this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
-75 points (21.4% liked)
Technology
57918 readers
7061 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Linux is not quite normie stream ready but boy is it getting close.
Isn't it? I think it's quite there, unless you get unlucky with hardware.
There are some little things / low hanging fruit that I personally find very annoying, and don't know why they haven't addressed yet. Average users coming from Mac or Windows notice these things easily and will immediately write off Linux as being janky when they run into them. Most Linux users I see are fairly apologetic about the rough edges since 1. they know how to figure out how to fix them, and 2. believe in the principles of FOSS.
Well, I was comparing to my experience with both Windows and MacOS or whatever is the thing called.
Windows PC gets slow and laggy after around half a year, it goes slowly so you don't notice at first, but around half a year later it's shitty. No matter the hardware. Sure, your $2k laptop won't be as slow as a random $300 laptop, but the ratio of new/half-a-year-later is more or less the same.
With Macs I have limited experience, but my partner's Mac was shitting itself all the time, weird issues with login screen being stuck and needing hard reboot, the thing generally being laggy when you try to do more than two things (neither of which necessarily needs to be a demanding task), Finder is pretty much an abomination that no one really knows how to use well and so on.
Sure, Linux is fucked up all the time as well, but my point is it's not worse than the other two systems, both are broken all the time as well. And the argument that you need terminal to work - have you actually fixed any problem on Windows? Unless a reboot of the system or of some service solves the problem, within 10 minutes you're either running PowerShell or you're deep in the registry.
Well, at least Windows seems to be a problem that's solving itself (albeit very slowly) with how shitty it's become.
I've never had a Windows pc get slow after 6 months... Unless I've beat the snot out of it as I just don't care. But I'm an Admin, user boxes don't usually have such an issue. I have a 10 year old Windows 7 box that's as fast as it was 10 years ago.
But... If you install/uninstall a lot of stuff, over time that can cause issues (because Uninstallers are notoriously lazily compiled - I say this as an app packager of 20+ years.)
I used to say Windows Reg cleaners are snake oil, but on some systems it can really help with the uninstall issue - lots of crap, especially stuff related to context menus, can really slow it down. The only one I've ever recommended is Crap Cleaner - I've seen it revive a test machine that had gotten slow from a billion installs/uninstalls, testing lots of iffy software, etc.
I still can't connect my 360hz monitor and 165hz monitor and get HDR at the same time in Linux. Only two of these things work at once. Hoping the eventual new Nvidia drivers fix that, but otherwise I'm out of ideas.
Not even close.
Though it's really impressive how much it's improved over the years.
I keep having to say this, as much as I like Linux for certain things, as a desktop it's still no competition to Windows, even with this awful shit going on.
As some background - I had my first UNIX class in about 1990. I wrote my first Fortran program on a Sperry Rand Univac (punched cards) in about 1985. Cobol was immediately after Fortran (wish I'd stuck with Cobol).
I run a Mint laptop. Power management is a joke. Configured as best as possible, walked in the other day and it was dead - as in battery at zero, won't even boot. Windows would never do this, unless you went out of your way to config power management to kill the battery (even then, to really kill it you have to boot to BIOS and let it sit, Windows will not let a battery get to zero).
There no way even possible via the GUI to config power management for things like low/critical battery conditions /actions.
There are many reasons why Linux doesn't compete with Windows on the desktop - this is just one glaring one.
Now let's look at Office. Open an Excel spreadsheet with tables in any app other than excel. Tables are something that's just a given in excel, takes 10 seconds to setup, and you get automatic sorting and filtering, with near-zero effort. No, I'm not setting up a DB in an open-source competitor to Access. That's just too much effort for simple sorting and filtering tasks, and isn't realistically shareable with other people.
Now there's that print monitor that's on by default, and can only be shut up by using a command line. Wtf? In the 21st century?
Networking... Yea, samba works, but how do you clear creds you used one time to connect to a share, even though you didn't say "save creds"? Oh, yea, command line again or go download an app to clear them for for you. Smh.
Someone else said it better than me:
Now I love Linux for my services: Proxmox, UnRAID, TrueNAS, containers for Syncthing, PiHole, Owncloud/NextCloud, CasaOS/Yuno, etc, etc. I even run a few Windows VM's on Linux (Proxmox) because that's better than running Linux VM's of a Windows server.
Linux is brilliant for this stuff. Just not brilliant for a desktop, let alone in a business environment.
Linux doesn't even use a common shell (which is a good thing in it's own way), and that's a massive barrier for users.
If it were 40 years ago, maybe Linux would've had a chance to beat MS, even then it would've required settling on a single GUI (which is arguably half of why Windows became a standard, the other half being a common API), a common build (so the same tools/utilities are always available), and a commitment to put usability for the inexperienced user first.
These are what MS did in the 1980's to make Windows attractive to the 3 groups who contend with desktops: developers, business management, end users.
All this without considering the systems management requirements of even an SMB with perhaps a dozen users (let alone an enterprise with tens of thousands).
Ubuntu and it's spin-offs are really are as close as we're ever going to get to a full, user-friendly Linux OS. At least one that isn't going to scare off as many people.
It's just when you tell people the part where you have to keep track of some of the software that they use through the terminal, that's when you start seeing them trickle off back to Windows.
Because the average user doesn't have the patience, time or know-how to utilize commands in a terminal. If you plopped them down during the era where DOS was prominent, they'd be so lost and be begging for a UI to handle everything.
Why do you think it will not progress much from now on?
You don't need to use the terminal for Linux at all now AFAIK. Ubuntu / GNOME already has a nice software store as a UI.
There are some rough edges I really don't understand why they haven't addressed yet that seem like very low hanging fruit, but overall IMO it's very close to being there.
I've never mentioned the software store.
And not every single piece of software is on it.
And yes you'll still need to use the terminal for more than just updating and installing software. Kinda routes back to my problem in regards to transitioning from one OS to another.
What do you need the terminal for?