this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
86 points (79.1% liked)
Linux
48335 readers
611 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not Linux's job to run software designed for another OS. It's great that it sometimes does (thanks to wine/proton), but as a litmus test it seems a little odd.
I'm with that guy. It's exceptionally easy to run Linux full time these days for anyone who wants to. (Have been doing so since 2007, and it was already easier then than it was for the trailblazers.) It requires almost no thought to ensure the hardware I buy will be fully supported.
I don't care in the least if someone chooses something else to run on their computer, and I'm years past the point where I can even understand why I'm supposed to.
LOL it is the job of an operating system (ANY operating system) to be able to run the software you need/want. So in that regard, it's not "odd" at all.
Go run a Mac binary natively on Windows and let me know how that goes for you.
I don't care whatsoever if someone wants to use Windows for any reason at all. I take exception to this notion that Linux has some responsibility to be compatible with everything in the world while Windows only has to be compatible with Windows though.
Just make your choice and be open about it, don't manufacture requirements that are not universal.
Well this is a point you've fabricated in your imagination because no one thinks that. Windows and Mac will both run whatever software a typical user needs. Linux often does not. That makes it not suitable for most users. It's as simple as that.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that the success of Linux is tied to the needs of the mythical "average user", in addition to thinking that Linux is somehow responsible for the fact that MS doesn't make Office binaries for it, or Autocad doesn't make binaries for it, etc.
We don't need to agree on either of those, and as I said earlier, I'm years past thinking there's any reason to "convert" you or anyone else.
I find your premise to be flawed, and that's my only objection. However, I don't even care about your flawed premise enough to continue this discussion. You can go have an an OS argument with someone who feels like having one. I'm sure it won't be hard to find.
Nope. You're once again just fabricating statements that no one is making.
Linux is not a business so "success" can be measured in a myriad of ways. One of which could be the number of people adopting it as their main desktop/laptop OS. For that, it has to be able to run the software most people are using.
This is also the topic of discussion that you seem to be missing entirely.
More things you're just making up. No one thinks Linux is responsible for those things. If you want to have an argument with yourself, feel free to write it down on a piece of paper or something.
You clearly don't understand what my premise even is, so you couldn't possibly.
It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. This isn’t about assigning blame. It’s about acknowledging reality. The bottom line is that Linux is still lacking a lot of software and hardware compatibility which Windows offers.
And thus, if it's not a good fit for you don't use it. Not getting into another long discussion here.
My only grumpiness (targeted primarily at the article from OP) is the idea that the Linux community is supposed to be handwringing about the fact that more people don't use Linux.
I would love more people to use Linux. MS and Apple are both in their own respective ways bringing all the worst aspects of profit-over-all into an area that used to be and should be about wide open spaces, experimentation, and learning. (shakes cane)
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, and I stand by my assertion that for the vast majority of people it's desire, not technical barriers, that prevent them running Linux. AND THAT'S OK, not everyone has to want the same things I want. But I don't feel an obligation to chase those people, and I don't think the Linux community at large should chase those people. The Linux community should be making decisions and providing tools that Linux users want; it seems ludicrous to focus on the wants of people who don't use it at all.
Without taking the time to go through the specific Twitch top list, I'm still very doubtful that the gaming side of things is as dismal as you state, given my very positive experiences gaming with Linux in recent years. Regardless, your litmus test about running software not designed for it remains a metric that is useful for disqualifying Linux if that's what you want to do, but not a useful metric for assessing the success of Linux overall.
Edited to add: I use and support Windows on the desktop and server for my job. I see firsthand the things that suck about Windows, and they are certainly no less than the things that suck about Linux. Living in Windows 8-12 hours a day has not once made me regret my transition at home. Each successive Windows version since I left it in 2007 has served only to reinforce it.