I always had regularly issues with software I wanted to install from Github for example, because the dependencies Debian Stable offered were ancient. So, I had to use at least Debian Testing, sometimes even Debian Sid, but those obviously come with their own set of problems.
1 Like
Over the last 4 years, I had very little problems with Mint Cinnamon. It seems to be a very stable OS.
Cant argue with that.
What I would do in that situation is fix the downloaded software rather than bend the OS to accomodate it.
Porting can be a lot of work, but I regard the OS as fixed . If you only change introduced software, other things will not break.
Yes some distro teams get it right.
There is nothing to fix in regards to the program. If the program is a Linux program and Linux works by providing libraries itself, then it’s a Linux problem.
On Windows for example, programs are meant to bring their own stuff. So, you get a lot mroe bloat, but shit works!
On Linux, you get Forrest Gump: you never know what you get, because every Linux system may have its own library versions, editions, etc…
If the OS is badly designed in some aspects, then later introduced software needs no fixing. The OS does. Which is essentially just software, too.
If the program uses libraries that are not in the OS, then it is not written for that OS. Changing the OS will just break other software. You have to port the software, ie make it workk with current libraries.
That is hard for people who want to use the newest release of a program . People who need that should use rolling release OS, not Debian stable. Debian sid is not really a well managed rolling release, it is just their development environment.
Yes. Nobody said it’s using foreign libraries. That would make things easier, actually. The problem is, that Linux pretends to provide libraries, but they often may be the wrong version, because of how the whole eco system in a Linux operating system is complected. Therefore, it is clearly an issue with Linux.
Porting is not “making it workk with current libraries”. This does not make sense, because if a library has a new feature and that software is depending on that feature, then it would be absolutely insane to downgrade the software, just because Linux is too stupid to provide the newest library versions in a working manner…
Oh, you triggered the trap.
So many Linux fans say, just use Debian, it’s great. Don’t even think about it. Or whatever.
They pretend, as if you could use it as a drop-in replacement for Windows, even!
Now, you say, that people have to actually be picky and choose which Linux to use, because even the most “stable” one can become broken.
Those both two things do not go together!
Additionally, what makes matters worse, a rolling release distribution is not the ultimate solution, either. It’s far better, yes, but it still can have issues with library versions.
You cant blame Linux for people choosing the wrong distro for their application
Linux in not one entitiy. GNU/Linux is a whole spectrum of distros.
Any piece of external software will have been developed in one particular OS environment. It you really have to have that exact software, you had better choose to runit in the environment it was developed in… or pehaps in a container.
I dont see why people become attached to a particular distro, such as Ubuntu, then start demanding that it change run their special piece of software. The solution is to either
- do some porting work, or
- move to a distro that is more suitable or
- use several distros , like I do…
One can have a nice stable Debian or Opensuse, a radical Arch or Void or Gentoo, and an in between Ubuntu or Mint, all at once, either a multiboot, or with VM.
That is the way to deal with it. Use the Linux spectrum , dont get hung up on one distro… They are all throwaway items.
The days of the one Linux machine are over. . Too difficult you say?
Well how about some development of better multiboot management, or better VM systems?
I can see a future with 100 distros available to a user , and some supervisor system which automatically chooses the best one for a particular piece of software, and just runs it.
I cant see a future with clinging sentimentally to one Linux version and attempting to adapt it to every piece of external software.
Eh, what?
It generally goes like this:
There are developers.
Some are kind-hearted and make FOSS.
They release it.
They want as many people as possible to use it.
They make the software compatible with as many distributions/platforms as possible.
An operating system should just work. I think, you are mixing up priorities here. The OS is not the boss. The software used by the user is. The OS shall shut up and keep working.
Does not make sense. This is the backward ass thinking some Linux people do all the time. They start with the feet and end up at the head (if there is one, to begin with…), instead of doing it the right way from the beginning: starting at the head and ending up at the feet.
You do not choose the OS based on what software will run on it. Else you will have a 100 million operating systems on your computer… I hope, I do not need to explain why this would be absolutely stupid.
The elitist Linux mindset has twisted the minds of some people so much, they even choose their $1000 dollar investment based on how well it will run on Linux… (graphics cards)
This is insane. Period.
Such an investment should have the highest priority. Then, the OS should work with it. Not the other way around.
I would never adjust my $1000 investment for the sake of Linux’ stupidity and utter uselessness.
Same goes for software pieces, to some degree.
You are not wrong, but your presumptions are still not entirely correct.
The reason for that is, that 99.99% of Linux distributions are shit. Period.
Additionally, Linux elitists and some other fanboys claim, that Linux is so great, it’s a drop-in replacement for Windows, it’s so amazing, bla bla bla…
Soooo… If it’s THAT amazing, then get to work, OS! Why are you not working?!
This is how these demands come to life.
Yes, but all are shit to a certain degree. Arch and Ubuntu are sometimes bearable, but the rest is crap, in regards to GUI-ness and online tutorial/help resources. Debian GUI does not work. I have so many years of experience with that.
OpenSUSE is not “bad”, but it’s not popular enough, by any means. It must be more popular to get at least a slightly sufficient amount of online help resources for newbies and the average Joe.
Void or Gentoo. Nothing to say here, the names already say what’s going on. The first is nothing and the second is a clown.
Ubuntu has tons of issues, but it works best compared to other Linux distributions, on average.
This is largely due to the fact how popular it is. There are tons of resources online, that helps mitigate, fix or at least work around the issues that Ubuntu has. It’s a good enough distribution for people trying to get into Linux.
Mint is like Ubuntu but less popular. Less popular, means same or bigger amount of issues, but less resources and help to fix them. Which makes it less user-friendly, than Ubuntu.
Oh and before people forget what I actually use and call me an Ubuntu fanboy:
I never used Ubuntu GUI for more than a day in my life.
I used Debian GUI for years and years in my life. Not anymore though, because it’s shit and does not work.
I use Debian and Ubuntu GUI-less for servers I manage (private & professional), every single day in my life.
I don’t even like Ubuntu. I don’t even use the GUI version of it. But I have to admit, it works best for the average Joe. Simple fact, nobody can even remotely refute.
So, you need a million distributions, to get something to work, when on Windows it just takes a single Windows? 
This is actual real life polished shit.
Improving multiboot management for the sake of how extremely shitty and useless Linux GUI is, is literally polishing a piece of shit into a shiny ball.
I think containers are a better solution for the problem your suggestion tries to solve, as far as I understand it.
I can’t see a bright future for Linux, if it will continue having the philosophy it has for decades.
Windows is never a solution for me because
- it is non-free
- most of the software I am interested in would not run on windows
- if some piece of software was supposed to run on windows but failed, I would have no idea how to port it
- I dont like the windows gui
- I dont understand the Windows update system
- I object to not being able to shift Windows to any of my hardware
- I only supports a limited range of cpu’s
- I feel I should support free software because I have derived a lot of benefit from it… both GNU, and Linux, and BSD.
Do I need to go on.
Any solution except Windows would make me happy.
That does not mean that I cant see the problem
I think containers are a better solution for the problem your suggestion tries to solve
I think VMware goes close. I just needs a bit of automation.
You do not choose the OS based on what software will run on it
Well I choose a vehicle based on what fuel it will use.
I cant imagine what other criteron I would use to choose an OS?
You will probably say … ability to drive some esoteric graphics card made by an uncooperative manufacturer and built into most PC’s to frustrate anyone wanting to use a non-MS OS.
Really , we need to forget this GUI debate, freeze it into hardware, and get on with what an OS is supposed to be doing…
Not a technical reason. Discarded.
If they don’t run on Linux specific libraries, they should be able to run on Windows just as well.
It’s Windows. Rarely anything fails.
No. If you are using minimal distributions, as you already explained, then you are already used to the ugliest and worst GUIs in the entire Linux GUI world. So, you cannot use this and then say that you don’t like the Windows GUI. Does not make sense.
You can find tons of resources online explaining it due to how popular the operating system is.
On the other hand, you did not understand Void’s update system and you could barely find any Informationen about it online, because comparatively nobody is interested in using it.
I do not quite understand. There is no need, because Windows will work on any non-ancient hardware.
It supports all architectures that have any relevance. The only architectures it does not support are ancient ones from a museum.
Again, not a technical reason.
Throw away all your electronic devices and manually program on a piece of paper. Better than Windows!
No. Not at all. I’m saying the most important & expensive device is #1.
Then you go down the list: lower is less important and less expensive.
So, you first choose a graphics card, that is simply compare dto other graphics cards. Nothing else. This item is so expensive, you cannot make your decision even harder by taking into account lowly reasons that shouldn’t be related to it, at all.
Then, you choose the CPU. Again, mostly based on its own merit, but you can slightly adjust it to #1.
You go down that list over all hardware.
#3 is RAM.
Later, we get Motherboard, etc.
Now, when everything is set up und working, we can choose the shit on the bottom.
Pieces of software, some WiFi dongles, etc. Aesthetic stuff.
There’s also the operating system. Windows. It will just work, without any effort.
Or, you want a life full of pain & agony, so you go with some fringe Linux GUI distribution, which sole purpose it is to annoy the crap out of the user, because seemingly nothing works…
The graphics card won’t work completely, IF it works at all. Some features will need disabling.
Some features will be buggy.
Oh and don’t use Nouveau or you will get 2FPS on the entire Linux GUI (happened to me all the time).
Forget also about a multi-monitor setup with 3+ monitors. It will always bug out.
Plus, Linux is too stupid & childish to run the integrated & dedicated graphics card simultaneously…
Do I need to go on?
A non-technical reason is still a reason.
There’s also the operating system. Windows. It will just work, without any effort.
Or, you want a life full of pain & agony, so you go with some fringe Linux GUI distribution,
I dont hear that from any of the itsFOSS users, except you, and maybe 2 others recently.
There are people who say they have happily used some Linux distro for 5 years +, including me.
I dont see that fringe is a disadvantage. I get quality support from Solus and Void when I need it. Large distros like Ubuntu tend to have have discussion groups with variable quality content. MS has nothing but “Download service pack X”… no explanation whatever.
Throw away all your electronic devices and manually program on a piece of paper. Better than Windows!
I actually do that. it helps to get away from the screen and just think.
You can find tons of resources online explaining it due to how popular the operating system is.
On the other hand, you did not understand Void’s update system and you could barely find any Informationen about it online, because comparatively nobody is interested in using it
The Void handbook is actually one of the best I have encountered. Quality does not go along with popularity.
I got into trouble with the Void update system in a container… that is new territory for me. Thanks for helping me over that.
If they don’t run on Linux specific libraries, they should be able to run on Windows just as well
It is not just libraries, I need to address larger memory than the Microsoft 16Gb limit. I know that only applies to home version, but I am not going to pay for the server version. I also need compilers… not going to pay for that either. I can get everything I want bundled in Linux, and it just works… for me and for free, and I can feed something back into it.
@Akito , I think we just have to conclude that we see things differently.
I understand why you went to the Windows GUI. The rest of it is just a different personal outlook.
Cheers
Neville
Then I could write a whole 5000 page book about the ugly & crappy things on Linux GUI. Mostly the desktop environments look absolutely like shit. The only bearable one is recent KDE. It looks pretty fine.
Because I am not living in a dream world. I am honest about it. I like to use Linux. I have years of experience with it. But I am not following its cult. I am opposed to extremism of any kind. Including Linux extremists, who talk shit about the reliability of Linux GUI. Or security. Or whatever topic they invent stuff about.
Linux is not secure.
Linux GUI is ugly and its design is terrible.
Linux GUI is not a replacement for Windows. It is in so many ways clearly inferior to Windows. This point is especially important to me, because I cannot stand Linux fanatics stating this utter non-sense. Linux GUI is not a replacement for Windows, because it is utterly inferior. Period.
One of the biggest reasons I always fight against this non-sense is, because I want that one day to come, where someone says “you’re wrong” and they fix the Linux GUI experience. This would be an enlightenment. However, tons of people complain about what I say, but then do not fix the issues I have talked about. So, lots of complaining and moaning, but the issues still remain. This is another stupidity executed by too many Linux fanatics.
Yes. Never was opposed to that. I said that many times already, too. It’s great if you people are happy. The red line is crossed, when you people say “I had a great experience – everyone can drop Windows and join Linux!” which is utter bullshit.
Just because it applies to a tiny fraction of people, does not mean at all, that Linux GUI is even remotely capable of replacing Windows. Not even in the wildest dreams, as it is the case in this very moment.
Fringe is a disadvantage once you want to do something and it does not work. Even if you personally get “quality support”, that still does not make it work, instantly. You still have to waste time fixing the issue.
On Windows I don’t even know how the support is. Do you know why?
Because I never have an issue. It all just works. 
The only “issues” I have is that I need to install updates for software I use. However, that’s obviously the case on Linux, too. Windows just handles it better, because it nudges the user to do it frequently.
Just two days ago I had an issue with updating on Linux. It was related to how long I didn’t update the system, as Linux expects me to think about updates and micro-manage this, instead of just letting me know that I should update.
When it comes to Windows updates, I barely ever notice them. I also can choose to delay updates, if needed. No problem. Though, I never do that, because it’s not necessary.
The next boot will just take one or two minutes longer. No problemo!
Not service pack, but the support I have seen by Microsoft given to other people (never needed support myself, ever) was pretty shitty. So, I agree, it does not offer big explanations or big amounts of honesty in solving the issue.
However, again, issues are very rare on Windows and if they happen, there will always be a solution, simply because of how popular this operating system is.
Yes, but it’s obviously not a functional replacement. It’s just a form of having more room to think. It does not replace an operating system.
It does in the software world. Sure, there are popular pieces of software which are crap and less popular which are excellent. Of course, there are examples like that.
However, you, master of statistics, can surely provide me with statistical graphs, which show how more popularity makes keeping quality easier, while less popularity makes it harder and harder.
Less popular means, less feedback, less resources, like money, less developers/maintainers, etc.
More popularity means more of all that. So, it’s much easier to deliver a better quality, since there are much more people interested in it working greatly.
I don’t know about this limit, however your program is probably just written not the right way, if it hits some limit nobody ever encounters.
Home version is basically just the “Basic” version from the earlier days, but rebranded. I don’t even count that as Windows. It’s just a subset of Windows, for trying it out.
As pointed out last time, you don’t need to pay for any compilers, if you don’t need to pay for them on Linux. I still don’t understand where this invention is coming from. All common compilers can work on Windows, without any issues!
Then you are doing almost nothing on Linux. The easiest example to understand where I am getting at is to try to set up a 3+ multi-monitor setup. Then we will see how things will work out. And don’t forget to turn on the intergrated graphics card when the dedicated one is already running. Good luck with that.
This is just one of a billion examples where Linux GUI is not able to do something, that is literally a matter of plug&play on Windows…
No. Keep the praise and “it just works” in the frame of your personal scenario and I will never ever complain. As soon as someone starts saying “it works for me, so it works for everyone”, I am always going to complain.
It’s great if it works for you. However, you are not the average Joe. Plus, you are an expert on many different PC things, so it’s another story, anyway.
Whenever I complain, I think about the average Joe and people like me. I just want my computer to work. That’s it.
I used Linux GUI and Windows side by side for many years, sometimes even only exclusively Linux GUI (Debian Stable & Testing).
What I am saying is not pulled out of my arse. I literally speak out of experience.
I talk a lot about the multi-monitor setup issue, because it’s also one of the most frustrating ones. You cannot fathom the messaic amounts of relief I felt, when, after horsing around with Linux GUI for 8 hours straight, I just turned on Windows, because I gave up, plugged in the monitors, aligned them in the correct positions and it just worked.
Bringing back that memory already gives me the sense of tears in my eyes. Windows saved my system. It just works.
I hope, some day the Linux messiah will arrive and tell me how to fix my Linux GUI experience. Once that day comes, I will leave Windows.
Not true for me., because I never seriously used windows in the first place. I did venture into CP/M and DOS.
Lets ask the reverse question… Is Windows a replacement for Linux?
My answer: No, it can not do the things I normally do with Linux, without
- spending money on software
- a huge learning curve
- returning to proprietary software
- restricting my memory usage
- loss of drivers for my Brother printer… thats right Windows10 when I last looked would not drive my printer, Linux will because the drivers are FOSS
- incompatable file system. No support for ext filesystems.
Your answer: Yes, because it fixes some important graphics problems.
Lets see what other users say about the reverse question.
I would expect Yes answers from
- people who are under work pressure and just want it to work
and I would expect no answers from
- people with time and technical ability, who enjoy the challenge of Linux
There are other categories , but the question restricts us to people who already use Linux.