The Linux desktop is self-destructive

Every time this topic comes up, I think of this blog post: https://blogs.gnome.org/tbernard/2019/12/04/there-is-no-linu...

This is accurate. The Linux desktop is an experimental success that persists with major flaws. If it wasn't, 99% of us would be using it instead of Windows and macOS.

AppImage are perhaps that only thing working OOTB like windows/Mac programs, and other container formats don't come close. Everything else is dependent on right configuration, correct versioning and lots of "magic" settings that need to be set to make something functional. Depending on correct glibc, dependencies being installed with the right settings, environment variables,makefiles being compatible with what your system has,having the right kernel version, etc.

My current gut idea is that all of these discussions are woefully incomplete without "following the money" (and or power?)

For example, I don't think you can adequately explain GNOME's "popularity" without taking into account inertia from Red Hat and other companies, given how much it arguably sucks, and un-arguably doesn't play nice with other stuff.

A little correction. According to https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide..., the market share of linux is ~4% and not 0.5%

I'm hoping Chromebook will win the Linux Desktop wars. I'm not sure what it's future is, but right now with Wayland, running on GNU, running on Linux characterising it as yet another variant of KDE / Gnome / Xfce or whatever doesn't seem too outlandish. It runs Debian GUI packages just fine - for example Mozilla says to run Firefox on Chromebook you just install the Debian package. All the other Debian packages I've installed like vim and LibreOffice just worked too. It's pretty seemless as any Linux GUI app you install just appear in your startup folder just like native Chromebook apps do. It's fast, as in native fast, because it's an LXD container.

Google's control of the platform is almost Apple like. All the hardware has to work, the manufacturer has to supply 8 years of updates, and the battery has to last 10 hours. Compatibility issues vanish because in effect it's like buying a windows laptop or macbook. You're guaranteed the kernel can drive the hardware.

Security wise it's on par with a phone, which means it's better than any desktop OS (Windows, MacOS, and the traditional Linux), which for me is a major plus.

The downside is hardware availability. If you are a student who only needs 4G RAM and 64GB SSD, you're very well catered for. You can get something amazingly cheap that's build like a truck and has a waterproof keyboard. But finding something with 16GB or more of RAM and 256GB+ SSD is like searching for hens teeth. Here's hoping that will improve.

Clearly the open source funding model is broken and companies keep pushing experiments into projects, or trying to insert themselves into the ecosystem

Most OSS developers are not well compensated, and get frustrated

Also does not help that people are prone to jump into the hypes, like Wayland, clearly a worse experience for most users

Generated hundreds of thousands of bugs, for application developers, package/distro maintainers, and end users to try solve it. Pressure putting everyone on edge. I am sure many people will probably get PTSD after this

We don't need unbounded advancement. We need something that retains the core ideas of OSS and moral integrity of people involved . What we're seeing now is what it should look like. We don't need open source MSFT or Apple with their ever advancing progress into exploitation of all the low hanging fruit.

None of the other comments have anything to do with the article. Here's the context: https://drewdevault.com/2023/09/17/Hyprland-toxicity.html

I'm glad it's niche. Prevents idiots from ruining it with their "improvements".