure that was even what she did but I spent ages trying to work out how she could have even done that in the first place.
Gnome, on the other hand, provides a totally different UI, so user immediately identifies that it is different and needs to be learned a bit. But thanks to Gnome being pretty coherent and simple in how UI works, it usually takes very little time to learn and then they just keep using it. I experimented with my parents, father is 70, mother 65, and they both earned default Ubuntu very quickly and don’t have any issues using it, unlike win10+, which constantly raised questions and frustrations that something changed (MS likes to bring idiotic widgets to panels and menus after updates no matter that nobody asked for them).
I did just consider buying her a Mac Mini and be done with it. That seems, to this day, the most suitable solution.
For linux newbies, I'd actually suggest checking out Linux Mint with Cinnamon desktop. I used to run Mint a long time ago and recently installed it for someone trying to change from Windows. it was nice to see that they still provide a good, preconfigured UX. And no snaps. It's probably simpler than KDE but not too simple.
Maybe it's a case of [1], but I think Plasma is ready for the average desktop user. The other parts of the system may have some ways to go.
#2: End-of-updates isn't the security vulnerability large software vendors make it out to be, in the context of PC use. The paragraph below the first picture is FUD.
I actually don't mind the GNOME metaphor... but they make it less and less usable over each release. Philosophically, what they are talking about sounds great, but pragmatically the system is just getting less and less usable. UX consistency is good, but not when it comes at the expense of functionality. Also, I don't like that GNOME has been ideologically captured by the extreme left.
Back in the day I ran WindowMaker and FVWM, but nowadays, with Wayland, HiDPI screens and expectations of integration, it is not a viable strategy anymore.
KDE tries to satisfy anyone with all kinds of options, but as a result most of such options are half baked and DE starts to fall apart with memory leaks and inconsistency as soon as you’re deviating from default experience enough. I do like KDE’s innovations and attempts to get as maximum performance as possible, but sad truth is that in he last 15 years I’m trying fresh KDE once in a year or two, but have to crawl back to gnome after about a week, as small but annoying problems, memory leaks or inconsistencies result in frustration.
I have heard this so many times about Gnome yet no one explains how a desktop environment can "bother" a user so that they can't focus on their work. In fact, Gnome decision to show notification at the top middle of screen is the most distracting thing a DE can do.
I agree that plasmashell does have memory related issue but at least it is not part of the compositor (unlike gnome-shell which is the desktop shell and the compositor using mutter library) so that you can just kill it and restart it without having to logout.
Other than Aurora Shell, but many people prefer to separate ChromeOS from other Linux Distros.