
I think I’m tired of Desktop Linux - r11t
http://movingparts.net/2009/11/10/i-think-im-tired-of-desktop-linux/
======
nzmsv
In a week or two it is possible to configure a desktop Linux machine to
almost-perfection. Not working on it full time, of course, just fixing broken
things as they are discovered. But then there's always one tiny nagging thing
that doesn't quite work right.

So, an upgrade. Everything is shinier, and that one bug is finally fixed. Too
bad a lot of the programs and libraries are obsolete now, and the software
that did survive in the repos is rewritten to use the new interfaces. Along
with their bugs. And after a couple weeks setting everything up just so, there
is one tiny nagging bug...

I use a Debian machine exclusively. After I upgraded to testing, my video
stopped crashing. That's great. But now bluetooth is broken. It's been
replaced with a completely new HAL framework, and I still can't figure out how
to pair a device.

~~~
cheriot
How much of the trouble can be avoided by getting a machine with linux
preinstalled? Let someone else research drivers and do the testing.

I've had a great experience with the pangolin model from system76.com.

~~~
meatbag
A LOT of trouble can be saved if the hardware is confirmed to work with the
OS. I bought a System76 Starling. Haven't upgraded it to Karmic yet - I figure
I'll let more people tread the upgrade path until it is smoother.

------
vicaya
I've used a 2nd generation Macbook Pro that costs my employer close to $3000
(4GB RAM, 2.4GHz, 160GB HD) for 2 years, during which time the graphic card
(Nvidia 9600M GT) died twice (screen suddenly went blank); battery died once
(could not hold charge for an hour and would shut everything down without
warning); Apple Mail corrupted its IMAP data countless times; much software
annoyance: maximize/unmaximize/resize surprise etc.

Before the MBP, I've been using a $1000 amd64 notebook with 1.5GB RAM for 3
years without any issues, running Gentoo (! did need to google to fix multi-
monitor support and ndiswrapper/wpa-supplicant for wifi) and it felt snappier
than the mac with much faster processor running Leopard (up to 10.5.8).

Now I'm using a $600 laptop (with 4GB RAM and 320GB HD with higher display
resolution than the MBP: 1680x945 vs 1440x900) and a 2.5lb $200 netbook
running Ubuntu Jaunty. Everything worked out of the box including wifi, webcam
and desktop effects. Feels much snappier than the Mac as well. All it took is
a little googling _before_ buying the machines :)

It's much easier for Apple to QA limited configurations. Frankly, I'm quite
pleased with the progress of Linux desktop.

Just another experience and perspective...

~~~
fortes
What's your current laptop? I'm in the market for one, and plan on running
Ubuntu (with Windows in a VirtualBox)

~~~
vicaya
The laptop is a desktop replacement 18.4" Acer with intel chipset (4500HD
graphics etc.) bought from Amazon (free shipping and no tax! Looks like it's
not available anymore, probably discontinued) 6 months ago. The netbook is a
Dell mini 10v from Dell outlet on one of its 15% off offers.

The Acer has an HDMI output. I connected it to my 24" 1920x1200 Samsung and
point and clicked the monitor applet on the gnome panel and viola, dual
monitor support at full resolution without having to fiddle xorg.conf! Point
and clicked to configure the wifi on both machines without any problems. Man,
I was ecstatic, probably due to the low expectation from my Gentoo experience
-- I was expecting to vi a few things to make them work :)

To be honest, I did have to add a fixmtrr.sh to gdm PostLogin and a line
(MigrationHeuristic greedy) to xorg.conf to fix the intel video performance
regression in Jaunty on both machines, when I felt the desktop effect was a
bit sluggish. Now the desktop animations are smooth as butter even on the
netbook.

I did choose to install 32-bit Ubuntu with server kernel (to get PAE in
Jaunty) to take advantage of the full 4GB RAM, instead of 64-bit because flash
and a few other things don't work as well as in 32-bit.

------
CitizenKane
For the sake of context, Jason is a KDE developer and if you read through the
comments you'll find out that he's not alone in this sentiment.

It's an interesting issue and it's sad to see that desktop Linux has so much
trouble providing a stable user experience.

~~~
rayvega
I recently got a laptop because I needed mobility in and outside my home. So,
I bought a Dell laptop with Ubuntu pre-installed after years of using Windows.
I was very excited.

My enthusiasm deteriorated very quickly upon discovering that the wireless did
not work out of the box which immediately negated the main reason for my
purchase.

I am someone who writes code for a living (and for fun) and I found the
experience disappointing and frustrating. Imagine how your average non-
technical consumer would feel.

~~~
hernan7
Wow, they sell a machine with non-functioning WiFi? Actually, I was planning
to buy one of those Dell Lnux laptops; thanks for the heads-up.

~~~
meatbag
No, it probably won't "work" out of the box, meaning that it requires
configuration. With a fresh install, typically the first thing I do is plug in
an ethernet cable, download all available updates (including wifi drivers and
other software if needed) and then configure the wifi. I did this when I
bought a netbook preinstalled with Linux, but I might not have needed to
install anything, I probably just didn't find the "switch" at first.

------
igorgue
I think it's getting harder to defend the Linux Desktop, since Pulseaudio
(which is finally working perfectly on my laptop).

But still I'll stay with my Ubuntu, I just don't like using Windows or OS X,
every time I use my mac I miss Gnome Terminal, Banshee, X-Chat, F-Spot, even
VIM (since the mac terminal doesn't support 256 colors :(), I miss my wobbly
windows, the desktop cube (not that crap you get with OS X)... I would just
use the mac if there is no other option.

And don't get me started with Windows and the un-resizable terminal ugh!

~~~
maukdaddy
FYI: right click to configure windows terminal. You can set any width/height
you'd like.

OSX is far superior still ;)

~~~
igorgue
thank you so much for the tip is helping me already!, still it sucks...

------
psranga
Linux is great for software development (i.e., stick with terminal windows)
and simple web browsing. And I love it because that's what I do. But it sucks
for many other tasks. The Unix haters handbook has a great rant about X11
where they say that for many years the only programs that X ran were xterm and
clock.

Just yesterday I kicked off an MP3 playback using Rhythmbox on Ubuntu 9.04 and
forgot to pause. When I came back a couple of hours later, _two_ cores were
pegged at 100% and the song was fast forwarding like crazy with no obvious UI
control to slow it down.

And this is _after_ wrestling with Adobe's 64-bit Flash plugin that doesn't
play nice with USB audio (not sure if the 32-b version does; I'm not going to
reinstall Ubuntu just for that).

~~~
hernan7
Yes, back in the day the _Unix_ desktop was OK for development, compared to
alternatives like DOS. But then, the Unix vendors also had almost complete
control of the hardware stack.

Seems that Alan Kay is right again: "People who are really serious about
software should make their own hardware".

~~~
riobard
Alan Kay is right again: "People who are really serious about software should
make their own hardware".

That explains Mac and iPhone's success I guess

------
olaf
I think the problem is, that some people (including me) have much too high
expectations.

Linux does cost nothing, so nobody is really responsible.

I think Windows 7 is lightyears ahead, if you compare the organized manpower
and level of professionalism involved (I say this as a 90% Linux User).

If anybody talks about being on par with Windows soon, I think that's nothing
but hubris.

I decided to see Desktop-Linux as some kind of stagecoach in the 21st century,
and seen as a stagecoach it does a good job.

Lowering my expectations made it possible to get over my initial frustration
and get back to work, concentrating on what works.

------
anigbrowl
This could have been written 10 years ago - I recall similar 'almost there'
experiences with audio and USB on a dell laptop at the time, though I can't
blame the Linux community for lack of access to bespoke drivers. Not to
belittle the tremendous advances that have taken place in the interim, but
something died after development of Enlightenment stalled.

~~~
psranga
I thought his complaint was mainly about closed-source vendors who don't
polish their Linux apps enough.

~~~
unalone
His complaint is about the entire system, which includes people who refuse to
admit closed-source Linux apps aren't the best because they insist that
closed-source is bad and should be done away with.

------
dschobel
_Now, I am very aware that the Linux Desktop is SO much better than it was
even 5 years ago. We have eye candy up the wahzoo._

That was most definitely not the major issue 5 years ago. The issue 5 years
ago was configuring hardware and god help you if you want to do some
multimedia work on a stock linux distro.

Things are a ton better today. I don't remember the last time I had to
manually edit an xorg.conf. But Linux has neither the standardized hardware of
Apple nor the dominant market share of Windows to compel vendors to make their
hardware work with linux.

Really the best you can do to get that level of compatibility is to get your
Ubuntu laptop through Dell.

------
Slashed
Using Ubuntu 9.10 and everything works out of the box. Although, I had a
problem with WiFi on my other laptop, but doing some /etc configuration solved
the problem. Is it that hard to write a few configuration lines only once?

~~~
anigbrowl
If you're not a geek, yes. Most non-programmers find the Unix command line a
hostile environment and are not that interested in tweaking the operating
system as an end in itself. Would you want a TV that required a soldering iron
as part of the installation process?

~~~
Slashed
Let me say it this way, if I really ever wanted this TV set then I wouldn't
mind. The same is with Linux: if you want free, open-source OS then you should
know that there's no Photoshop, IE and all those games you can have on
Windows. Also, before installing Linux you should be aware that not every
piece of hardware can work in Linux. I agree, these are big disadvantages for
normal user - the choice depends on users' priorities.

~~~
anigbrowl
Agreed. However, a key goal of desktop Linux is to be sufficiently useful and
easy that user-facing software will find an audience, and it becomes worth a
developer's time to code for that platform.

------
roqetman
I think this is a problem with perspective. Linux on the desktop is not a
homogeneous collection controlled by a single entity. It is a collection of
individual pieces. Software vendors have little incentive to make their
software work 100% with those individual pieces on the Linux desktop, unlike
they do on platforms where they sell other software and services. You get what
you pay for, on the Linux desktop, your payment will be in time and effort to
get the (usually substandard) free offerings from these software vendors to
work properly.

~~~
Periodic
It does seem that this is one of the problems, though surely not the only
problem.

If you're a hardware vendor making a new USB device, you're going to alter
your device and your drivers (if you have them) so that the item works well
under Windows and maybe OS X. You're probably not going to try to tweak it to
make it work with the Linux USB drivers.

Linux is in this odd position of having to try to copy all the functionality
and interface of the Windows systems because that's what all the hardware has
been written for. It makes for a buggy and error prone process.

I don't agree that you get what you pay for though. At this point it's all
about market penetration. If Linux was 90% of the PC market, don't you think
those USB webcams would be likely to work the first time? Don't you think that
if a company wanted to enable new functionality they'd submit a driver to the
kernel? It wouldn't take any more effort from them (less if you consider
programming for Linux easier than programming for Windows) and the Linux users
would get the benefit.

~~~
jodrellblank
""" If Linux was 90% of the PC market"""

Let's branch into another universe where everything is exactly the same as
this one, except Linux (in the same state it's in now) is 90% of the PC
market. But how can such a world exist except by ignoring the reasons that
exist in our universe why Linux is not the OS for 90% of the PC market.

It's not a sensible "if". If Linux was forced onto 90% of computers early on,
it would have been forced to be a lot more stable, backwards compatible and
rigid than it is now. The webcams would work but the OS wouldn't be the Linux
you know today.

------
daemianmack
I've recently come to the same conclusion as the author.

I've long been an advocate of Linux, but a few years go I sort of gradually
switched off Linux on the desktop back to Windows. It wasn't premeditated; I
built a new box, made it Windows for gaming, and then one day realized I was
using it exclusively for desktop stuff.

Well, I say desktop, but I think the real differentiator here is X Window... I
use Linux command-line programs for much of my daily desktop productivity
stuff -- email (sup+fetchmail), irc/aim (irssi, bitlbee), text editing
(emacs), etc.

At work we recently rebuilt our boxes using Ubuntu. I was thrilled for about
two weeks, and then all those little X annoyances started creeping back in.
Frankly, I was kind of surprised; I had assumed that it would have come a lot
farther in the few years since I had last used Linux for desktop.

Actually using X Window programs has become annoying. I can sort of feel that
legion of disparate programmers all taking their own stab at desktop GUI
programming and all arriving there somewhat differently.

Eventually a few of us broke down and hackintoshed our boxes, and I couldn't
be happier.

Linux on the server? Absolutely.

But on the desktop? OS/X.

------
dkarl
Geez, simple solution. Keep another box around, a Mac Mini or a cheap Windows
box, for the stuff Linux doesn't do. If you try to get by with a single
desktop environment, you'll get fed up with any of the choices out there. It
isn't worth the pain. You'll get tired of the Mac when you realize that nice
interface is the only... environment... you'll... ever... have. Everything
that takes three clicks will _always take three clicks_. You'll never be able
to switch to a tiling window manager for the afternoon. I won't bother listing
Windows' shortcomings. And under Linux you will always run into things like
Skype that are broken and not worth the trouble of fixing, because you aren't
in college anymore and you have _real_ work to do.

If I had to do a lot of work on the road, I think I would have to get a
Windows or Mac laptop and set up a Linux VM for doing real work. Otherwise I'd
go crazy and start carrying two laptops (and forget about ever getting another
date.)

------
neilo
I totally sympathize with this kind of issue, it's what keeps me from putting
Linux on my parents' computers (though this latest "Alpha Antivirus" thing my
dad got is ... pushing my limits).

For myself, I am pleasantly surprised at the experience I've had with Ubuntu
since I first installed 8.04 and deciding to give Linux desktop yet-another-
go. The improvements between releases are apparent and usually make sense.
Hardware device recognition and drivers are getting better. Overall it IS
getting better, and seemingly faster, so have hope for it.

In the meantime it's going to be a bumpy ride not just because of stiff
competition from existing "just works" platforms, but because it challenges
some fundamental commercial assumptions about operating software and THAT is
inevitably going to cause opposition through politics, support bias, etc.

Strong supporters are going to shed blood in the hope that future generations
won't have to. Isn't that the way it always is?

------
yason
It's about trade-offs. Yes, there are issues with Linux; there have always
been different various issues in any Linux distribution I've used since 1995
which is when I started.

But there are issues with Windows and OS X too. And that's where Linux's
advantages kick in again. You'll always miss something from the other side of
the fence. You'll have to weigh in, and some people weigh to Linux and some
people don't.

I've never got too far with Windows. I ditched OS X after over two years of
everyday use. Despite the uncertainty regarding hardware compatibility in
Linux, I really like the way it, namely Debian and recently Ubuntu, gets rid
of the _other_ problems so irritatingly present in other operating systems.

A Linux system is just too user friendly for users who aren't too system
friendly.

------
tarkin2
Well, I'm in two minds. I've often disliked how Ubuntu, Mint, Gnome, Kde et al
have attempted to ape Microsoft's and Apple's desktop experience with only a
few new novel features in an attempt to gain mass acceptance, more often than
not completely ignoring the fundamental philosophy of Unix, the philosophy
that makes Unix-derivatives so great. Then again, it has made more desktop
hardware manufacturers take notice of Linux, due to its increasing mass
appeal, which has improved hardware support. At least there's enough diversity
in the Unix eco-system for me to completely ignore the aforementioned for more
novel systems, even though most of the effort seems to be going into aping
Windows and OS X.

~~~
bitwize
The "philosophy that makes Unix-derivatives so great" is completely
antithetical to a pleasing desktop experience. Hint: Mac OS X may be Unix
underneath, but Cocoa is most emphatically _not_ Unix.

------
endlessvoid94
I had a similar experience. I've now been running a new MacBook for three days
and I am not going back to linux.

I couldn't believe it when I booted into Snow Leopard and zsh was already
installed and configured. I'm sure my jaw actually dropped.

That's just one example. So much stuff on OS X just freaking works. It just
works. I literally had my whole machine configured and working within around 2
hours. Most of that time was spent simply installing software, not configuring
it.

</rant>

~~~
vetinari
You are now in the excitement phase about your new toy. Check back in few
months, after you know that there are other things, that are broken in OSX.

~~~
generalk
What things are that broken in OS X? I use it every day, I'm sure I could come
up with a list if pressed, but compared to when I used to run earlier versions
of Ubuntu on my laptops, it's a dream.

~~~
vetinari
I've used OSX since 10.0 up to 10.5 and classic MacOS before that. I've never
upgraded to 10.6 and do not plan to do so (I got Thinkpad and Windows last
summer). I remember times when dlopen/dlsym didn't work (later it did); never
managed to build some command line utilities and other required porting
effort; macports was never functioning properly; Aquamacs ignored my
customizations; was there X11.app release that did work at all?; no jdk6 for
ppc; etc.

From proprietary side: you could have either Office 2004 for PPC running in
emulation and working macros and custom language dictionaries; or intel Office
2008 without these two things. Since switching to OSX, the Adobe suite got
worse and has distinct second-class feel compared to windows version.

I had some favourite software, that was originaly developed for classic MacOS
(both m68k and ppc) and it does not work on modern Macs. Even software that
was updated for OSX does not work, because the installer is for classic and
then the updater updates the program to carbon (or whatever) version. With
every switch in OSX focus there is software that is getting lost (with switch
to intel, we lost some. With switch to 64b, we will lose more due to no
Carbon).

In short, in all those years I was using OSX I got fed up and made a full
circle (dos/windows -> linux -> mac -> windows).

------
prometheus_
Why would you buy a marked-up mac to put ubuntu on it?

~~~
potatolicious
Because Apple hardware is well-designed, and well put together.

Played with a Dell recently? Thick, heavy clunkers of machines with flimsy
plastic flaps all over the place. Even the vaunted Lenovos have mushy
keyboards and bits that just should not flex like that when pushed.

I'd gladly pay for Mac hardware and run some other OS on it - just the
keyboard alone on the unibody is worth some money.

~~~
vetinari
The keyboard problem on Thinkpads T400/T500 was solved in october 2008 - three
months after introducing them and more than year ago.

~~~
potatolicious
I have a very recent vintage T400 - the keyboard is still mushy, and the
casing still feels downright cheap and flimsy. There's simply no comparison -
on the one hand you're building a machine out of plastic panels wrapped on a
metal frame - on the other hand you're building a machine out of a one-piece
aluminum construction.

I push on a unibody Mac keyboard - nothing flexes. It's rock solid. I push on
a T400's keyboard, or bezel, or any body component that isn't supposed to
twist and bend - and it does.

------
scythe
>Have you tried anything but Ubuntu?

I had this question in my head through the whole essay and the top commenter
beat me to it.

I've heard thousands of issues with the new Ubuntu release (never bothered
trying it myself). I doubt I'll recommend Ubuntu to anyone I know who's
interested in Linux for quite a while. I've had great experiences with several
of non-Ubuntu distros and will probably recommend them instead.

~~~
petsos
"Oh, I've been saturated with Unix-peanut-gallery effluvia for so long that it
no longer even surprises me when every question -- no matter how simple --
results in someone suggestion that you either A) patch your kernel or B)
change distros. It's inevitable and inescapable, like Hitler."

\-- jwz, 2002

------
mattmaroon
I wish I could understand people who describe inanimate objects as sexy. I
have no idea how to relate to people who choose a laptop because of its sex
appeal, which would be a big disadvantage if I ever need to sell to them.
There probably aren't that many of them, but they seem to have a lot of money.

~~~
unalone
You don't buy a Mac because of its sex appeal. You buy it because it's a damn
good computer. A part of that just happens to be that it's sexy.

There are such things as sexy suits and sexy dresses. They're inanimate, but
there are ugly dresses and sexy dresses. Similarly, computers exist that have
blinking lights and bulges and edges where they don't need them, and they are
perceived to be ugly; when you have a computer that doesn't have a line it
doesn't need to have, then it's sexy.

But that's not what you're saying, Matt. We know what you're saying; you've
been saying it for years, occasionally with an attempt at subtlety, as now.
What you're saying is that you don't like the Mac or Mac users. You and I have
had this argument before, only instead of sexy you didn't understand people
who were willing to pay two thousand dollars for a computer, or who couldn't
tinker with certain settings. But your arguments are shallow every time and
it's tiring talking to somebody who won't say what he's actually thinking.

~~~
mattmaroon
He specifically said he wanted his computer to be sexy. The exact quote is
"and while they’re sturdy as heck and are well built and last forever, they’re
not really all that sexy. I wanted sexy." He literally said that he was
choosing form over function there, and it has nothing to do with operating
systems.

Suits and dresses aren't sexy, the person wearing them is. Suits or dresses
may make them more or less sexy, but hanging on a rack they're devoid of such
ability.

Can a laptop someone is holding do the same? Perhaps that's what I'm missing.
If I see a beautiful woman holding a laptop I'm 0% likely to notice what brand
it is, or likely that it even exists. My guess is that my wife wouldn't notice
whether George Clooney was holding a Macbook Pro or a Lenovo x60 either.

I say exactly what I'm thinking. You read into it and assume I did not say
what I meant, I cannot help that. I wasn't commenting on Macs at all, and I
came to that thought before the word was ever mentioned in the article, though
to be honest, I probably wouldn't have had trouble guessing where it was
going. Nobody ever says "Lenovos are great, but they aren't sexy, so I got a
Dell."

But regardless there's a much broader point there, as this probably applies to
a range of things from clothing, to cars to laptops.

------
Tichy
Once again: if you want to run Linux on a notebook, check for compatibility
before you buy the notebook.

Don't know about Apple, but in general hardware support tends to be better if
the vendor communicates the necessary specs to the open source community.
Somehow I doubt that Apple is very supportive to the "Linux on a MacBook"
cause.

~~~
AGorilla
If you had read the article, you would know that he was comparing the user
experience of Skype in Ubuntu on a Thinkpad to Skype in Mac OS X. This sort of
blame-the-user mentality is what's really holding back Linux on the desktop.

~~~
astine
_comparing the user experience of Skype in Ubuntu on a Thinkpad to Skype in
Mac OS X._

But isn't that an issue with Skype? It's a massive nuisance that Linux still
doesn't have the hardware and application support of MasOS/OSX and Windows,
but there's not much that can be done about that without the cooperation of
proprietary vendors, many of whom still treat Linux as a second class citizen.

~~~
jodrellblank
"But isn't that an issue with Skype?"

No. OS-X, Windows, iPhone and Android are sufficiently different that we can
tell the Skype developers are putting a decent amount of effort into cross-
platform compatibility.

That there is a Linux client shows they are also trying to do that with Linux.

Could they put more effort in and get a polished shiny Linux client? Maybe. Is
it Skype's fault that Linux is bad enough to need this while at the same time
not good enough to get a large enough userbase to make this worthwhile? Again,
no.

------
ilyak
We are tired of you being loudly tired of Desktop Linux, FAVO you.

~~~
mahmud
What does "FAVO" mean?

~~~
shimon
for all values of

------
hristov
BooHoo ... skype doesnt work so it must be Linux's fault. Macbook pros are
intentionally designed to be difficult to dual boot so it must be Linux's
fault.

Hey I have an idea. Why don't you buy a desktop and laptop with linux
preinstalled (they are available online) and then try to install OSX on top of
it and dual boot. Then you are really in for a nightmare. You will have to do
a lot of hacking and in the end you are still pretty much guaranteed to fail.
And then you can write a blog post about how you really love OSX but you are
so tired of it.

~~~
tjarratt
Hint : macbook pros are incredibly easy to dual boot if you use the OS that
comes with the hardware.

edit: feel free to mod me down, but it's the truth.

~~~
hristov
Right, and Linux has no compatibility issues if you use the OS that comes with
the hardware.

But then again when people do not use the OS that comes with the hardware
there may be some issues. And then bizarrely people inevitably blame Linux. I
am pretty sure that installing OSX on a PC is just as hard or probably harder
than installing Linux on a Mac. But people always complain about Linux.

