Your comment here is pretty typical of a medium grade HN response. That is to say:

* Thorough and well thought through. Well written (unlike, say, Reddit)

* Polite, doesn't attack the person you're responding to or represent their position as ridiculous

However

* Entirely rooted in personal experience and often missing the broader point or use case being described in OP.

In this case I can see that you're describing why you yourself are negative on the Linux desktop (which is on topic), but responses like this miss the context of Steam Deck, Proton and imply that the issues found are never going to improve, to the point you are writing off the whole concept of a Linux platform for all use cases.

On HN this seems to appear a lot and is used very often to stifle tangential discussions. A thread about how many games now run on Proton will have at least one and likely many people writing a list of all the technical issues they've had with Linux recently and then either explicitly or implicitly saying that as a result Linux is not ready or not suitable for case stated in the article.

But steam deck is not a desktop - it's a console.

Linux on the desktop usually means a Windows replacement - historically, and the most relevant meaning to me personally.

The reason I'm not hopeful things will improve is same as always - not enough critical mass to get the momentum going. I was buying a PCIe wifi card a few months ago and wanted to check support for Linux in case I try again. There were zero options locally where I could reliably determine that onboard BT would work, and there were like 5 modern cards available.

I just don't see what commercial entity is going to push Linux desktop development ? Linux server is mostly a result of big players working together to commoditize the OS, scaling with commercial os on the backed would get prohibitively expensive immediately. Don't see where the desktop push will come from.

Deck seems like a desktop to me. Has x86 hardware, all the same ports as the venerable Macbook Pro (lmao) and a nice beefy GPU built-into the machine. If the machine ships with KDE installed and accessible in the settings, I think it's safe to call it a desktop.

The Steam Deck is a full PC that boots into a console UI. You can switch it into desktop mode which uses KDE - a very popular desktop environment.

You can dock the Stem Deck using a USB-C hub to connect to a monitor, keyboard and mouse. This is a use case that is supported by Valve and Valve sells a first party docking station to facilitate this.

There have been multiple people citing on the Steam Deck subreddit that they regularly use the Steam Deck in this way and a few even saying they use it as their daily driver.

It's a laptop in a handheld form factor. That is all.

idk looks pretty desktop-y to me: https://youtu.be/PxLB5khCmGo?t=422

I'm not into consoles but if I were, that video would encourage me to get the steam deck.

It looks like you edited your comment to expand, so I'll address the new points separately.

I think the first thing to note is going back to my OP in that I simply don't understand why people like yourself will go to such lengths to argue against Linux desktop, citing all the issues you've had with it when I don't see this kind of kick back against any other technology or even any other concept more widely. If people don't like something or don't think it'll work they'll either ignore the thread or post a much shorter response expressing doubts. I think the only thing that I saw get to a similar stage was crypto, but it seems like the crypto community split off into their own little world whereas the Linux communities still stay in a fairly close orbit to technical circles.

I think secondly this speaks to another comment I made elsewhere where the counter-arguments for Linux desktop are firmly rooted in personal experience. Here you're also explicitly saying that the issues you're having you don't think are going to improve.

But Linux had improved. It's improved massively in the last 5-10 years. 2 years ago I couldn't play Apex Legends. 5 years ago I couldn't play Direct X games without a lot of effort. 10 years ago I couldn't get YouTube or Netflix.

Things are improving and whilst your personal opinion may still be that Linux still won't be viable, the sheer number of people that comment in a similar vain means that there is a negative smog around Linux that stops or discourages more positive discussion.

The only reason I'm adding negative feedback is because every time I read optimistic feedback on forums I get hopeful and try it - only to get hit by a cold shower. I'll try again - I see that Fedora dropped a new release, but I suspect I'll get similar results.

So I'm not against Linux desktop - I'm just saying the people singing it's praises probably have different expectations from me so I'm trying to add another viewpoint (because it's always subjective experiences in these threads - I can't remember reading statistics about hardware coverage and similar news)

Most people never mention the hardware issue in regards to installing a successful Linux desktop. The expectation that all hardware combinations will just work is a little bit optimistic. I've run Linux desktops ever since X11 was available, but I always research the hardware aspect prior to installing a distribution and have always had a good experience (not perfect, but good).

> ever since I've built my 5900x desktop last summer

As someone who’s been using Ubuntu exclusively since 2008, this comment is bizarre. The pain point with pcs has always been compatibility and driver support. The Microsoft miracle was ubiquitous vendor support they enforced with their monopoly. Apple handles this by tightly controlling hardware and peripherals. Linux being the odd man out has always suffered.

The result of this dynamic has always been that Linux is best on previous generation hardware. So the question for the parent is; did you check support for the components used in your custom build? By explaining the history, I hope this question is received in a non hostile manner by the reader.

Maybe this advice or reality is lost today I don’t know. I find it to be annoying that many don’t know. Related to the way many dismiss the Linux desktop because they can’t use photoshop or application of choice; when cross platform apps have always been the exception.

How hard is it to build a working hackintosh system compared to making a useful Linux install? I've tried Linux a few times over the years (including last year), and every time had to dig deep into terminal commands, tutorials and config files to make basic OS functionality work. If that's what you have to do, maybe it's less of a hassle to build/install a hackintosh system.

This is so alien to me.

I've got linux on half a dozen machines around the house, and all I do to install is decide whether to use ubuntu or debian, then run the install and get a working system spat out in little time.

Hackintoshes require a lot of thought and preparation and things like (for example) nvidia graphics cannot work, and intel wifi is problematic (I see there is an alpha driver now).

What "basic OS functionality" are you talking about that needs terminal commands, tutorials and config files?

> This is so alien to me.

Indeed, it’s FUD as if sent by bots from Balmers time, that are still running, inexplicably.

Re-reading my comment and considering the general tone of the thread, it seems I was making a rhetorical question or suggestion, but I'm genuinely interested in knowing from people with experience if a hackintosh could be a better alternative to Linux. Looking online it seems to be a horrendous process, but there is also a helpful and competent community, great guides, and very detailed hardware suggestions. If I have to waste a couple of days to turn a new machine into a hackintosh and then have it work as normal, that would be a cheaper price to pay than learning programming - which is more or less required to use Linux as a power user. Not even considering all pro software available on Mac that is not available on Linux.

As for the basic OS functionality I couldn't get functioning in Linux Ubuntu when I had to use it for some weeks last year:

1. Installing software: In the Ubuntu App Store, most software just gave an error without details trying to install. You can't download files and open to install like in other systems. You have to mess with installing different repos and then use commands in terminal. But apt-get Firefox doesn't work, it has to be apt-get install Firefox. Or Yum if you're on another distro.

2. Dual displays with different DPI: I had to make some kind of xrander script with a 0.99999999 instead of 1 hack and run it on every boot to make this work.

3. E-Mail: I couldn't find a client that was good enough for my professional needs and had to resolve to using Fastmail in the browser. The same with Calendar apps; all the Linux options were very basic and not good enough for pro use.

4. Keyboard shortcuts are not shared by all apps like in other OSes, very hard to configure. In macOS there's Better Touch Tool that does absolutely everything.

I won't bring up hardware problems, since that can be blamed on the device manufacturer equally as on Linux, but these things above are already deal breakers to me. I tried other distros, but they were worse than Ubuntu to get to work.

Linux is great for server admins and programmers I believe, and I'm sure it's much better than Windows for a grandparent to browse and just use web apps. But there exists many power users and professionals who need a useful computer and are not able to recompile the OS or nano/vim in huge config files to make their system work. I'm one of them, and desktop Linux is not an option in its current state.

MacOS is not perfect, maybe not even great, but it has all basic OS functionality out of the box. If anything is bothering me or I need special functionality there is always well-polished software available to easily install to solve any problem. Sometimes free, and sometimes for a cheap price. Among many programmers and Linux enthusiasts it seems to be a crime against humanity to pay for software, something I never understood. If I can pay $10 to buy an app that fixes my problem, why would I waste my time recompiling and tinkering, dredging through dense Linux forums? Add to this all the incredible productivity software that can be bought in MacOS for a cheap price.

So that makes me wonder if Hackintosh is not a better option for power users who are not programmers?

> In the Ubuntu App Store, most software just gave an error without details trying to install.

That does sound like an issue. I don't think it's a common one though. I can't say I've had that problem with any of my Ubuntu installs. When was this?

> You can't download files and open to install like in other systems.

You absolutely can, but you shouldn't, we have repositories that handle those, publish updates etc, and everything is of known provenance. Download-and-double-click is a pretty broken model that encourages people to install compromised crap from god knows where and get their systems owned.

> apt-get Firefox doesn't work, it has to be apt-get install Firefox

Seriously, your complaint is that, in multi-function tool apt-get, you have to type "apt-get install firefox" instead of just "apt-get firefox".

This is not a reasonable complaint. You claim to be a "power user", but an extra word (which distinguishes between install, update and remove tasks for apt) is too much trouble? That doesn't sound very power-usery to me.

> Dual displays with different DPI

Yeah fair enough, this has been a problem area. Nvidia-settings will often do the job or you end up with a script. Wayland allegedly fixes this, but isn't suitable for nvidia users.

IMHO once you have your xrandr script though, you end up with a system that's better than either MS or Apple can manage, which displays things more consistently across your screens.

> E-Mail: I couldn't find a client that was good enough for my professional needs

Who even uses an email client any more? Everything's web based. Are there mail clients that provide more functionality than Thunderbird?

> Keyboard shortcuts are not shared by all apps

It's true, however they are consistent enough these days, especially within an ecosystem like gnome or kde, I barely notice.

> need a useful computer and are not able to recompile the OS > why would I waste my time recompiling and tinkering

Yeah at this point I'm going with the other responder, there's quite a lot of FUD leaking into your post here. The idea that you have to recompile your OS or anything else to get a functional system is around 15 years out of date now and straight out of microsoft's old FUD playbook.

> dredging through dense Linux forums?

Just last week my windows 11 install (I keep it around for gaming) complained that it couldn’t activate a safety feature, memory consistency checking or something, due to outdated drivers. It listed drivers for hardware I no longer owned as being a problem. I ended up on a multi-hour trip down the google rabbit hole to try to fix that because there were no updates to those drivers and the official microsoft line is people should never uninstall any drivers, so they don't provide an interface to do it. Eventually I found some command-line tool, after dredging through a dense windows forum, that MS don't want normal users to know about.

So IMHO, windows is not suitable for the desktop user.

> So that makes me wonder if Hackintosh is not a better option for power users who are not programmers?

The idea that you can run a Hackintosh without messing around even more than a linux install, and without risking total system breakage on every update, is kinda funny.

This is why I felt the need to respond to you - setting up a hackintosh starts as an exercise in finding compatible hardware (because you can't just throw anything at it). Nvidia won't work. AMD cards will work, but you may end up having to do all sorts of odd stuff like device id spoofing (https://www.reddit.com/r/hackintosh/comments/y6yzue/drivers_...)

AFAICT this is the current state of the art guide to setting up a hackintosh - https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Install-Guide/installati...

Note how far you have to get before you even proceed to installation!

I love Macs, and have run hackintoshes in the past, but in general it's not an exercise for someone who's afraid to type the word 'install' in their apt command line to install firefox.

>I can't say I've had that problem with any of my Ubuntu installs. When was this?

This was in 2022 using Ubuntu 20.04 I believe. Like probably many users I was following online tutorials / forums to try to set up my system and maybe I broke something, since it's all copy and pasting terminal commands. Tried to repair/reset but couldn't. I just accepted to use apt-get instead. I needed a working computer every day for my job.

Downloading apps would result in .deb files if I remember right, which would usually not install.

I imagine for a beginner-intermediate Linux user, having to resort to terminal and apt-get command to install software and get started is already too much, unless they have a special interest in Linux. If distro makers insist on terminal use, why not have some mercy and just call the command "install" instead of "apt-get" or "yum"?

Power users are not all programmers or sysadmins, they are also other kind of professionals who use computers effectively for work.

>Who even uses an email client any more?

Millions of people I would believe. The native Mail client in MacOS is really nice and integrates completely with the rest of the system. This saves a ton of time, and to me it's always nicer to use native software. And there are many high quality options to install if I don't like the one that comes in the box.

I haven't used Outlook, but it seems to be very powerful and integrated in the MS Office ecosystem. I know the Linux crowd prefers online clients, and I think it is because native clients are not good enough.

> Yeah at this point I'm going with the other responder, there's quite a lot of FUD leaking into your post here.

I've certainly been down that path where the advice/solution to solve my Linux problems is starting to recompile stuff. My apologies that I don't remember what it was, I believe it was for Bluetooth or sleep to work.

> Just last week my windows 11 install (I keep it around for gaming) complained that it couldn’t activate a safety feature, memory consistency checking or something, due to outdated drivers.

I haven't used Windows for many years, but if things are as they used to be, you can always reinstall Windows to fix it, right? With Linux, reinstalling never improved things for me. With MacOS I could never break the system to the extent that reinstallation would be necessary.

The reason why I'm even here talking about Linux is because Windows is a hopeless case, but why can't Linux devs meet their users half way and make things a little easier? Make some GUIs for common settings and don't throw people into the command line when scratching a little on the surface. Most of users don't want to learn terminal commands, the GUI was invented for normal users.

> The idea that you can run a Hackintosh without messing around even more than a linux install, and without risking total system breakage on every update, is kinda funny.

That's why I'm asking! OS updates would be out of the question on a hackintosh, but after getting an install with all basic OS functionality working would be golden - and could be a better option than Linux for many people. Maybe it could even be a job for people to turn PCs into hackintosh boxes, just like many people here are installing Linux for their grandparents?

> I love Macs, and have run hackintoshes in the past, but in general it's not an exercise for someone who's afraid to type the word 'install' in their apt command line to install firefox.

No need to get stuck on that idea. I'm just wondering if hackintosh would be worth the effort compared to making a well working Linux install, if after that you have an OS with a better user experience and never have the need to mess with it again.

Also to remember is that MacOS is made by a company that for profit reasons is hostile to users trying to install the system on other machines, making the process harder. For Linux there should be no reason making things hard.

So how has your hackintosh experience been? Could you use it as a normal Mac after having gone through the install process? Was there any problem with Apple ID accounts and such? I'm curios to know. Would it have been a computer that you could give to someone else and have them use productively with the caveat "Don't upgrade the OS"?

Edit: One thing I loved with Linux during my recent use was the fantastic looks of the Gnome user interface. Professional and friendly, super consistent. A new gold standard in computer GUIs, superior to MacOS.

> Downloading apps would result in .deb files if I remember right,

You've done something very wrong at that point. Very, very wrong.

> No need to get stuck on that idea. I'm just wondering if hackintosh would be worth the effort compared to making a well working Linux install

Resoundingly no.

Before you fly off on a hackintosh flight of fancy, try actually reading the link I gave you above, it's a massively involved process.

I'm not going to bother going through the rest of your post. The recompilation stuff is many years out of date and there's just so much supposition in there.

> One thing I loved with Linux during my recent use was the fantastic looks of the Gnome user interface. Professional and friendly, super consistent. A new gold standard in computer GUIs

Now I know you're a troll.

> Now I know you're a troll.

Each one to their own. If this is the face and the conduct of the Linux community, then good luck I guess. Why take it as a personal insult that a stranger has a different opinion than you on GUI look and feel? I looked at your link, yes I know it is a complicated process.

I'm not of nor do I represent "the linux community", I'm a multi-os user with no explicit favourite. I called you a troll because your posts read like deliberate trolling to me.

Good luck to you, I'll not engage further.

> rebuilding custom drivers, dealing with upgrade breaking my system

If you compile custom drivers for your operating system, then maybe it breaking at some future upgrade shouldn't come as a great surprise? Presumably you know what you're doing and find these things fun and rewarding in their own right.