10 ms·

Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

205 points by keyist 15y ago

cs702 15y ago
Molnar's point about the political and procedural difficulties of adding new applications in the official repositories of most distributions is true (although this is changing -- witness Canonical's Ubuntu Software Center, PPAs, and "universe" repositories). But his reasoning breaks down when he says the relative dearth of commercial applications for the Linux Desktop is due to this issue. That's not true. The main reason why OSX/iOS, Android, and Windows attract more commercial developers is because those platforms have a much greater installed base!
- hypnotist 15y ago
  """ The main reason why OSX/iOS, Android, and Windows attract more commercial developers is because those platforms have a much greater installed base! """ ... and therefore enables developers to make more money! In my opinion it is one of the most important factors right here, combined together with a lot of marketing from companies which own the "platform".
- barrkel 15y ago
  Another reason is commitment to binary compatibility of a set of components over a time scale of 10 years or more. Linux has historically been relatively unstable, with an ideological focus on source rather than binary compatibility; and fragmented into different distros, which may have different ideas about which versions, configurations etc. of components are pieced together. That's a perfectly understandable focus - even laudable, if you take the GNU line - but it makes it hard to release reliable, tested binary software. The landscape has too many variables. I think this is a significantly bigger problem than install base. And I think it would be addressed with an appropriate focus on exactly the problem Ingo is pointing out: the lack of a defined, high quality core that can be relied upon.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    You can statically link binaries and distribute those, which companies do when there's enough of a market to bother. That's how Matlab is distributed, for example. I think the bigger problem is that there usually isn't enough of a market; AutoCAD was discontinued on Unix because too many shops were retiring their Unix workstations in favor of Windows desktops, not because Unix software distribution was too hard.
    - barrkel 15y ago
      Sure you can statically link binaries, so long as you have a license for all those libraries, or if you write your own UI etc. from the ground up not much removed from the X protocol. And when UI refreshes come around, your UI will look frozen in time in a way that UIs using standard controls don't in Windows. And how about those libraries that control shared resources? For example, sound output. It's been many years since I bothered to try and use Linux as a desktop OS, but I recall wholesale choices of sound subsystems, with options for one subsystem to emulate another, etc. How well would that mess work with static linking? And these are only the most basic of shared resources; not thinking about file/app association, icon display in file managers, and other really really basic OS services that have seen repeated whole reinvention in Linux. IME Linux is unusable beyond the command-line, preferably via ssh.
      - _delirium 15y ago
        The semi-standard commercial solution for widget toolkits, excluding old software tied to something legacy, is typically to use Qt, which has both LGPL and (reasonably priced) commercial license options. Audio isn't really a problem for statically linked apps not doing anything particularly strange; it works fine in anything I've tried. Even ancient audio APIs in ancient binaries are transparently emulated through something-or-other in a way that "just works". If you haven't used Linux in "many years", that might be the source of your impressions. I remember mucking with that kind of stuff on Slackware in 1998, but I haven't touched OSS or ALSA or whatever in a decade; it just does its thing under the hood. Audio even works fine when I run Windows applications under Wine!
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  > The main reason why OSX/iOS, Android, and Windows attract more commercial developers is because those platforms have a much greater installed base! A few years ago, Linux had a bigger installed base than both iOS and Android. Both of them outran linux with ease.
  - tikhonj 15y ago
    Yeah, but they're in a brand new market on brand new devices. People who already have a proprietary PC OS aren't going to switch to Linux out of the blue, but they are going to buy a shiny smart phone. So the two situations are really not comparable. I still think the main difference is that you have to install Linux yourself. It's not even that installing is difficult--it isn't!--it's that normal people don't even realize it's an option. Your average random laptop buyer who just spent $600 on a laptop from Staples would be able to use Linux perfectly well if that's what his laptop came with--I suspect some wouldn't even realize it wasn't just a different version of Windows. But since his laptop invariably came with Windows, that's what he's going to use, not for any reason but inertia.
    - muuh-gnu 15y ago
      > but they're in a brand new market on brand new devices. But they still had no problem starting with an ecosystem with zero apps. Now they have hundreds of thousands. > I still think the main difference is that you have to install Linux yourself. Over the years, I've had several people, whom I talked into checking out Linux, give it up and go back to Windows because they refused to accept that they have to upgrade the whole distribution just to be able to install new versions of single apps. Did you ever try to explain a Windows user what a "backport" is, and whats it good for, and why there are none on Windows and why he can he can install whatever app and whatever version of an app he wants on Windows, but cant on Linux? > Your average random laptop buyer who just spent $600 on a laptop from Staples would be able to use Linux perfectly well if that's what his laptop came with For 6 months, then he wouldnt be able any more to update his apps.
  - cgoddard 15y ago
    Ummm yeah they're also OS's for a completely different platform. That makes a pretty big difference.
__alexs 15y ago
This is basically why Ubuntu has PPAs and what they are trying to turn Software Center into right?
alexchamberlain 15y ago
It really frustrates me that authors are not responsible for compiling and distributing their software, only then will we have software upgraded regularly and quickly.
- kklimonda 15y ago
  which distribution should they compile and distribute (sigh) for? Not to mention basic problems like "should I integrate with GNOME, Unity, KDE or nothing at all?"
  - drdaeman 15y ago
    There are only 2 popular package formats: deb and rpm. I don't have any experience with RPM, but to build a package for a reasonably big part of the Debian-based world, you have to set up a build system (pbuilder/cowbuilder) and tell it something like `for DIST in lenny squeeze wheezy sid lucid maverick natty oneiric pangolin do; git-buildpackage ...; done` The problem is, to get it right one has to find and read TONS of documentation.
    - Shank 15y ago
      It'd be a lot more popular if it was as easy as the Android apk export wizard. My 2c: Improve the tools and the developers will follow.
  - tikhonj 15y ago
    I don't think the Gnome/Unity/KDE split is nearly as significant as people find it. You don't have to support them all! I use KDE, and programs written for Gnome fit right in. As far as I know, there is no reason at all to depend on some particular environment exclusively; even things like notifications work uniformly across different systems.
  - bergie 15y ago
    Why not all of them? OBS makes this easy. Big projects can run their own OBS, and for us others there is the public instance provided by OpenSuse. Builds many versions of all major distros.
drdaeman 15y ago
I'm just an ordinary user, but I'd put my 2¢. Nowadays, any developer can create a packages for his application (and any of its dependencies) and publish it in self-hosted repositories. Users can easily add such repository to their system's sources list and bureaucracy problem's over. Well, some developers are doing this already - the only thing that keeps the rest of them is either ignorance or complexity of the packaging process. I believe there's no need for an Android market clone (which is yet another centralized repository). What users may need is just a directory, pointing to external repos. Ubuntu market seems somehow promising (at least I remember seeing some dialogs like "you need to enable this source to install that package"). Content duplication is not a problem. A real problem is keeping the system up-to-date when you want to update some library, because of an important feature or bugfix. And it's nearly impossible with every application's bundling their own copy of that library, with some copies being actually incompatible forks (and a lot of copies being just different builds - think of different compiler versions - of exactly the same sources).
- Aqueous 15y ago
  What you think is easy is actually not easy. Any time you've added one, two, three more steps to a problem after clicking the link in the browser you've already lost. Adding repositories? Already too late. Touching the command line? Sorry, as much as we love it, for most users it's already too late. Going into Aptitude or Synaptic and pasting in the repository URL? Yep. Too late. This is all compounded by the fact that there is no app bundle. Mac OS X has the bundle and a terrific way to install it: Drag and drop it into the Applications folder, just like we did in the days of the Mac Classic and MacPaint. It hasn't changed. (Well, it did for a while, but thankfully they went back.) If you say, "Well, that means you end up installing 5 different versions of the same library on the same system" - Who cares? Disk space isn't a priority any more, and from a developer standpoint it makes a lot more sense to target a dependency whose version number I know, instead of a dependency whose version only the package maintainers know for sure. I don't want to be forced to target v1.3 of a library if it's only been tested (by me) on v1.2. It makes for much better application stability for the developer to be in control of dependencies and not these package maintainers. I want to ship a self-contained bundle of awesomeness, not a dysfunctional shard among ten thousand other shards.
jamesu 15y ago
My impression is that the problem is more fundamental: a lot of open source and free software which finds its way onto linux is made by people who don't seem to care about the end-user experience. If it works for them, there is no need to improve it. Not all open software projects are receptive to changes, improvements or bug reports from strangers so nothing is really resolved without forking by which adds its own complications. Of course there is still good open source / free software. It's just hard to come by.
- cs702 15y ago
  I disagree. The main problem is that the Linux desktop doesn't (yet?) have a large, fast-growing installed base, so mass commercial developers don't target it!
- tikhonj 15y ago
  Even more proprietary software that doesn't make it to Linux is written by people who don't seem to care about the end-user experience. I've spent enough time battling horrible programs on both OS X and various versions of Windows to know that this isn't unique to open source software. Of course, on the proprietary platforms, the core programs--browsers, office, media...etc are all good. But that is true of Linux programs as well. And open source projects--even ones that are not terribly responsive--are still more responsive than most proprietary programs.
diminish 15y ago
I am running on linux desktop for already 5 years together with 50 friends, peers etc. It does not quite seem write to compare 90 cent mobile applications, which are 'mostly' few bunch of screens interfaced to a service otherwise given by a web site or simple 80s area arcade games, to packages in a linux distro. the author is totally making a terrible mistake here. mobile apps lack in size, complexity and who said they are great? they are mostly consumables which perish in few days or months (I exclude some ). Ubuntu is already trying to be more flexible with software center and applications, however open source is not single walled garden which can adhere to tight monotonous architectures found in mobile. In an linux distro the apps are diverse, and programmed in multitude ways by all possible programming languages (from python to lisp to C) and environments. That is reality and life, and what must be done must be done by being aware of that fact. and No, no one can force the broad, diverse open source world to a tight control a la Apple.
- moonchrome 15y ago
  >they are mostly consumables which perish in few days or months (I exclude some utitities). This is simply false, there are plenty of complex apps with varying degrees of usefulness but they certanly don't reduce to 80's game clones and few screen apps. And even if it was true it's not a result of anything intrinsic to the app model. Also "tight control a la Apple" indicates that you missed his point. How many times did you do make and sudo installed shit on your system to get basic app that should for all intents and purposes be walled of in a sandbox ? Even without sudo why should install script have access to my personal files without explicit permissions ? Did you run in to a situation where you wanted to install the latest version of an app for your system but it wasn't in your distro repo so you decided to build it only to find out that your repo GTK+ library was out of date and your options were rebuild all GTK+ packages or update the OS to alpha ? Even I gave up at that point - imagine the average user wanting to get the latest feature advertised on his favorite app site. I use Linux desktop daily but it can be a hell and you need to know how to wrestle with the system, it's certainly not idiot proof - and it needs to be for mass adoption. But then again "mass adoption" (IMO) shouldn't even be considered a realistic goal, being useful to techies/developers and available on servers is a good objective too.
programminggeek 15y ago
The author is right mostly, the problem is friction and market dynamics. Adding software in a given linux distro is too nerdy. If you don't have an "app store" like gui, you've already lost most users. Command line = friction for most users, even a lot of developers who grew up with windows. As a linux nerd, I'm fine with command line + synaptic, but look at how well people have used the iTunes store, Amazon store, Google Play, etc... All of those have much less friction to find and download the right software than most linux distro's have. Ubuntu's market is close but... WHERE IS THE NON FREE SOFTWARE?!! If linux wants to do well for humans, paid, proprietary software NEEDS to exist on the platform. Ubuntu Software Center comes close, but it still kind of sucks. Also, as a dev, it wasn't until VERY recently that you could even sign up to publish an app that was commercial in nature. It is hard to build a real marketplace when you're asking developers to give away all their work for free so that you can sell more operating systems (or support contracts) without the software dev seeing a dime. As a software developer I can't feed my kids with free downloads on an open source operating system used by people who don't like paying for software. Make it easy for devs to build software that people will pay for, then get operating system users who will buy that software for real money and you'll have fixed the Linux Desktop problem.
- downx3 15y ago
  App stores can suck too, think Blackberry. You don't have to resort to the command line to install packages. Synaptic just needs a little freshen up that's all. I far prefer it to Ubuntu's software centre. A load of crap icons and screenshots just feel like clutter, and don't tell me anything.
Edootjuh 15y ago
I disagree. The author seems to forget the fact that packages are only a layer of added ease of installing new software. The act of installing new software from source or binaries distributed by the author is still as free as ever. I admit that I do install about 90% of my programs as packages, but the problem of central authorities responsible for patching and distributing software and taking too long to do it isn't present in every distribution. I've used Arch Linux for years now, and it solves this problem by separating the packages into an 'official' channel of reliable maintainers testing and releasing new versions on the package system and a user repository where anyone can add packages. To me, this seems like the optimal solution. Community-maintained packages can be promoted to official ones, from what I can see new versions are released from testing within days and if you're not satisfied with how others maintain the packages, building the packages from the newest versions yourself is almost as easy as installing binaries from the repository because anyone can use the build and packaging scripts used by the maintainers themselves.
icebraining 15y ago
So, how does the fact that any person or company can host their own packages or even full repositories that can be added with a single click¹ and are not dependent on hierarchical organizations fit in that? GNU/Linux distros, at least APT based ones, are perfectly distributed if the person wants to. ¹ If you have apt-url installed, which Ubuntu has by default
- moe 15y ago
  I agree that distributed repositories are the way forward. The only thing holding that back is the atrocious user-interface. Debian urgently needs to fix that and push their apt-infrastructure out of the 1990s. In short: /etc/apt/sources.list must die. This is how it must work: apt-get install https://foobar.com/debian/squeeze/widget-1.0 A package installed like that must add itself automatically to a proverbial sources.list for future updates. Don't bother me with the housekeeping. Then add central indexing ('apt-get install widget' is nicer), a web-of-trust ("1234 users have installed packages by this author"), package-signing looks about alright already (except: no, don't make me run gpg). This can (will and does) co-exist happily alongside the centralized repositories. Someone just needs to implement it and push it through the glacial Debian processes. And while we're at it, there's no reason 'apt-get install github://foobar' can't be made work. tldr; apt needs to absorb homebrew.
  - morsch 15y ago
    You are broadly describing PPAs. Adding a package from a PPA is a three-line (easily scriptable) process: add-apt-repository <url|ppa-name>, apt-get update, apt-get install <package>. Obviously, that doesn't just work for PPAs, but for all apt repositories. Launchpad does some central indexing ("other versions of this package") for PPAs, but I don't think it's accessible via command line. There is no indication how popular a PPA is, but PPAs are linked to admin user accounts which might help. Packages are signed and the key is auto-imported. Packages co-exist alongside packages from the repos, you can easily switch between different provided versions. Installing a plain deb is much easier still, but you don't get upgrades (unless the repository is auto-added during install) or signing.
muuh-gnu 15y ago
The reason I stopped recommending Linux to "normal users" is _because_ of the concept of distributions. Coupling the updates of single apps with the updates of the whole desktop or framework and libs, is just plain wrong. Having to upgrade the whole distro (including all the other installed apps you dont want to upgrade) just to install a new version of one single app you _want_ to update is a nightmare. Total bullshit. Users. Dont. Want. That. Users dont want one update to trigger another update, or even to trigger the upgrade of the whole desktop. The blog post by ESR is one prominent example: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3822 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3822 He basically wanted to upgrade just one (obscure) app, and the process triggered the automatic removal of Gnome2 and installation of Unity. Just _IMAGINE_ how nightmarish this must look for normal users. You simply dont remove somebodys installed desktop sneakily from under their feet. You simply dont. That feels like the total loss of control over your computer. I personally had, during the last 10 years, people go from Linux (which I talked them into trying) back to windows, _precisely_ of this reason, of having to upgrade the whole distribution every few months just to be able to get new app versions. They dont have to put up with this insane bullshit on Windows, why should they put up with it on Linux? This "distribution" bullshit is not what is killing desktop Linux, it is what _already_ killed desktop Linux. The other reasons why desktop Linux never made it (no games, no preinstallations on hardware) are imho just consequences of the distribution concept and the 6-month planned-obsolescence cycle. Nobody wants to bother with something which will be obsolete half a year down the road. Nobody wants to develop for a target that moves _that_ fast. Windows installations, once installed or preinstalled, run for a decade. Develop something, and it will run on a 10 yr old Windows your grandparents use. Most people encounter new Windows installations only when they buy a new computer. PC manufacturers know that customers will hate it when their new computer OS is obsolete within half a year and that they wont be able to install new apps, so they dont preinstall Linux, it's as simple as that. If anybody _ever_ really wants to see Linux succeed on the desktop (before the desktop concept itself is gone), he will have to give up on the distribution concept first.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > He basically wanted to upgrade just one (obscure) app No. He wanted a new version of the app and upgraded to a new version of the OS (with a new set of default packages). And he got surprised by getting a new GUI, something which is rather odd because Unity was one of the most publicized features of Ubuntu. > the process triggered the automatic removal of Gnome2 and installation of Unity Not really. Gnome2 would still be there. Just the default UI is Unity. I'm more than a little bit surprised ESR had trouble remembering you switch UIs on login. I've been doing it since my Solaris (2.5) days. I loved OpenWindows. > having to upgrade the whole distribution every few months just to be able to get new app versions That's not really true - you have to do so because the distro publisher won't support the newest Chrome on their 2006 OS. It's ridiculous to demand them to spend their resources on your particular needs. If you are not happy, you can ask to have your money back. And even when the distro publisher doesn't want to add newer versions to an old OS, you can always add private repos maintained by the makers of your favorite software. And, remember, having stable versions of software (even when a newer, flashier version, was made public) is not what some people want. I wan't my servers stable. > This "distribution" bullshit is not what is killing desktop Linux It was never much alive. Linux is an OS that suits a couple users well, but not most of them. > are imho just consequences of the distribution concept and the 6-month planned-obsolescence cycle. It usually took much longer to get a new version of your favorite Linux distro. 6 months is the current standard. And, again, there is no planned obsolescence. There are many alternative places to get newer versions for. > Windows installations, once installed or preinstalled, run for a decade. I don't believe we met, sir. Where planet are you from? > If anybody _ever_ really wants to see Linux succeed on the desktop (...) he will have to give up on the distribution concept first. I don't think so. In fact, most people don't think so. And, let me say that not thinking so works quite well. You do realize the incredibly arrogant position you are taking. You purport to be the savior of the Linux desktop (do we need one, BTW?) and to have realized what's wrong with it and, best of all, you have the solution! Just do everything opposite to how it's been working for decades and all our problems will be solved. Let me put it simply: when you think you are the dumbest person in a room, you are probably right. When you think you are the smartest person in a room, you are most probably wrong. And if you disagree with everybody else in the room, odds are you are really the dumbest person there. Maintaining a distro is a lot of work, but until we can make software makers to agree on a single package format, a single way to manage configurations and a single way to organize the file hierarchy, the distro way will remain a very popular way to manage your computers.
yaix 15y ago
Good point. But most of these apps are written, because they can make money for the author. There just isn't a large enough user base in Desktop Linux to make that money, and hence much less people willing to invest the time to write apps. And the much smaller userbase is split up between Gnome and KDE and now Unity and Xfce and so on. So there is even less incentive to write apps.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  A program that works in KDE will work in Gnome and Unity and Xfce, so that divide is not strictly relevant. In KDE, at the very least, even GTk programs look very good. And, moreover, those programs would also work on Windows and OS X.
VMG 15y ago
Maybe Android will conquer the desktop then? All it needs is mouse and keyboard support in the interface and higher-resolution apps, which will come for tablets anyway.
- bergie 15y ago
  Android has pretty good mouse and keyboard support already. Try one of the Asus Transformers in laptop mode, for instance. Keyboard shortcuts, mouse cursor, two-finger scrolling, all works as you would expect on a desktop. High-resolution apps are still somewhat lacking because the larger tablets haven't sold that well, but I hope this will improve.
- eli_gottlieb 15y ago
  Honestly, if Android came on top of or with a real Linux base so that I could be assured my existing Linux applications and command-line environment will work... I would totally switch. The new Ubuntu for Android project will take over the world.
bergie 15y ago
The solution for this is quite simple: split the distro to a core, and a separate 'apps' repository, and let app authors control (but with a mandatory QA step) when their software gets released or updated. We did this with Maemo (and later MeeGo), and it has worked great: http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/application_quality_assurance_in_linux_distributions/ http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/application_quality_assurance_in_l... Cross-distro app repositories are also a possibility, thanks to the Open Build Service (http://openbuildservice.org http://openbuildservice.org). And since MeeGo's community apps service is open source (https://github.com/nemein/com_meego_packages https://github.com/nemein/com_meego_packages), all software needed for this (including an app store client app) already exists. What is needed is a major distribution to make the first move on this.
- DrCatbox 15y ago
  You would still need to maintain and manage the core distro. The packages in their would update and break the systme, you'd have lvm issues and what not. Any way, care to give links to more on maeom/meegos architecture?
  - bergie 15y ago
    You still package and build an application separately for each distro version. And then the community tests it before it goes to the stable apps repo. So broken packages (either by packaging, or by app not functioning properly) are unlikely to pass QA. So if your package conflicts with something, either fix that issue or don't release for that distro versio.
    - joe_the_user 15y ago
      Off-topic: Is active Meego Development still happening? I'm a QT developer and might be interested in contributing a little...
      - bergie 15y ago
        The MeeGo community effort continues at http://merproject.org http://merproject.org Used already as the base distro in the Spark tablet
richardk 15y ago
I've been happily using the stable branch of Debian for about 4 years now. Whilst I agree bureaucracy and politics should be avoided where possible, it seems to me that handing everything off to a 3rd party to focus on the "core packages" harms overall system performance. Time and again I hear people in the lab complain about all these bugs in their applications, running Debian I can honestly say I don't have this problem. Ofcourse, I don't have the latest software either, but for me that's the price I pay for a stable system.
wazoox 15y ago
There are "core" linux distros, like Slackware. There are many attempts at autonomous apps distribution like zero-install and openpkg that mostly work, and probably would work fine with a reasonable effort backing them. [1]: http://0install.net/ http://0install.net/ [2]: http://www.openpkg.org/ http://www.openpkg.org/ Of course the problem is that the big distros (redhat, debian) can't be bothered to care.
- sirclueless 15y ago
  And in fact, with their sysadmin focus, they explicitly are opposed to this method. If your goal isn't a desktop experience but rather protection from every adversary at all times, then only vetting a small core and letting people run various and sundry packages from third parties is flat-out irresponsible. But of course this is what desktop users want -- to run any software they like with no hoops to jump through or update schedules to keep on top of, so they will always be at odds.
ObnoxiousJul 15y ago
what I prefer in this posts is the interesting discussion coming with the article. It seems attention whores and trolls have not yet reached g+, it looks pretty sane for now. mode religious:on please g+ try somehow to make a good karma system to keep the NSR low.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
PaulHoule 15y ago
I've been using Linux since 1993, and back then, the Linux OS and desktop were far superior to Windows 3.1. Then Win 95 came out and that had a decent desktop. I remember when the KDE people started talking about a desktop for Unix and people didn't get it, but when we saw the beta it was like... Wow! Then Red Hat Linux didn't like the license of KDE, so they had to create Gnome. As a result, rather than having one good Desktop, the average Linux has two half-baked desktops. This fork has wasted people's energy and been a distraction away from an excellent experience. Another example of this is sound. I don't know how many incompatible sound APIs exist for Linux now, I know it's more than the fingers on one hand. The consequence of it all is that often sound doesn't work and unless you're a crazy enthusiast you might never get it to work. I was a Linux zealot until 2003 or so when I had a job that had me using a Windows machine a lot, and by that point there was Win XP which was a huge improvement over Win 95. I still use Linux on servers, but desktop Linux has largely disappeared from my life. Every so often I try to install it here or there, but I typically find the experience disappointing. I was a Fedora fan for a long time, but Fedora became increasingly finicky about where it would install. I switched to Ubuntu, but every installation ends up having some serious problem. For instance, Ubuntu installed just fine on my PPC Mac Mini with the exception that the fan runs full speed all the time and the machine sounds like a vacuum cleaner. Windows and Mac OS have been on a general trajectory of improvement -- sometimes there are changes you don't like, but the overall direction is good. Linux did, after years of struggle, get a stable multiprocessor kernel (2.6) but other than that I get the feeling Linux has been going backwards not forwards.
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  What you say used to be true, but does not appear to be any longer. When was the last time we had useful improvements to the OS X user interface? 10.4 (2005) or 10.5 (2007), in my opinion. They've certainly improved under the hood, but the improvements to the UI have been mostly gimmicks like Expose. When was the last time we had useful improvements to the Windows UI? That would be Windows Vista, 2006/2007. (W7 was basically just a stable version of Vista). Windows is certainly attempting to add improve the UI with Metro, so it's a 5 year timeframe to wait for improvements. OTOH, in Linux land we've had KDE4, Gnome3 and Unity all land in that time period. Every 6 months we receive useful new improvements to our UI. Sure, the initial reception to KDE4, Gnome3 and Unity were all negative, but the haters are always the loudest. I haven't tried Gnome 3, but Unity 12.04 and KDE 4.8 are both really nice, much better than the OS X or Windows 7 UIs, in my opinion. And it's not just the UI. It takes about 10 seconds for my computer to leave the BIOS and have both Firefox & Emacs open in Ubuntu. It takes the same machine over a minute to have Steam open in Windows.
zackmorris 15y ago
Part 2, where he discusses his solutions, is more enlightening I think. He's dead-on about the impassable problem of package updates affecting other packages. Having everything sandboxed with a general permissions system for directories instead of per-file is also better (this is how MacOS wanted to work before OS X). A free and open mesh network with reputation-based security is also the future. But hey, linux is wide open, if these are the changes that are needed, we will see them.
pavanky 15y ago
Isn't the problem that the distributions are downstream to the apps and libraries they install ? Quoting android and ios ecosystem is well and good, but in those ecosystems the os comes first and the apps are developed downstream. You simply cant have that in a linux eco system.
keithpeter 15y ago
Yes, I see the point being made in the original article. I tend to use LTS Ubuntu and conservative distributions (currently PUIAS) and so see a slower rate of change. Another Hacker News thread is discussing the new release of Audacity. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3714766 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3714766 and it occured to me that I would like to try to compile a statically linked build of Audacity that could work on any version of GNU/Linux from Ubuntu 12.04 down to (say) CentOS 5.7. Just a big binary blob that I could copy and run. How would I find out how to do this? I've compiled little things before (dwm window manager, qalculate)
kfcm 15y ago
The Linux desktop is dead. Face it. Accept it. How do I know this? Go to a developers' or tech conference, and what is the prevailing OS? 9/10 times these days, it's MacOS. As much as Apple may be control freaks, they did desktop UNIX right and developers have flocked to them. Meanwhile, the Linux desktop community is still having the same debates, the same difficulties it had back in the mid-90's. Dependency issues. Lack of compelling use case software; and that which does exist is versions behind current. Fragmentation. The only areas in which the Linux desktop has moved forward is UI and user-oriented management, and Ubuntu deserves much of the credit for the latter. Add to this the gradual movement away from the desktop paradigm to mobile. The desktop paradigm will still be around for several years (especially for creators--developers, media folks, etc), but the end-user is moving more and more towards smartphones and tablets for consumption. Extend those with external keyboards and monitors (think docks) for light creation work (documents, spreadsheets, etc), and you've the future. Nope. The Linux desktop is dead.
- jzawodn 15y ago
  Yes. 1000 times Yes.
- pge 15y ago
  I agree with you, and a natural extrapolation of the point is that android is the "desktop linux" of the future. Maybe android is the linux distro (of sorts) that has actually solved the desktop problem.
- cgoddard 15y ago
  Just because people who are trying to sell you something aren't using it doesn't mean it's dead. I've been using Ubuntu for 4 years now, and the latest releases are more streamlined and usable than ever. The mainstream distros have come an extremely long way in being more user friendly to non-tech users. Also I have mobile devices, but still end up using my desktop a whole bunch for two simple reasons: 1. when you actually need to type something of any length a full-size keyboard is wonderful 2. its nice not to have to squint at a smaller screen to see what's going on.
- javert 15y ago
artist777 15y ago
Cheap viagra http://viagrapedia.com http://viagrapedia.com Thanks for info
spiralpolitik 15y ago
UNIX in general never transitioned well from single binary applications that could just be placed in /bin /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin as appropriate to multi-file applications that needed an array of libraries, resource files etc. That coupled with a file system layout that nobody could ever agree on made it a mess once UNIX moved outside the curated environments it was typically found in prior to Linux. NextStep made a good stab at the problem with bundles (.app .service .framework etc) but once you moved outside of the abstraction layer you were right back into the mess. Most Linux distributions seem to want to emulate SunOS circa 1992 and any attempts to "improve" on the solution in drowned out by fundamentalism. I actually though the author nailed it in the last paragraph of part 2 of his post. The free software movement needs to start looking forward and not try and emulate what worked 20 years ago. There is definitely potential for a brave organization that is willing to try and tackle the challenge.
snambi 15y ago
The author mostly talk about maintaining packages. Some people say that it is the missing games and other desktop applications. However, we all know that Linux is best OS for development. It has best set of libraries, languages and utilities. Yet, why there not many cool Desktop applications? I believe the answer is, Linux doesn't have an IDE for Desktop development. Look at windows, they have .net Platform and IDE, Look at Mac, they have Xcode and Android uses eclipse for IDE. Most of the application developers want and IDE, which is what is lacking in Linux. I hope someone makes an IDE for Linux desktop development.
- rurounijones 15y ago
  QT Creator for Cross-platform. KDevelop for KDE focused stuff. Not sure what for GNome. What is wrong with the above?
  - snambi 15y ago
    I didn't know about QT Creator, it looks really good for application development. A lot of people are using Ubuntu for their desktop, including me and my friends. But, Ubuntu's landing page doesn't have a tab called "develop" for leading users to develop applications for ubuntu. So, My impression is linux is a great OS with libraries and frameworks necessary for system development. But, it didn't had the tools to build applications. But, apparently it does. Linux distributions should encourage users to write applications. The best way to do this would be having the information right on their landing page.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
cturner 15y ago
Why do linux distros keep trying to recreate the gaudy, confusing experiences of the proprietary systems? I want my drivers to work, and a window manager that wraps the file-system - allows interaction with the files. In an ideal world, someone would restructure the four bin directories so that system stuff was in one area, and user stuff was somewhere else so we could easily open what we want by navigating the tree.
agentgt 15y ago
I have to wonder if people's expectations are just a little to high for something that is free. I think a large amount of people complaining about Linux did not use it when it really really sucked (back when Slackware and RedHat were the only options). Linux is a hackers operating system. When people try to make it into a desktop operating system it starts to suck (Gnome 3).
jebblue 15y ago
Linux is being used by more developers that I see than ever and even regular people are finding out about it and trying it out.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
freshhawk 15y ago
Most of the complaints here don't even have any suggestions, just a complaint that can be easily translated to "dependencies in software are hard to manage". Well, no shit. How about some interesting ideas around this from the "hackers"? The ideas that are proposed are mostly things that have already been tried but have failed because of social/manpower reasons (they would take enormous amounts of effort and time from all involved for little benefit) or technical (they don't work) A large percentage complain that the distro in question updates too frequently, when there are clearly distros that cater to stability (they just aren't the "cool ones"). Some of the complaints are demanding some mythical OS that allows you to install it once, never have it update or change but still have access to all the newest software. That would be wonderful. No one has figured that out yet, not windows, not mac, not any *nix. I know bitchy comments aren't helpful, or likely to be well received, but there must be some other people of my ilk still on HN. Now that it's Product Guy News, where should I be going? Where is this story posted with people actually talking about interesting ways to improve things who actually understand the problem and could be called hackers without the technically skilled people laughing?
may 15y ago
Igor's point about distros trying to "own" 20K packages is well-taken; it's simply not possible. In my own life the 'solution' I have found is to use FreeBSD; I get a stable, well-maintained core with a sharp distinction between core, userland and third-party (the ports system). I have found the ports system to be a lightweight, agile alternative to GNU/Linux package managers: When you install FreeBSD you are left with a kernel, standard UNIX command-line utilities and everything you need to hammer the system into a finely-honed tool. Right now, I'm using it exclusively on my servers because I'm willing to accept the trade-offs of Ubuntu (beta 12.04 on my dev box, XUbuntu 11.10 on my netbook) on the desktop; a little instability and fully-automated updates is OK in exchange for not having to fiddle with graphics drivers, sound, Flash, etc.
antirez 15y ago
Ten years ago I was trying to persuade people that two things were very important for Linux to succeed in the desktop: 1) Distribution of software as a cross-distribution package that just has everything it needs inside a directory, libs and so forth. If you said this N years ago you were an asshole because "duplication of file blabla" and so forth. The typical example was "an user should simply go to some web site of some application, download a file, and click on it to execute the program". 2) Device drivers with a well specified interface between the OS and the hardware, so that different versions of the kernel could use the same driver without issues. People complained a lot with technical arguments, about why a different approach is better than "1" or "2" from some kind of nerd metric. So the reality for me is that Linux does not succeed in the desktop because it is "run" by people with a square-shaped engineering mind. There is no fix for this.
Abomonog 15y ago
Sounds like he wants a distro agnostic Ports system, one that hides the dirty work of watching compile time crap fly across the screen and just gives the user a suitable package for their distro. Either that or he's essentially suggesting we move to static compiled packages, which while tremendously inefficient from a space and security standpoint would alleviate at least some of the headaches of trying to do cross distro binary offerings.
mark_integerdsv 15y ago
Honestly, Linux is a lot like the tiptronic setting on my cars gearbox. I have thought it's a cool feature and I'm glad it's there but really... I never use it 'cos it's kind of fiddly and dumb.
danbmil99 15y ago
Just for another POV -- I love the fact that I can apt-get a version of practically any FOSS project of note, and within a minute or two, I have something that works with the rest of my system. If I need bleeding-edge, I go to the project page and download a later binary or source, but 90% of the time that's not necessary. For me, it's a perfect combination of a vetted ecosystem (ok, somewhat closed but closed in the way I like -- no crapware, all legit source distros and mostly mature projects) with the ability to go outside that system at any time, at my own risk. Anyone can set up a repository to add to/compete with Canonical's, and of course they do. So with my willow garage repo's, I can keep up with their concept of what's stable, etc. It works nearly perfectly, IMSHO.
jiggy2011 15y ago
Isn't the real issue simply that the desktop distributors simply lack the manpower required to out together a stable desktop release, party due to the massive fragmentation? I assume MS and Apple have huge teams dedicated simply to making sure that all of this software works together nicely. If there was a desktop distro that cost $100 a throw and that money was re-invested in testing the desktop platform more thoroughly and making it past and future proof that this would solve many problems?
netvarun 15y ago
Part II of Ingo Molnar's blog post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3719719 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3719719

205 points by keyist 15y ago

cs702 15y ago

Molnar's point about the political and procedural difficulties of adding new applications in the official repositories of most distributions is true (although this is changing -- witness Canonical's Ubuntu Software Center, PPAs, and "universe" repositories). But his reasoning breaks down when he says the relative dearth of commercial applications for the Linux Desktop is due to this issue. That's not true. The main reason why OSX/iOS, Android, and Windows attract more commercial developers is because those platforms have a much greater installed base!

hypnotist 15y ago
""" The main reason why OSX/iOS, Android, and Windows attract more commercial developers is because those platforms have a much greater installed base! """ ... and therefore enables developers to make more money! In my opinion it is one of the most important factors right here, combined together with a lot of marketing from companies which own the "platform".
barrkel 15y ago
Another reason is commitment to binary compatibility of a set of components over a time scale of 10 years or more. Linux has historically been relatively unstable, with an ideological focus on source rather than binary compatibility; and fragmented into different distros, which may have different ideas about which versions, configurations etc. of components are pieced together. That's a perfectly understandable focus - even laudable, if you take the GNU line - but it makes it hard to release reliable, tested binary software. The landscape has too many variables. I think this is a significantly bigger problem than install base. And I think it would be addressed with an appropriate focus on exactly the problem Ingo is pointing out: the lack of a defined, high quality core that can be relied upon.
- _delirium 15y ago
  You can statically link binaries and distribute those, which companies do when there's enough of a market to bother. That's how Matlab is distributed, for example. I think the bigger problem is that there usually isn't enough of a market; AutoCAD was discontinued on Unix because too many shops were retiring their Unix workstations in favor of Windows desktops, not because Unix software distribution was too hard.
  - barrkel 15y ago
    Sure you can statically link binaries, so long as you have a license for all those libraries, or if you write your own UI etc. from the ground up not much removed from the X protocol. And when UI refreshes come around, your UI will look frozen in time in a way that UIs using standard controls don't in Windows. And how about those libraries that control shared resources? For example, sound output. It's been many years since I bothered to try and use Linux as a desktop OS, but I recall wholesale choices of sound subsystems, with options for one subsystem to emulate another, etc. How well would that mess work with static linking? And these are only the most basic of shared resources; not thinking about file/app association, icon display in file managers, and other really really basic OS services that have seen repeated whole reinvention in Linux. IME Linux is unusable beyond the command-line, preferably via ssh.
    - _delirium 15y ago
      The semi-standard commercial solution for widget toolkits, excluding old software tied to something legacy, is typically to use Qt, which has both LGPL and (reasonably priced) commercial license options. Audio isn't really a problem for statically linked apps not doing anything particularly strange; it works fine in anything I've tried. Even ancient audio APIs in ancient binaries are transparently emulated through something-or-other in a way that "just works". If you haven't used Linux in "many years", that might be the source of your impressions. I remember mucking with that kind of stuff on Slackware in 1998, but I haven't touched OSS or ALSA or whatever in a decade; it just does its thing under the hood. Audio even works fine when I run Windows applications under Wine!
muuh-gnu 15y ago
> The main reason why OSX/iOS, Android, and Windows attract more commercial developers is because those platforms have a much greater installed base! A few years ago, Linux had a bigger installed base than both iOS and Android. Both of them outran linux with ease.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  Yeah, but they're in a brand new market on brand new devices. People who already have a proprietary PC OS aren't going to switch to Linux out of the blue, but they are going to buy a shiny smart phone. So the two situations are really not comparable. I still think the main difference is that you have to install Linux yourself. It's not even that installing is difficult--it isn't!--it's that normal people don't even realize it's an option. Your average random laptop buyer who just spent $600 on a laptop from Staples would be able to use Linux perfectly well if that's what his laptop came with--I suspect some wouldn't even realize it wasn't just a different version of Windows. But since his laptop invariably came with Windows, that's what he's going to use, not for any reason but inertia.
  - muuh-gnu 15y ago
    > but they're in a brand new market on brand new devices. But they still had no problem starting with an ecosystem with zero apps. Now they have hundreds of thousands. > I still think the main difference is that you have to install Linux yourself. Over the years, I've had several people, whom I talked into checking out Linux, give it up and go back to Windows because they refused to accept that they have to upgrade the whole distribution just to be able to install new versions of single apps. Did you ever try to explain a Windows user what a "backport" is, and whats it good for, and why there are none on Windows and why he can he can install whatever app and whatever version of an app he wants on Windows, but cant on Linux? > Your average random laptop buyer who just spent $600 on a laptop from Staples would be able to use Linux perfectly well if that's what his laptop came with For 6 months, then he wouldnt be able any more to update his apps.
- cgoddard 15y ago
  Ummm yeah they're also OS's for a completely different platform. That makes a pretty big difference.

__alexs 15y ago

This is basically why Ubuntu has PPAs and what they are trying to turn Software Center into right?

alexchamberlain 15y ago

It really frustrates me that authors are not responsible for compiling and distributing their software, only then will we have software upgraded regularly and quickly.

kklimonda 15y ago
which distribution should they compile and distribute (sigh) for? Not to mention basic problems like "should I integrate with GNOME, Unity, KDE or nothing at all?"
- drdaeman 15y ago
  There are only 2 popular package formats: deb and rpm. I don't have any experience with RPM, but to build a package for a reasonably big part of the Debian-based world, you have to set up a build system (pbuilder/cowbuilder) and tell it something like `for DIST in lenny squeeze wheezy sid lucid maverick natty oneiric pangolin do; git-buildpackage ...; done` The problem is, to get it right one has to find and read TONS of documentation.
  - Shank 15y ago
    It'd be a lot more popular if it was as easy as the Android apk export wizard. My 2c: Improve the tools and the developers will follow.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  I don't think the Gnome/Unity/KDE split is nearly as significant as people find it. You don't have to support them all! I use KDE, and programs written for Gnome fit right in. As far as I know, there is no reason at all to depend on some particular environment exclusively; even things like notifications work uniformly across different systems.
- bergie 15y ago
  Why not all of them? OBS makes this easy. Big projects can run their own OBS, and for us others there is the public instance provided by OpenSuse. Builds many versions of all major distros.

drdaeman 15y ago

I'm just an ordinary user, but I'd put my 2¢. Nowadays, any developer can create a packages for his application (and any of its dependencies) and publish it in self-hosted repositories. Users can easily add such repository to their system's sources list and bureaucracy problem's over. Well, some developers are doing this already - the only thing that keeps the rest of them is either ignorance or complexity of the packaging process. I believe there's no need for an Android market clone (which is yet another centralized repository). What users may need is just a directory, pointing to external repos. Ubuntu market seems somehow promising (at least I remember seeing some dialogs like "you need to enable this source to install that package"). Content duplication is not a problem. A real problem is keeping the system up-to-date when you want to update some library, because of an important feature or bugfix. And it's nearly impossible with every application's bundling their own copy of that library, with some copies being actually incompatible forks (and a lot of copies being just different builds - think of different compiler versions - of exactly the same sources).

Aqueous 15y ago
What you think is easy is actually not easy. Any time you've added one, two, three more steps to a problem after clicking the link in the browser you've already lost. Adding repositories? Already too late. Touching the command line? Sorry, as much as we love it, for most users it's already too late. Going into Aptitude or Synaptic and pasting in the repository URL? Yep. Too late. This is all compounded by the fact that there is no app bundle. Mac OS X has the bundle and a terrific way to install it: Drag and drop it into the Applications folder, just like we did in the days of the Mac Classic and MacPaint. It hasn't changed. (Well, it did for a while, but thankfully they went back.) If you say, "Well, that means you end up installing 5 different versions of the same library on the same system" - Who cares? Disk space isn't a priority any more, and from a developer standpoint it makes a lot more sense to target a dependency whose version number I know, instead of a dependency whose version only the package maintainers know for sure. I don't want to be forced to target v1.3 of a library if it's only been tested (by me) on v1.2. It makes for much better application stability for the developer to be in control of dependencies and not these package maintainers. I want to ship a self-contained bundle of awesomeness, not a dysfunctional shard among ten thousand other shards.

jamesu 15y ago

My impression is that the problem is more fundamental: a lot of open source and free software which finds its way onto linux is made by people who don't seem to care about the end-user experience. If it works for them, there is no need to improve it. Not all open software projects are receptive to changes, improvements or bug reports from strangers so nothing is really resolved without forking by which adds its own complications. Of course there is still good open source / free software. It's just hard to come by.

cs702 15y ago
I disagree. The main problem is that the Linux desktop doesn't (yet?) have a large, fast-growing installed base, so mass commercial developers don't target it!
tikhonj 15y ago
Even more proprietary software that doesn't make it to Linux is written by people who don't seem to care about the end-user experience. I've spent enough time battling horrible programs on both OS X and various versions of Windows to know that this isn't unique to open source software. Of course, on the proprietary platforms, the core programs--browsers, office, media...etc are all good. But that is true of Linux programs as well. And open source projects--even ones that are not terribly responsive--are still more responsive than most proprietary programs.

diminish 15y ago

I am running on linux desktop for already 5 years together with 50 friends, peers etc. It does not quite seem write to compare 90 cent mobile applications, which are 'mostly' few bunch of screens interfaced to a service otherwise given by a web site or simple 80s area arcade games, to packages in a linux distro. the author is totally making a terrible mistake here. mobile apps lack in size, complexity and who said they are great? they are mostly consumables which perish in few days or months (I exclude some ). Ubuntu is already trying to be more flexible with software center and applications, however open source is not single walled garden which can adhere to tight monotonous architectures found in mobile. In an linux distro the apps are diverse, and programmed in multitude ways by all possible programming languages (from python to lisp to C) and environments. That is reality and life, and what must be done must be done by being aware of that fact. and No, no one can force the broad, diverse open source world to a tight control a la Apple.

moonchrome 15y ago
>they are mostly consumables which perish in few days or months (I exclude some utitities). This is simply false, there are plenty of complex apps with varying degrees of usefulness but they certanly don't reduce to 80's game clones and few screen apps. And even if it was true it's not a result of anything intrinsic to the app model. Also "tight control a la Apple" indicates that you missed his point. How many times did you do make and sudo installed shit on your system to get basic app that should for all intents and purposes be walled of in a sandbox ? Even without sudo why should install script have access to my personal files without explicit permissions ? Did you run in to a situation where you wanted to install the latest version of an app for your system but it wasn't in your distro repo so you decided to build it only to find out that your repo GTK+ library was out of date and your options were rebuild all GTK+ packages or update the OS to alpha ? Even I gave up at that point - imagine the average user wanting to get the latest feature advertised on his favorite app site. I use Linux desktop daily but it can be a hell and you need to know how to wrestle with the system, it's certainly not idiot proof - and it needs to be for mass adoption. But then again "mass adoption" (IMO) shouldn't even be considered a realistic goal, being useful to techies/developers and available on servers is a good objective too.

programminggeek 15y ago

The author is right mostly, the problem is friction and market dynamics. Adding software in a given linux distro is too nerdy. If you don't have an "app store" like gui, you've already lost most users. Command line = friction for most users, even a lot of developers who grew up with windows. As a linux nerd, I'm fine with command line + synaptic, but look at how well people have used the iTunes store, Amazon store, Google Play, etc... All of those have much less friction to find and download the right software than most linux distro's have. Ubuntu's market is close but... WHERE IS THE NON FREE SOFTWARE?!! If linux wants to do well for humans, paid, proprietary software NEEDS to exist on the platform. Ubuntu Software Center comes close, but it still kind of sucks. Also, as a dev, it wasn't until VERY recently that you could even sign up to publish an app that was commercial in nature. It is hard to build a real marketplace when you're asking developers to give away all their work for free so that you can sell more operating systems (or support contracts) without the software dev seeing a dime. As a software developer I can't feed my kids with free downloads on an open source operating system used by people who don't like paying for software. Make it easy for devs to build software that people will pay for, then get operating system users who will buy that software for real money and you'll have fixed the Linux Desktop problem.

downx3 15y ago
App stores can suck too, think Blackberry. You don't have to resort to the command line to install packages. Synaptic just needs a little freshen up that's all. I far prefer it to Ubuntu's software centre. A load of crap icons and screenshots just feel like clutter, and don't tell me anything.

Edootjuh 15y ago

I disagree. The author seems to forget the fact that packages are only a layer of added ease of installing new software. The act of installing new software from source or binaries distributed by the author is still as free as ever. I admit that I do install about 90% of my programs as packages, but the problem of central authorities responsible for patching and distributing software and taking too long to do it isn't present in every distribution. I've used Arch Linux for years now, and it solves this problem by separating the packages into an 'official' channel of reliable maintainers testing and releasing new versions on the package system and a user repository where anyone can add packages. To me, this seems like the optimal solution. Community-maintained packages can be promoted to official ones, from what I can see new versions are released from testing within days and if you're not satisfied with how others maintain the packages, building the packages from the newest versions yourself is almost as easy as installing binaries from the repository because anyone can use the build and packaging scripts used by the maintainers themselves.

icebraining 15y ago

So, how does the fact that any person or company can host their own packages or even full repositories that can be added with a single click¹ and are not dependent on hierarchical organizations fit in that? GNU/Linux distros, at least APT based ones, are perfectly distributed if the person wants to. ¹ If you have apt-url installed, which Ubuntu has by default

moe 15y ago
I agree that distributed repositories are the way forward. The only thing holding that back is the atrocious user-interface. Debian urgently needs to fix that and push their apt-infrastructure out of the 1990s. In short: /etc/apt/sources.list must die. This is how it must work: apt-get install https://foobar.com/debian/squeeze/widget-1.0 A package installed like that must add itself automatically to a proverbial sources.list for future updates. Don't bother me with the housekeeping. Then add central indexing ('apt-get install widget' is nicer), a web-of-trust ("1234 users have installed packages by this author"), package-signing looks about alright already (except: no, don't make me run gpg). This can (will and does) co-exist happily alongside the centralized repositories. Someone just needs to implement it and push it through the glacial Debian processes. And while we're at it, there's no reason 'apt-get install github://foobar' can't be made work. tldr; apt needs to absorb homebrew.
- morsch 15y ago
  You are broadly describing PPAs. Adding a package from a PPA is a three-line (easily scriptable) process: add-apt-repository <url|ppa-name>, apt-get update, apt-get install <package>. Obviously, that doesn't just work for PPAs, but for all apt repositories. Launchpad does some central indexing ("other versions of this package") for PPAs, but I don't think it's accessible via command line. There is no indication how popular a PPA is, but PPAs are linked to admin user accounts which might help. Packages are signed and the key is auto-imported. Packages co-exist alongside packages from the repos, you can easily switch between different provided versions. Installing a plain deb is much easier still, but you don't get upgrades (unless the repository is auto-added during install) or signing.

muuh-gnu 15y ago

The reason I stopped recommending Linux to "normal users" is _because_ of the concept of distributions. Coupling the updates of single apps with the updates of the whole desktop or framework and libs, is just plain wrong. Having to upgrade the whole distro (including all the other installed apps you dont want to upgrade) just to install a new version of one single app you _want_ to update is a nightmare. Total bullshit. Users. Dont. Want. That. Users dont want one update to trigger another update, or even to trigger the upgrade of the whole desktop. The blog post by ESR is one prominent example: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3822 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3822 He basically wanted to upgrade just one (obscure) app, and the process triggered the automatic removal of Gnome2 and installation of Unity. Just _IMAGINE_ how nightmarish this must look for normal users. You simply dont remove somebodys installed desktop sneakily from under their feet. You simply dont. That feels like the total loss of control over your computer. I personally had, during the last 10 years, people go from Linux (which I talked them into trying) back to windows, _precisely_ of this reason, of having to upgrade the whole distribution every few months just to be able to get new app versions. They dont have to put up with this insane bullshit on Windows, why should they put up with it on Linux? This "distribution" bullshit is not what is killing desktop Linux, it is what _already_ killed desktop Linux. The other reasons why desktop Linux never made it (no games, no preinstallations on hardware) are imho just consequences of the distribution concept and the 6-month planned-obsolescence cycle. Nobody wants to bother with something which will be obsolete half a year down the road. Nobody wants to develop for a target that moves _that_ fast. Windows installations, once installed or preinstalled, run for a decade. Develop something, and it will run on a 10 yr old Windows your grandparents use. Most people encounter new Windows installations only when they buy a new computer. PC manufacturers know that customers will hate it when their new computer OS is obsolete within half a year and that they wont be able to install new apps, so they dont preinstall Linux, it's as simple as that. If anybody _ever_ really wants to see Linux succeed on the desktop (before the desktop concept itself is gone), he will have to give up on the distribution concept first.

rbanffy 15y ago
> He basically wanted to upgrade just one (obscure) app No. He wanted a new version of the app and upgraded to a new version of the OS (with a new set of default packages). And he got surprised by getting a new GUI, something which is rather odd because Unity was one of the most publicized features of Ubuntu. > the process triggered the automatic removal of Gnome2 and installation of Unity Not really. Gnome2 would still be there. Just the default UI is Unity. I'm more than a little bit surprised ESR had trouble remembering you switch UIs on login. I've been doing it since my Solaris (2.5) days. I loved OpenWindows. > having to upgrade the whole distribution every few months just to be able to get new app versions That's not really true - you have to do so because the distro publisher won't support the newest Chrome on their 2006 OS. It's ridiculous to demand them to spend their resources on your particular needs. If you are not happy, you can ask to have your money back. And even when the distro publisher doesn't want to add newer versions to an old OS, you can always add private repos maintained by the makers of your favorite software. And, remember, having stable versions of software (even when a newer, flashier version, was made public) is not what some people want. I wan't my servers stable. > This "distribution" bullshit is not what is killing desktop Linux It was never much alive. Linux is an OS that suits a couple users well, but not most of them. > are imho just consequences of the distribution concept and the 6-month planned-obsolescence cycle. It usually took much longer to get a new version of your favorite Linux distro. 6 months is the current standard. And, again, there is no planned obsolescence. There are many alternative places to get newer versions for. > Windows installations, once installed or preinstalled, run for a decade. I don't believe we met, sir. Where planet are you from? > If anybody _ever_ really wants to see Linux succeed on the desktop (...) he will have to give up on the distribution concept first. I don't think so. In fact, most people don't think so. And, let me say that not thinking so works quite well. You do realize the incredibly arrogant position you are taking. You purport to be the savior of the Linux desktop (do we need one, BTW?) and to have realized what's wrong with it and, best of all, you have the solution! Just do everything opposite to how it's been working for decades and all our problems will be solved. Let me put it simply: when you think you are the dumbest person in a room, you are probably right. When you think you are the smartest person in a room, you are most probably wrong. And if you disagree with everybody else in the room, odds are you are really the dumbest person there. Maintaining a distro is a lot of work, but until we can make software makers to agree on a single package format, a single way to manage configurations and a single way to organize the file hierarchy, the distro way will remain a very popular way to manage your computers.

yaix 15y ago

Good point. But most of these apps are written, because they can make money for the author. There just isn't a large enough user base in Desktop Linux to make that money, and hence much less people willing to invest the time to write apps. And the much smaller userbase is split up between Gnome and KDE and now Unity and Xfce and so on. So there is even less incentive to write apps.

tikhonj 15y ago
A program that works in KDE will work in Gnome and Unity and Xfce, so that divide is not strictly relevant. In KDE, at the very least, even GTk programs look very good. And, moreover, those programs would also work on Windows and OS X.

VMG 15y ago

Maybe Android will conquer the desktop then? All it needs is mouse and keyboard support in the interface and higher-resolution apps, which will come for tablets anyway.

bergie 15y ago
Android has pretty good mouse and keyboard support already. Try one of the Asus Transformers in laptop mode, for instance. Keyboard shortcuts, mouse cursor, two-finger scrolling, all works as you would expect on a desktop. High-resolution apps are still somewhat lacking because the larger tablets haven't sold that well, but I hope this will improve.
eli_gottlieb 15y ago
Honestly, if Android came on top of or with a real Linux base so that I could be assured my existing Linux applications and command-line environment will work... I would totally switch. The new Ubuntu for Android project will take over the world.

bergie 15y ago

The solution for this is quite simple: split the distro to a core, and a separate 'apps' repository, and let app authors control (but with a mandatory QA step) when their software gets released or updated. We did this with Maemo (and later MeeGo), and it has worked great: http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/application_quality_assurance_in_linux_distributions/ http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/application_quality_assurance_in_l... Cross-distro app repositories are also a possibility, thanks to the Open Build Service (http://openbuildservice.org http://openbuildservice.org). And since MeeGo's community apps service is open source (https://github.com/nemein/com_meego_packages https://github.com/nemein/com_meego_packages), all software needed for this (including an app store client app) already exists. What is needed is a major distribution to make the first move on this.

DrCatbox 15y ago
You would still need to maintain and manage the core distro. The packages in their would update and break the systme, you'd have lvm issues and what not. Any way, care to give links to more on maeom/meegos architecture?
- bergie 15y ago
  You still package and build an application separately for each distro version. And then the community tests it before it goes to the stable apps repo. So broken packages (either by packaging, or by app not functioning properly) are unlikely to pass QA. So if your package conflicts with something, either fix that issue or don't release for that distro versio.
  - joe_the_user 15y ago
    Off-topic: Is active Meego Development still happening? I'm a QT developer and might be interested in contributing a little...
    - bergie 15y ago
      The MeeGo community effort continues at http://merproject.org http://merproject.org Used already as the base distro in the Spark tablet

richardk 15y ago

I've been happily using the stable branch of Debian for about 4 years now. Whilst I agree bureaucracy and politics should be avoided where possible, it seems to me that handing everything off to a 3rd party to focus on the "core packages" harms overall system performance. Time and again I hear people in the lab complain about all these bugs in their applications, running Debian I can honestly say I don't have this problem. Ofcourse, I don't have the latest software either, but for me that's the price I pay for a stable system.

wazoox 15y ago

There are "core" linux distros, like Slackware. There are many attempts at autonomous apps distribution like zero-install and openpkg that mostly work, and probably would work fine with a reasonable effort backing them. [1]: http://0install.net/ http://0install.net/ [2]: http://www.openpkg.org/ http://www.openpkg.org/ Of course the problem is that the big distros (redhat, debian) can't be bothered to care.

sirclueless 15y ago
And in fact, with their sysadmin focus, they explicitly are opposed to this method. If your goal isn't a desktop experience but rather protection from every adversary at all times, then only vetting a small core and letting people run various and sundry packages from third parties is flat-out irresponsible. But of course this is what desktop users want -- to run any software they like with no hoops to jump through or update schedules to keep on top of, so they will always be at odds.

ObnoxiousJul 15y ago

what I prefer in this posts is the interesting discussion coming with the article. It seems attention whores and trolls have not yet reached g+, it looks pretty sane for now. mode religious:on please g+ try somehow to make a good karma system to keep the NSR low.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

PaulHoule 15y ago

I've been using Linux since 1993, and back then, the Linux OS and desktop were far superior to Windows 3.1. Then Win 95 came out and that had a decent desktop. I remember when the KDE people started talking about a desktop for Unix and people didn't get it, but when we saw the beta it was like... Wow! Then Red Hat Linux didn't like the license of KDE, so they had to create Gnome. As a result, rather than having one good Desktop, the average Linux has two half-baked desktops. This fork has wasted people's energy and been a distraction away from an excellent experience. Another example of this is sound. I don't know how many incompatible sound APIs exist for Linux now, I know it's more than the fingers on one hand. The consequence of it all is that often sound doesn't work and unless you're a crazy enthusiast you might never get it to work. I was a Linux zealot until 2003 or so when I had a job that had me using a Windows machine a lot, and by that point there was Win XP which was a huge improvement over Win 95. I still use Linux on servers, but desktop Linux has largely disappeared from my life. Every so often I try to install it here or there, but I typically find the experience disappointing. I was a Fedora fan for a long time, but Fedora became increasingly finicky about where it would install. I switched to Ubuntu, but every installation ends up having some serious problem. For instance, Ubuntu installed just fine on my PPC Mac Mini with the exception that the fan runs full speed all the time and the machine sounds like a vacuum cleaner. Windows and Mac OS have been on a general trajectory of improvement -- sometimes there are changes you don't like, but the overall direction is good. Linux did, after years of struggle, get a stable multiprocessor kernel (2.6) but other than that I get the feeling Linux has been going backwards not forwards.

bryanlarsen 15y ago
What you say used to be true, but does not appear to be any longer. When was the last time we had useful improvements to the OS X user interface? 10.4 (2005) or 10.5 (2007), in my opinion. They've certainly improved under the hood, but the improvements to the UI have been mostly gimmicks like Expose. When was the last time we had useful improvements to the Windows UI? That would be Windows Vista, 2006/2007. (W7 was basically just a stable version of Vista). Windows is certainly attempting to add improve the UI with Metro, so it's a 5 year timeframe to wait for improvements. OTOH, in Linux land we've had KDE4, Gnome3 and Unity all land in that time period. Every 6 months we receive useful new improvements to our UI. Sure, the initial reception to KDE4, Gnome3 and Unity were all negative, but the haters are always the loudest. I haven't tried Gnome 3, but Unity 12.04 and KDE 4.8 are both really nice, much better than the OS X or Windows 7 UIs, in my opinion. And it's not just the UI. It takes about 10 seconds for my computer to leave the BIOS and have both Firefox & Emacs open in Ubuntu. It takes the same machine over a minute to have Steam open in Windows.

zackmorris 15y ago

Part 2, where he discusses his solutions, is more enlightening I think. He's dead-on about the impassable problem of package updates affecting other packages. Having everything sandboxed with a general permissions system for directories instead of per-file is also better (this is how MacOS wanted to work before OS X). A free and open mesh network with reputation-based security is also the future. But hey, linux is wide open, if these are the changes that are needed, we will see them.

pavanky 15y ago

Isn't the problem that the distributions are downstream to the apps and libraries they install ? Quoting android and ios ecosystem is well and good, but in those ecosystems the os comes first and the apps are developed downstream. You simply cant have that in a linux eco system.

keithpeter 15y ago

Yes, I see the point being made in the original article. I tend to use LTS Ubuntu and conservative distributions (currently PUIAS) and so see a slower rate of change. Another Hacker News thread is discussing the new release of Audacity. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3714766 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3714766 and it occured to me that I would like to try to compile a statically linked build of Audacity that could work on any version of GNU/Linux from Ubuntu 12.04 down to (say) CentOS 5.7. Just a big binary blob that I could copy and run. How would I find out how to do this? I've compiled little things before (dwm window manager, qalculate)

kfcm 15y ago

The Linux desktop is dead. Face it. Accept it. How do I know this? Go to a developers' or tech conference, and what is the prevailing OS? 9/10 times these days, it's MacOS. As much as Apple may be control freaks, they did desktop UNIX right and developers have flocked to them. Meanwhile, the Linux desktop community is still having the same debates, the same difficulties it had back in the mid-90's. Dependency issues. Lack of compelling use case software; and that which does exist is versions behind current. Fragmentation. The only areas in which the Linux desktop has moved forward is UI and user-oriented management, and Ubuntu deserves much of the credit for the latter. Add to this the gradual movement away from the desktop paradigm to mobile. The desktop paradigm will still be around for several years (especially for creators--developers, media folks, etc), but the end-user is moving more and more towards smartphones and tablets for consumption. Extend those with external keyboards and monitors (think docks) for light creation work (documents, spreadsheets, etc), and you've the future. Nope. The Linux desktop is dead.

jzawodn 15y ago
Yes. 1000 times Yes.
pge 15y ago
I agree with you, and a natural extrapolation of the point is that android is the "desktop linux" of the future. Maybe android is the linux distro (of sorts) that has actually solved the desktop problem.
cgoddard 15y ago
Just because people who are trying to sell you something aren't using it doesn't mean it's dead. I've been using Ubuntu for 4 years now, and the latest releases are more streamlined and usable than ever. The mainstream distros have come an extremely long way in being more user friendly to non-tech users. Also I have mobile devices, but still end up using my desktop a whole bunch for two simple reasons: 1. when you actually need to type something of any length a full-size keyboard is wonderful 2. its nice not to have to squint at a smaller screen to see what's going on.
javert 15y ago

artist777 15y ago

Cheap viagra http://viagrapedia.com http://viagrapedia.com Thanks for info

spiralpolitik 15y ago

UNIX in general never transitioned well from single binary applications that could just be placed in /bin /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin as appropriate to multi-file applications that needed an array of libraries, resource files etc. That coupled with a file system layout that nobody could ever agree on made it a mess once UNIX moved outside the curated environments it was typically found in prior to Linux. NextStep made a good stab at the problem with bundles (.app .service .framework etc) but once you moved outside of the abstraction layer you were right back into the mess. Most Linux distributions seem to want to emulate SunOS circa 1992 and any attempts to "improve" on the solution in drowned out by fundamentalism. I actually though the author nailed it in the last paragraph of part 2 of his post. The free software movement needs to start looking forward and not try and emulate what worked 20 years ago. There is definitely potential for a brave organization that is willing to try and tackle the challenge.

snambi 15y ago

The author mostly talk about maintaining packages. Some people say that it is the missing games and other desktop applications. However, we all know that Linux is best OS for development. It has best set of libraries, languages and utilities. Yet, why there not many cool Desktop applications? I believe the answer is, Linux doesn't have an IDE for Desktop development. Look at windows, they have .net Platform and IDE, Look at Mac, they have Xcode and Android uses eclipse for IDE. Most of the application developers want and IDE, which is what is lacking in Linux. I hope someone makes an IDE for Linux desktop development.

rurounijones 15y ago
QT Creator for Cross-platform. KDevelop for KDE focused stuff. Not sure what for GNome. What is wrong with the above?
- snambi 15y ago
  I didn't know about QT Creator, it looks really good for application development. A lot of people are using Ubuntu for their desktop, including me and my friends. But, Ubuntu's landing page doesn't have a tab called "develop" for leading users to develop applications for ubuntu. So, My impression is linux is a great OS with libraries and frameworks necessary for system development. But, it didn't had the tools to build applications. But, apparently it does. Linux distributions should encourage users to write applications. The best way to do this would be having the information right on their landing page.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

cturner 15y ago

Why do linux distros keep trying to recreate the gaudy, confusing experiences of the proprietary systems? I want my drivers to work, and a window manager that wraps the file-system - allows interaction with the files. In an ideal world, someone would restructure the four bin directories so that system stuff was in one area, and user stuff was somewhere else so we could easily open what we want by navigating the tree.

agentgt 15y ago

I have to wonder if people's expectations are just a little to high for something that is free. I think a large amount of people complaining about Linux did not use it when it really really sucked (back when Slackware and RedHat were the only options). Linux is a hackers operating system. When people try to make it into a desktop operating system it starts to suck (Gnome 3).

jebblue 15y ago

Linux is being used by more developers that I see than ever and even regular people are finding out about it and trying it out.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

freshhawk 15y ago

Most of the complaints here don't even have any suggestions, just a complaint that can be easily translated to "dependencies in software are hard to manage". Well, no shit. How about some interesting ideas around this from the "hackers"? The ideas that are proposed are mostly things that have already been tried but have failed because of social/manpower reasons (they would take enormous amounts of effort and time from all involved for little benefit) or technical (they don't work) A large percentage complain that the distro in question updates too frequently, when there are clearly distros that cater to stability (they just aren't the "cool ones"). Some of the complaints are demanding some mythical OS that allows you to install it once, never have it update or change but still have access to all the newest software. That would be wonderful. No one has figured that out yet, not windows, not mac, not any *nix. I know bitchy comments aren't helpful, or likely to be well received, but there must be some other people of my ilk still on HN. Now that it's Product Guy News, where should I be going? Where is this story posted with people actually talking about interesting ways to improve things who actually understand the problem and could be called hackers without the technically skilled people laughing?

may 15y ago

Igor's point about distros trying to "own" 20K packages is well-taken; it's simply not possible. In my own life the 'solution' I have found is to use FreeBSD; I get a stable, well-maintained core with a sharp distinction between core, userland and third-party (the ports system). I have found the ports system to be a lightweight, agile alternative to GNU/Linux package managers: When you install FreeBSD you are left with a kernel, standard UNIX command-line utilities and everything you need to hammer the system into a finely-honed tool. Right now, I'm using it exclusively on my servers because I'm willing to accept the trade-offs of Ubuntu (beta 12.04 on my dev box, XUbuntu 11.10 on my netbook) on the desktop; a little instability and fully-automated updates is OK in exchange for not having to fiddle with graphics drivers, sound, Flash, etc.

antirez 15y ago

Ten years ago I was trying to persuade people that two things were very important for Linux to succeed in the desktop: 1) Distribution of software as a cross-distribution package that just has everything it needs inside a directory, libs and so forth. If you said this N years ago you were an asshole because "duplication of file blabla" and so forth. The typical example was "an user should simply go to some web site of some application, download a file, and click on it to execute the program". 2) Device drivers with a well specified interface between the OS and the hardware, so that different versions of the kernel could use the same driver without issues. People complained a lot with technical arguments, about why a different approach is better than "1" or "2" from some kind of nerd metric. So the reality for me is that Linux does not succeed in the desktop because it is "run" by people with a square-shaped engineering mind. There is no fix for this.

Abomonog 15y ago

Sounds like he wants a distro agnostic Ports system, one that hides the dirty work of watching compile time crap fly across the screen and just gives the user a suitable package for their distro. Either that or he's essentially suggesting we move to static compiled packages, which while tremendously inefficient from a space and security standpoint would alleviate at least some of the headaches of trying to do cross distro binary offerings.

mark_integerdsv 15y ago

Honestly, Linux is a lot like the tiptronic setting on my cars gearbox. I have thought it's a cool feature and I'm glad it's there but really... I never use it 'cos it's kind of fiddly and dumb.

danbmil99 15y ago

Just for another POV -- I love the fact that I can apt-get a version of practically any FOSS project of note, and within a minute or two, I have something that works with the rest of my system. If I need bleeding-edge, I go to the project page and download a later binary or source, but 90% of the time that's not necessary. For me, it's a perfect combination of a vetted ecosystem (ok, somewhat closed but closed in the way I like -- no crapware, all legit source distros and mostly mature projects) with the ability to go outside that system at any time, at my own risk. Anyone can set up a repository to add to/compete with Canonical's, and of course they do. So with my willow garage repo's, I can keep up with their concept of what's stable, etc. It works nearly perfectly, IMSHO.

jiggy2011 15y ago

Isn't the real issue simply that the desktop distributors simply lack the manpower required to out together a stable desktop release, party due to the massive fragmentation? I assume MS and Apple have huge teams dedicated simply to making sure that all of this software works together nicely. If there was a desktop distro that cost $100 a throw and that money was re-invested in testing the desktop platform more thoroughly and making it past and future proof that this would solve many problems?

netvarun 15y ago

Part II of Ingo Molnar's blog post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3719719 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3719719