I use debian stable, xmonad, urxvt, vlc, and mplayer. Everything just works with my setup and never crashes. I can replace xmonad with fluxbox and say the same.
It might not be pretty, but I NEVER EVER have to change anything at all. I can leave it on (and have) for a full year and have no problems.
Of course, with xmonad I have xmobar for the time and current desktop. Nothing else, all that takes up my screen space is windows.
Personally I think it's perfect, and I don't spend time looking at some pretty desktop eye candy anyway. I've used mac before and it's nice, but the window decorations just get in the way.
Want to never have to mess with anything? Get debian stable and a non-gnome window manager. Non-gnome because I've had crashes when gnome was involved even with debian stable.
Personally I think this is just bad press for Linux by the Register and the article has an agenda.
I do not need to tinker with my Linux environment, my family has been using Linux on the desktop for years...
Just because some dev prefers a MAC and seems to be using a terribly broken system with bad package management and dependency issues does not mean the KDE, Gnome, Unity, Lxde, Fluxbox, E17, Openbox or Xfce... to name a few are failures on the desktop.
My E17 setup is vastly superior to any boring OSX environment... and yes it wakes up faster when I open the lid.
If you enjoy understanding how your computer works and enjoy tinkering with it then Linux is likely your dream desktop. I think there are enough people out there like that to make it viable in that capacity.
However, after spending several years in that situation myself, I eventually grew tired of it and just wanted things to work, and keep working, and now I've switched away from Linux on my desktop.
A Linux desktop isn't ever going to be like a Mac, or a Windows machine.
Look at how SLOWLY other desktop systems changed vs. Gnome.
For example, is OS X substantially different now than it was 10 years ago? Not that much - same menu bar, dock, etc.
Similarly, Windows isn't that different since Windows 95 - start "thing", task bar, etc.
Compare this to desktop Unix. You have lots of choices for everything, and things tend not to have a mismatch of interface metaphors, or will change each version. If it's all going to change or be tweaked, nobody has a chance to catch up.
Also, OS X tended to attract people who were using Unix on the desktop very quickly - back the early 2000's your likelyhood of having a PC laptop that would come out of sleep properly when running Linux was very hit or miss. OS X machines (PPC at the time) worked nearly flawlessly. This alone brought so many people over that it isn't even funny.
The weird thing is that Unix tends to be decently consistent on the CLI. Most of the time, a -r will get you recursive behavior, and a -v will get you verbose mode. Not so on the desktop...
I think he's right, for desktops that try to do a lot, or for people who expect their desktops to do a lot. Gnome and Unity and KDE try to do too much, if you want what they're trying to do you might think of Windows or Mac and ssh to a VM or a server. That's fine.
My own view of the linux desktop is just something to give me nicely presented terminals and a very wee bit of eye candy. I use Lubuntu for that. Some urxvt terminal windows, a nice basic graphical browser and imap client, I'm good to go. I don't care if I can watch a movie or not (I can), most of the sound I want plays and never stops working (can't play midi for some reason, meh).
The tool chain he talks about is right here.
I want minimal things on the desktop, and Linux does that, minimal things, really well. Especially with something like Lubuntu or vanilla LXDE, it's a really nice implementation of the screen or tmux idea.
I just switched from ubuntu (after 8years) to macosx (iMac) and I am disappointed. My Mom uses Ubuntu since 4years now btw., even her Canon printer works.
Macs don't just work.
I wanted to sftp into my servers. It took me 3 different tuts to implement a feature linux just have.
The CiscoVPN still not working for me, needs a shared secret, which linux didn't.
And then the finder, wtf? I couldn't believe it - no tabs, no split view - it's 2013 apple.
iCloud is not intertwined with filesystem as Ubuntu One shows - right click files/folders and sync it.
And the keyboard-layout is borderlining ridiculous- let's just make it different than all other established OS do.
Key "End" and "Pos1", instead those 4 (page)up/down keys just seem to jump to absolut end/start.
@-kymbol on L - why? Pipe-symbol, lets just hide that.
I've run Linux exclusively for the last 10 years or more both at home and on work machines. The last 6~7 of that have been various install of Gentoo. I'll admit that I run into issues every so often with a broken upgrade or some other little thing that I need, but overall, I've found that the machine just works when I need it too. Of course, I'm not looking to change things every time I turn around either. Once I have a configuration working smoothly, keeping it that way seems much easier on Linux than just about any other platform I've used, without the Apple walled garden.
Because my last experience with Gentoo was, to be mild, fucking frustrating. And that was on a desktop. I would be very afraid to try to run it on a laptop where thermal tolerances are tighter and battery life is a thing.
This is 2013 - these issues that the author states are very non-existent. I've used Ubuntu (before their switch to Unity and Amazon search) and Linux Mint and am happy with my experiences overall.
What the author misses is that it is unprincipled to use closed ecosystems like Apple since it helps to support them. Vote with your wallet.
Your title is wrong, it's not what he said at all. Why would you write such a sensationalist title? The quote is "To me, the fragmentation of Linux as a platform, ..., were my Three Mile Island/Chernobyl"
What he's saying is as clear as day: these are the issues (catastrophes?) that caused me to leave and not come back.
From TFA: '"To me, the fragmentation of Linux as a platform, the multiple incompatible distros, and the incompatibilities across versions of the same distro were my Three Mile Island/Chernobyl," he writes.'
And its from The Register, known for a certain sense of humor. Title as is from article, minus the caps shouting.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say you are putting up a bait link title. I was indeed referring to the The Register for making something sounds different from what it actually meant.
That aside, I am not familiar with The Register or its sense of humor, but I do feel that the article is filled with hyperbole. I guess I just overreacted because journalism today seems are always filled with way too much spices.
"Linux just never managed to cross the desktop chasm," he concludes [Xamarin CTO Miguel de Icaza]. Surely he doesn't consider Ubuntu a failure on the desktop. Sounds like FUD to me now that he has ramped up his commercial interests.
But he concludes "Linux just never managed to cross the desktop chasm." Direct quote in conclusion. That's a far cry from saying Ubuntu is not as easy to use as a Mac.
Ubuntu is starting to get really nice for installing and it just working. I install LXDE after installed Ubuntu, then get back to work.
I've been running Ubuntu almost primarily since the start of 2006, with it being my main OS for over a year now. I have found Ubuntu to be perfect for my needs..
How do OSX manages to make make external sound devices or cameras work out of the box by the way ? i'm a musician and it is always a pain to install a new sound card on Windows , on Mac , you just plug it and it works...
OSX has a very narrow band of hardware and peripherals to worry about supporting, so they can afford to spend person-hours on device drivers and compatibility layers.
This is so true. GNOME came a long way for Linux, as did Ubuntu and Canonical.
But there are so many times when you suddenly hit a wall and are immediately reminded of that time you installed something you really wanted/badly needed in a few minutes...as opposed to an hour (or more). I'll admit it, I started to even miss Windows at one point. But I still use Ubuntu and before that, Debian.
It's truly a beautiful system for understanding what's "under the hood" - but it's nowhere near accessible to the average user. I think every programmer should know how to work his way around at least one Linux distro though. In terms of programming (and server) functionality nothing else compares.
The bottom line is, while I've always enjoyed hacking on Linux the most for its freedom, it's infuriating to try to debug your own code when your computer is having its own issues. Sometimes you just want things to work. And macs just work.
But the programs in mac suck - consider xcode (or x-crap). Random crashes, a stupid paranoid public-private key environment (for iphone dev and the horrors of code signing), groups that don't 1-on-1 map to source folders, etc.
Also finder sucks compared to windows explorer. :)
It might not be pretty, but I NEVER EVER have to change anything at all. I can leave it on (and have) for a full year and have no problems.
Of course, with xmonad I have xmobar for the time and current desktop. Nothing else, all that takes up my screen space is windows.
Personally I think it's perfect, and I don't spend time looking at some pretty desktop eye candy anyway. I've used mac before and it's nice, but the window decorations just get in the way.
Want to never have to mess with anything? Get debian stable and a non-gnome window manager. Non-gnome because I've had crashes when gnome was involved even with debian stable.