Linux hits 4% on the desktop 🐧 📈
scratchandgame @ scratchandgame @lemmy.ml Posts 2Comments 226Joined 1 yr. ago
scratchandgame @ scratchandgame @lemmy.ml
Posts
2
Comments
226
Joined
1 yr. ago
The BSDs don’t have the dev resources of Linux simply because Linux has a much larger install base.
Really?
I don't think OpenBSD is as funded as Debian but it could maintain software like OpenSSH (even the portable version for Linux and Windows); LibreSSL (still not much used, but funded because of this), OpenSMTPD.
But OpenBSD can maintain its ports which in my opinion is relatively large (no update for -release, sorry :) ). And base. For so many hardware platform. Even VAX until 6.9
Current distros doesn't support many hardware platform, despite being very well funded. Compared to OpenBSD. (NetBSD is too much, right? and it is not really usable.)
Fedora: Only run on amd64, arm64, arm, ppc64le, s390x
Debian: i386, amd64, arm64, arm, ppc64le, mips64le, s390x, riscv64 (testing).
Alpine: same as Debian but no MIPS support
Add your own here.
There isn't sparc64 support at all!
https://www.openbsd.org/sparc64.html The other architectures that OpenBSD supports have benefited because some kinds of bugs are exposed more often by the 64-bit big endian nature of UltraSPARC.
https://www.openbsd.org/want.html It is important to spread sparc64 around the development community, since it is the most strict platform for detecting non-portable or buggy code.
OpenBSD: alpha, amd64, arm64, armv7, hppa, i386, landisk, loongson, luna88k, macppc, octeon, powerpc64, riscv64, sparc64 (all equally supported except Alpha)
(VAX is discontinued after 6.9)
It’s also lighter weight at its core, which is a big plus for servers.
Really? Busybox is more-or-less feature equivalent to a BSD userland (FreeBSD userland can be a bit more bloated, see the ls man page), but how many people have picked that up? Still using GNU coreutils, haha.
I saw many *BSD developers told Linux kernel developers to hang their work for a while and fix quality problems.
Tell me about how you chose a specific distro because you thought the name was cool or because it ships with some completely unknown utility no one uses.
Alpine Linux: musl, minimal, fast
OpenBSD: correctness, simplicity, easy to use
my experience is that developers have largely made the Linux desktop experience so simple and stable that it works better than any windows machine I’ve used in the past decade
And their user needs blogs and posts from itsfoss, tecmint, ... to instruct them how to use their package manager, even need people to teach them how to type in the search bar(?).
When they switch to BSDs they always complain about "lack of documentation" because they are not willing to read pkg_add(1) nor pkg(8) and they want documentations to give them the ability to copy pkg_add php-8.3.3 php-mysqli-8.3.3 maria mariadb-client mariadb-server.
Doing something as simple as installing Steam is an absolute nightmare.
Because Linux advocators does not expect you to learn yourselves. In 4% of desktops how many Linux enthusiastic (I mean people that can read man pages and figure out the problem themselves and willing to do programming) there are? I don't think it reached 0.5%. And those people would soon switch to BSD, only some who believe in Linux decided to stay and write some great software that gained popularity (when writing this I'm thinking about sbctl but I have never used such software yet)
My point is that Linux devs don’t want a good user experience. They just assume that if you’re using Linux that you’re a software engineer and already know everything.
Wrong. Linux advocators hold your hand and teach you how to install some stuff on debian, how to install some stuff on ubuntu, fedora, how to install centos....
They already did things for you. You are not expected to do "harder" stuff (like programming, configure software with an editor).
But this statement is mostly correct for BSDs, except OpenBSD experience is better, since they have X by default (yeah, NetBSD have X but they don't have SSL certificates in base until 10.0 which is not released; FreeBSD needs you to install X yourselves.). But the general experience on BSDs are much better since their users are much willing to read man pages, unlike "Linux users".
Please explain to me how does this lead to Linux devs are mean
I don't think. But the Linux advocators are very mean so that their user can't figure out things themselves and always want people to help them.
and you need a CS degree to install a browser on Linux.
(the last paragraph is the main content)
YOU REALLY NEED!
If not, why there are so many post on bad quality websites like itsfoss, tecmint, etc.. and they have to taught you to use your package manager! They have to a bunch of apt-get install EEEEEEEEEEEEE dnf install AAAAAAAAAA and sudo .... .... ......
(while I want apk, doas, ...)
They expect Linux users to be a completely brainless person that will do everything they are told. Those Linux users learn things hardly with this background. So a CS degree is required.
Do you see that such Linux user always complain about "lack of documentation" when they "try" BSDs? Even FreeBSD (they have a forum)?? The documentation of programs and software doesn't hold your hand and teach you on installing something. This effectively render such Linux user unusable, hang.
This is why there will never be a “year of the Linux desktop”
They dislike this comment just because of this. This statement is correct.
Linux kernel's code quality is not comparable to any BSD's kernel. GNU userland is not as clean as BSD's userland so Chimera Linux existed.
because it’s developers insist on doing everything “the hard way”
true, true
I'm so lucky that WINE and virtualbox is so hard on "newbie distros" that I would never use windows application on linux.
When I switch to BSD I always read man pages and find the docs to resolve my problems. Never did that on Linux.
In an ideal OS you never have to learn to do things the hard way because the easy way works just as well without starting a new career in Linux programming.
Do you think FreeBSD and OpenBSD already met this requirement :)?
But I don't think you are brave enough to take it up :)
"gnu/Linux nowadays" is unusable on old hardware (except distros like Alpine) I think?
That research is much easier than figuring out what is computer's "stack" without using my first language!
I don't think its power is comparable to research unix :)
Cool. Then many more people would switch from Linux to BSDs instead. Which is better.
Write your own script, arch users :)
"real".
repo.or.cz is lightweight. Codeberg isn't, and it is currently not as fast as github.
You can always fall back to your "zip", anyways. But why don't .tgz?
Now that Arch is so easy to install with the Archscript
Trash. Not true arch user.
Switch to BSD instead, it is easy to use while being better in quality.
Their words shows that they purely depend on people to quote information for them and they are not going to do researches.
Forgot to link a comment on that website: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=158908598913596&w=2
What a lack of documentation. On BSDs we didn't suffer that.
BSD is an operating system. It diverged into FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD.