Why does everyone love Linux so much?

[leadeater]

Just now, Dat Guy said:

I dare you to name one that is Linux-only.

Ceph

[wasab]

Just now, Dat Guy said:

I dare you to name one that is Linux-only.

Systemd.

[Dat Guy]

Just now, wasab said:

never point out that macOS literally has no drivers for many of your hardwares and will refuse to be install on your computer at all

Linux won't run on an iPhone.

Windows won't run on a Playstation.

macOS won't run on a DEC Alpha.

 

Now which system has the worst hardware support? ...

[Dat Guy]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

Systemd.

Ah. I thought this was about software one would want to have, not about malware ...

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Ceph

(KInd of) runs on FreeBSD.

[wasab]

1 minute ago, Dat Guy said:

Ah. I thought this was about software one would want to have, not about malware ...

That's your own prejudice. 

 

Also, various package managers. 

[Dat Guy]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

Also, various package managers. 

Package managers (which are not pkgsrc) are relatively un-portable indeed. I mean, making pacman run on Gentoo is a hell of a task even!

[wasab]

12 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

Linux won't run on an iPhone.

Windows won't run on a Playstation.

macOS won't run on a DEC Alpha.

 

Now which system has the worst hardware support? ...

you ever see macos support any other hardware besides mackingtosh computers? 

[Dat Guy]

macOS's Darwin core powers every single Apple hardware product. No other system does.

 

What I meant to say is: The number of supported devices does not matter if all you have is a device that is not on the list.

[wasab]

1 minute ago, Dat Guy said:

macOS's Darwin core powers every single Apple hardware product. No other system does.

so windows and linux on mac computers arent a thing? really? 

you ask for which OS has the worst hardware support and i gave you one, it shouldve been obvious. 

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

(KInd of) runs on FreeBSD.

True, not sure many do though?

 

All our core networking services run on RHEL like DNS and DHCP and we have many other business critical applications that run on RHEL (even if there is a Windows version of it).

 

23 minutes ago, wasab said:

And yet you said Linux is less viable. I hope you do realize the irony and contradiction here. 

That's not picking a favorite. Linux is less viable compared to Mac OS, what Linux can do isn't the issue.

[Dat Guy]

3 minutes ago, wasab said:

you ask for which OS has the worst hardware support and i gave you one

Because your definition of "worse hardware support" is equal to "does not run on your x86-based machine". Mine is not.

 

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

True, not sure many do though?

That was not a part of the question. In terms of pure numbers, Windows wins the desktop rather easily.

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Linux is less viable compared to Mac OS

Agreed.

[wasab]

5 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

Because your definition of "worse hardware support" is equal to "does not run on your x86-based machine". Mine is not.

You want none x86? okay, how many embedded and mobile devices run on darwin kernel? 

 

8 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

Agreed.

If you like Darwin just cuz it contains code from BSD, that is just some werid obsession. 

[Dat Guy]

The Darwin kernel does not contain BSD code - or not much, at least. Even the Linux kernel contains more BSD code.
 

41 minutes ago, wasab said:

how many (...) mobile devices run on darwin kernel? 

Uhm. All iPhones? All iPads?

[wasab]

14 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

The Darwin kernel does not contain BSD code - or not much, at least. Even the Linux kernel contains more BSD code.
 

Uhm. All iPhones? All iPads?

Yeah? So you think linus torvalds copy and pasted stuffs from bsd source code when he created the first Linux kernel? 

 

So two lines of Apple products as compare to something like Android which needs to be ported to phones with different SoCs, modems, and such. It has the greatest Hardware support. Really?

[Talon_3361]

23 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

I kid you not, if OSX could be installed on a whitebox PC for $0, and Apple blessed certain Whitebox PC's to have it, there would be a massive dumping of Windows for OS X,

I'd like to try some of what you're on. Seriously.  If MacOS was that great, everyone would be using/buying Apple computers in droves all the time regardless of the price or would be Hackintoshes.

Hell, I could swap MacOS with Linux or BSD in that quoted snippet to make the same "point" about [xyz] causing people to dump Windows in droves, but it still won't make it a fact and neither is yours in that one.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Don_M said:

I'd like to try some of what you're on. Seriously.  If MacOS was that great, everyone would be using/buying Apple computers in droves all the time regardless of the price or would be Hackintoshes.

Hell, I could swap MacOS with Linux or BSD in that quoted snippet to make the same "point" about [xyz] causing people to dump Windows in droves, but it still won't make it a fact and neither is yours in that one.

It's entertaining to have arguments with people who will cut their nose off to spite their face.

 

You are coming into a thread, knowing what the punchline is, and still fight it anyway. If people hated OS X, there would be no hackintosh scene, at all. People, particularly those who want to build HEDT systems so they can run the high end Mac Pro software, are willing to put down the money to buy Mac Pro's, if only Apple (next month) would offer upgradable hardware to a specification that isn't a complete joke for their needs. Do I want a $30,000 Mac Pro? Hell yes. DO I have that money? No I do not. Do I think $30,000 spent on a Windows or Linux build will get me any closer? Absolutely not. 

 

Apple was always worried that licencing their OS to others would cannibalize their own hardware, and they'd be right. That's why it hasn't been seen since 1996. But you know what? Apple was also a lot smaller then. If Apple did that today, and specifically licensed certain "hardware parity" clones (eg only HEDT gaming PC's) they would actually gain market share, because gamers don't buy iMac's. There is no hardware that Apple produces that is suitable for gaming. You know how they can do this? They can build and sell their own Xeon/EPYC ATX motherboard. Thus the if you want OSX, but don't like Apple's hardware configuration offerings, you can spend $600-$1000 on the MB. That gets rid of the need for pirating OSX or other "not quite legal" means to build a hackintosh.

 

 

So ask yourself, why "Will this year be the year of the Linux Desktop" is a meme, a joke, and never taken seriously? Where does Linux really succeed? Linux succeeds in the low-end server market, because that's a market that was completely otherwise filled with hardware and software targeted at high end enterprise systems. Linux also succeeds in the "IoT" market. It fails everywhere else. When someone gets their act together and decides that "this is the way Linux should work, and it should feel familiar to Windows and OS X users" maybe then it will make inroads on the desktop. 

 

However the attitude I frequently see from Linux evangelists is not "Linux is a better experience" but rather "windows sux, linux is free, why u use it lol?". Linux is not a better desktop experience, and current "Linux is everywhere" shtick is getting old, when Android and Chromebooks are closer to IoT devices than desktops.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

However the attitude I frequently see from Linux evangelists is not "Linux is a better experience" but rather "windows sux, linux is free, why u use it lol?". Linux is not a better desktop experience, and current "Linux is everywhere" shtick is getting old, when Android and Chromebooks are closer to IoT devices than desktops.

You're forgetting that the observations of IT professionals who have to support users and know how they work don't matter.

 

I'll give a short note that Linux is also used on the high end of the server market, but this is just as irrelevant to the context of desktop computers as is consoles, mobile devices, IoT etc. No matter how much usage Linux gets here, how much it increases it actually has no effect on making Linux a better desktop experience.

 

I remember when Ubuntu TV was the next big thing and every TV was going to use it, yea that didn't work out either and that actually had a chance (would of been better than the crap we have on TVs now).

 

Personally I would pay for a good Linux desktop OS that has all the same polish Mac OS gets, free doesn't come up on my list of things that actually appeals to me for something as important as an OS for my desktop.

[leadeater]

Just now, georgezilla said:

Less viable then an OS that oh, can be ran as a server?

Or that actually runs on super computers?

How about one that is currently on Mars?

Then there's running on, oh say commodity hardware? ( well OS X can, but if you think Linux can be tough ... and illegal. )

Oh, oh, or on IoT?

None of these make it better for a desktop

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, georgezilla said:

But it does make it a better OS overall then the "one trick pony" that is OS X.

Doesn't matter, people ask why Linux isn't making inroads to wide usage on desktop but don't want to listen to why. Part of the reason why Linux fails to do so is precisely because it's trying to do too much in too many ways, average user doesn't care beyond "does it work and is it simple". It can work or I can make it work is not better than the other two existing options on the market.

 

4 minutes ago, georgezilla said:

And it does make it a better OS for desktop hardware that OS X doesn't, can't run on.

Hardware is irrelevant to the observation that Mac OS is a better suited OS compared to Linux, it was an evaluation of the OS. I cannot change Apples business model and neither do I want to but if a company were make a desktop focused distro with all the care and effort towards user experience and usability as Mac OS I wouldn't being saying Mac OS is the better OS. It's really expensive and requires a lot of effort to get user experience right.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, georgezilla said:

Okay.

As a "Linux evangelist" .....

Probably a good idea to quote the correct person.

[jagdtigger]

42 minutes ago, leadeater said:

"does it work and is it simple"

If the manufacturer isnt a butthead it works and pretty simple. Most of the time the HW manufacturer is the one who is at fault. And this isnt exclusive to linux, i seen my fair share of buggy drivers on windows too.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, georgezilla said:

But it does work, and is simple, if you buy a desktop/laptop that comes with it preinstalled.

Just like Windows and OS X.

Sadly no, because just being able to login and open a web browser actually does not cut it or pass muster with being simple to use and just works. Ability to install the OS is not the issue, I don't expect people to do that for Windows or Mac OS either, not here in the buying OEM computers segment of the market.

 

Long term usage and service is where it matters and that is where there is consistent opportunities for Linux to encounter usability issues compared to Mac OS and Windows. Nothing is without it's flaws but if you want to move people off something they already know how to use you have to do the same better, not nearly. Even being just as good has it's own problems against the why change issue, coming pre-installed is a fine answer to that but even Dell pulled back from doing this and they didn't do it for no reason.

 

3 minutes ago, georgezilla said:

Just how is a "better" user experience?

And just how does it have "better" usability?

 

Both of those are subjective, not objective.

Usability, simple. Most people are brought up in a schooling system where they are taught Windows and Mac OS.

 

User experience, comes from above along software support as well as hardware support. It's much easier to buy a printer and get it connected and printing on Mac OS and Windows than it is Linux and quite often printers come with software installation disks that contain only Windows software or Windows and Mac, not that you actually need these to make it print but I understand this where others do not.

 

7 minutes ago, georgezilla said:

You have solid, viable, actual numbers of desktops that are running Linux as a desktop?

No?

So just how do you know that it's not?

Because I'm not willing to put myself under a delusion and ignore what I actually see and experience. Neither does the device usage stats of the 30k+ students where I work show any significant representation of Linux. I could even drill down to just the Computer Science majors and still find Linux is not well represented proportionally, decent amount do run Linux in a VM or dual boot but don't use it as their primary.

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, georgezilla said:

I thought that I was.

If I was incorrect I apologize.

If you quote a quote it changes the source and is shown as the poster you quoted it from not the original source

 

Like this:

22 minutes ago, georgezilla said:

Probably a good idea to quote the correct person.

I said the above not you, but the forum software doesn't handle quotes of quotes.

[wasab]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

It's entertaining to have arguments with people who will cut their nose off to spite their face.

 

You are coming into a thread, knowing what the punchline is, and still fight it anyway. If people hated OS X, there would be no hackintosh scene, at all. People, particularly those who want to build HEDT systems so they can run the high end Mac Pro software, are willing to put down the money to buy Mac Pro's, if only Apple (next month) would offer upgradable hardware to a specification that isn't a complete joke for their needs. Do I want a $30,000 Mac Pro? Hell yes. DO I have that money? No I do not. Do I think $30,000 spent on a Windows or Linux build will get me any closer? Absolutely not. 

 

Dear lord, you know much linux computer by system76 sells and how many people buy?

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

There is no hardware that Apple produces that is suitable for gaming. You know how they can do this? They can build and sell their own Xeon/EPYC ATX motherboard. 

And big OEMs like asus makes and sells motherboards/laptops too. What makes apple so special? they are just computers without any extra utility to justify the higher price except for an Apple logo. 

 

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

So ask yourself, why "Will this year be the year of the Linux Desktop" is a meme, a joke, and never taken seriously? Where does Linux really succeed? Linux succeeds in the low-end server market, because that's a market that was completely otherwise filled with hardware and software targeted at high end enterprise systems. Linux also succeeds in the "IoT" market. It fails everywhere else. When someone gets their act together and decides that "this is the way Linux should work, and it should feel familiar to Windows and OS X users" maybe then it will make inroads on the desktop. 

You know how much servers cost and how much ram/processors cores servers have compare to a consumer mackintosh or mac pro? Do you know ALL of worlds super computers run on linux? Calling Linux for low end servers and IoT is the funniest thing ive heard all day

 

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

However the attitude I frequently see from Linux evangelists is not "Linux is a better experience" but rather "windows sux, linux is free, why u use it lol?". Linux is not a better desktop experience, and current "Linux is everywhere" shtick is getting old, when Android and Chromebooks are closer to IoT devices than desktops.

I said windows updates 'sux' and for a good reason. This alone is enough for me to avoid it. How about you give me a better reason that linux is lesser a desktop OS besides just that it cant run Microsoft office suite? 

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, georgezilla said:

It is exactly as easy to do on Linux, as it is on both Windows and OS X.

What is just as easy?

 

7 minutes ago, georgezilla said:

So exactly how long ago did you "try" Linux.

I (my team) support over 300 Linux servers today, have for years. I also support over 1000 Windows servers. I kind of support Mac OS but only the endpoint backup software which I create the install package for and hand over to the desktop support team.

 

I get it you don't care what I have to say about this, it makes no difference to me either way. Explained why, we don't have to agree. I have not seen a significant increase in Linux usage on desktops and laptops and I think I have a good enough understanding of why, I could be wrong and the good thing about that is my opinion on it has no impact, I'd just be wrong.