That's not right. We all know support for some hardware is spotty and we all have learned to avoid that. My laptops tend to use Intel GPUs, for instance, because I want to work on them, not fix them.
I'm eyeing that new Lenovo thingie with an epaper keyboard, but I know it'll run Windows and probably never be upgraded because nobody will write the drivers to keep that thing alive past Windows 12.
> you have a choice of five different NVidia drivers for the same board, all with different bugs
Stop buying NVidia hardware. They actively sabotage Linux development. AMD is much better in that regard. Buy AMD instead (https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AMD-Hiri...).
> The sheer bloat of Linux has made it unmaintainable.
Nope. It's still moving forward and it's still quite reliable. All my workloads run on it (except my pets that run on FreeBSD and OpenIndiana because I get a kick out of managing different OSs).
> Big chunks of important code are abandonware.
There is a process to move obsolete codebases out of the kernel. That's why you can't use one of those half-IDE CD-ROMs that came with "multimedia kits" of the early 90's.
That's the denial there.
I'm a Linux guy. I post this from a linux distrib.
But realistically, we do have a huge amount of technical debt, and less and less incentive to work on them.
Case in point: every time we touch something to improve it, we break things for one year or two. Pulse audio ? Took 4 years to be stable. Systemd ? 3 years at least. Network manager crashed for 6 good years, and still can't work decently with sleep mode.
We manage to provide features because the linux kernel devs are incredibly competent. They also limited the bloat to a manageable stack on their side. But around that it's the far west.
Though non-intel graphics are still shit on it afaik.
Honestly, it seems to me like what you're complaining about is the nature of FLOSS development i.e. we do it in the open and collect feedback from users rather than spending billions we don't have on focus groups.
Also, I remember early PA days and it certainly did not take 4 years to be usable, but it did took Ubuntu about that time to get it right. That's however a problem of holding Ubuntu as the Linux disto, which is honestly a whole separate rant I could get into.
As for systemd and 3 years, I am honestly not sure what you're talking about. I've been on it since 2012 and it has been mostly smooth sailing since the beginning.
Sadly if you work with Deep Learning buying AMD is a surefire way to make most of the work published by others unusable without serious effort.
I made that mistake... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1562530
If people want linux on the desktop to offer a more polished experience the only way about it is for everyone to put their money where their mouth is.
If "Linux" were a company we would be justified in demanding a fully finished product before buying but free software is a resource that already benefits billions even if they only interact with it via android, or web services.
"As the author points out, regression failures are a big problem. The sheer bloat of Linux has made it unmaintainable. And who wants that job? Big chunks of important code are abandonware."
This seems to be unsupported supposition that we are supposed to take as received wisdom.
Lack of hardware support happens mostly on the other end of the spectrum, with very high-end graphics cards no kernel developer has ever seen from up close and multi-card setups that are essentially unique. I feel sorry for the people who need that but unless hardware manufacturers start to properly document their stuff, make it available to Linux kernel developers and START PAYING MONEY to have drivers developed (like vendors do with Windows) it'll not improve.
You mean people with economical pressure to be profitable ?
As a Linux user, I know I represent a fraction of the market. I'm grateful when people invest in us, because I know it's a great move in principle, but it's not always one money-wise.
Building hardware is HARD. Selling is HARD.
Being dismissive to the people not being able to provide linux support is not going to win them to our cause.
Selling more hardware is usually good for a hardware manufacturer. So is having fewer people returning their equipment because it doesn't work.
> not being able to provide linux support
Most kernel developers would be ecstatic just with proper documentation of the hardware being sold.
It all depends of the ROI. In hardware the economy at scale is at play, and it doesn't go well with niches.
> Most kernel developers would be ecstatic just with proper documentation of the hardware being sold.
I agree. That's mostly a matter of culture. Many companies won't publish docs, because they are either afraid of competition, pirating, or looking stupid.
If people so desire a 'unified experience', you have Windows/macOS. I came to Linux as a refugee from these and am tired of the attempts to pull it in the same direction. Not everything has to be the same, in fact that's a terrible world to live in.
I am also tired of people saying things on Linux are "broken", they aren't any more broken than on macOS/Windows. Granted, you may have to get compatible hardware, which is only fair considering that's what you're doing when purchasing a Win/macOS machine and yet on Linux there's somehow this grand expectation that any random cram HW should just work. You don't expect anything not designed with macOS in mind to work there, so why Linux?
I use macOS at work and experience not so rare kernel panics. There was also just a bug in Premiere blowing up speakers on the MBP, being allowed to log in without a password, APFS logging encryption password in plain text etc. Yet somehow no-one is as strict on that as insisting on Linux somehow 'not working' even as am sitting here being productive on it for over a decade.
Just look at Windows land, where they do have one implementation to rule them all, more or less (Windows 10). Everyone who dislikes its telemetry or almost touch-only interface is either stuck with Windows 7, which won't be an option for much longer, or is stuck venting against Microsoft and grumpily installing hacks like ClassicShell to make things a little more bearable.
When Gnome 3 came up, everyone who liked the new direction kept using it, everyone else moved to Cinnamon or Mate (or XFCE, KDE...)
It's not just about competition, it's about being able to pursue different visions and different objectives.
Users only see this in terms of choice, but there's a great deal of value about it for developers as well.
I find the lack of options to customize GNOME irrelevant - I'm way past the day I cared about the wallpaper or the icons or the colors of the window chrome. I pay attention to what's inside the window, not its border.
The other day I fired up a Solaris 10 VM so I could give Wikipedia a proper Solaris/CDE screenshot and I was surprised it's actually still usable - the terminals are responsive and the rest, oh well... You don't want to use a GUI to copy files, do you?
The latest updates, show there is still work left to do in this area,
https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/monday-25th-february-2019/995...
... is this true? As a long time desktop Linux end user, whatever these lower level issues are, they've not been visible to me in at least a decade.
At the kernel level and close to it, the areas that consistently give trouble are video/GPU support and audio support. GPUs are hard, but there's no excuse for the mess in audio persisting for a decade. Video/GPU support is tough, but the current situation, where you have a choice of five different NVidia drivers for the same board, all with different bugs, is not good.
As the author points out, regression failures are a big problem. The sheer bloat of Linux has made it unmaintainable. And who wants that job? Big chunks of important code are abandonware.