Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

On 2019-09-14 9:34 a.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Rabid Rogue
wrote:


That's an unfair question. To be honest, Linux plays more video formats
out of the box than any other operating system even if VLC isn't
pre-installed.

no it definitely does not.

This is a clear lie on your part and I imagine that it comes from your
general and habitual ignorance. Install Linux Mint and it will play
everything; install something like Trisquel which is fully free and it
might not play everything, but it will install free codecs that will.

it won't play everything.

It won't play Blu-Ray and encrypted DVD (though that's very easy to
remedy), that's about it. However, Windows won't play those two media
types either.

it won't play more than just those, and physical media isn't the issue
anyway.

Feel free to let us all know which formats Linux Mint won't play out of
the box then. Otherwise, your claim is worthless.

platforms used for creating video, namely mac and windows, have the
widest support of formats for obvious reasons.

Only after software and codecs have been purchased and installed. Once
again, I'm talking about the OUT OF THE BOX experience.

yep, out of the box, and one of many reasons why creative professionals
choose windows and particularly mac over linux.

It's funny that you should say that because my h.264 and h.265-encoded
videos didn't play in Windows 10 when I first loaded them. Why do you
think that is, friend?

If what you're claiming were true, there would be no reason for people
to download things like the K-Lite Codec Pack.

If it doesn't play the video, it gives you the option to
install the codec which WILL play it.

so much for more video formats, and that's the same for other oses.

Windows 10 will not play h.265 out of the box unless you _purchase_ the
codec but I imagine you didn't know that.

what you clearly do *not* know is that macs have h.265 support in the
os itself and can play *and* encode h.265 out of the box without any
additional software, and third party apps do not need to do anything
special either.

There are lesser-known and lesser-used codecs that Mac OS will not run
out of the box.

not as many as on other platforms.

Feel free to name them.

If it includes h.265 support, that's great since it's
very popular as a result of its tiny file size and excellent quality
(identical to h.264 as far as I can tell). However, will your beloved
play the obscure file encoded in Theora the way that Linux will
successfully do? I doubt it.

obscure enough that nobody cares.

It was the first fully free codec and videos of early movies made
available on the Internet once their copyrights ran out were encoded in
that format. Obscure for you, but well known to people who like Laurel
and Hardy.

You can download VLC and get
the same functionality but that applies to Linux as well. Even without
VLC though, the bundled video players like Dragon or Totem will
automatically download the codecs whereas something like Movies & TV or
Windows Media Player will only play sound and fart when it comes to
playing the video.

no need for vlc, and needing to download a codec means it *doesn't*
play everything.

Install Linux Mint and you will play every imaginable video _without_
needing to install a codec. I only clarified my statement in case
someone bothered to mention that Fedora, Trisquel, PureOS or OpenSuse
doesn't play everything out of the box.

not true.

https://www.infoworld.com/article/30...ont-include-mu
ltimedia-codecs.html
Linux Mint is one of the most popular desktop distributions around.
And one of its most appealing features was that it shipped with
multimedia codecs. But that practice will end with Linux Mint 18,
and users will have to install the codecs themselves.

Ah, a recent change. Good to know.

--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue

On 2019-09-14 9:34 a.m., nospam wrote:
In article , F. Russell
wrote:


GNU/Linux relies basically on ffmpeg or libav for video
compression/decompression,
and each contains every codec "out of the box."

Because of patent concerns, however, some distros may omit some
codecs but others may not.

But GNU/Linux is able, out of the box, to handle it all.

not all, and since it's ffmpeg and libav, not that well.

ffmpeg 1.0 handles everything beautifully. I'm not sure where you're
getting the impression that it doesn't.


--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue

On Sep 12, 2019, Mr. Hand wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 12:03:32 -0500,
wrote:

Mr. Hand wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux

And there are many others.
How you can deny this is laughable.

You focus only on those who are critical.

No.
I made a statement that you claim was untrue.
I offered proof.
You offered insults.

There are also those who praise the community.

Of course there are.
Who said otherwise.
You are now moving the goal posts after you snipped what I've said.

There are billions of people who have benefitted from the community's
efforts.

Of course.
Goal post move again.

What is "laughable" is that you think that you can present only "one
side of the story" and arrive at the truth.

No.
What is laughable is how you lashed out and attacked me while I
provided data for my claims and you snip and then try to move the goal
posts.

Even if there was, the vast majority of people would be unaware of it.

They become aware the first time they enter the typical Linux group
and get told to RTFM.

Although trolls with bad attitudes will claim otherwise, that normally
does not happen. Almost always, people who are respectful get treated
with respect.

There is a reason for the bad reputation of the Linux community.
And it's easy to Google examples, I provided some, you snipped the
data.

Micro$oft has a bad reputation, and it hasn't harmed them.

I'm talking about the community not a company.

On what basis would you claim that reputations are less important to
companies than they are to communities?

The fact that Linux doesn't have a company, maybe?
I thought that would be obvious.

So, people like you for example as you prove my points rather
succinctly.

Now you have resorted to lying.

Your snipping, goal post moving and straw man building along with your
personal attacks on me proves my points rather well.

Do you, by chance, also go by the name of "Mayayana"? He also likes
to launch insulting attacks, and then, when people object, claim that
his "point was proven".

I'm not Mayayana, and you are resorting to lying.
I didn't attack anyone, you did.
You attacked me.

As an example, ask some random person about Linux and you will
certainly encounter some people who still believe Linux is a text
based system needing a command line to run.
Sad but true.

Neither sad nor true.

It is true.

Nope. It's pulled from your rear end.

See. You attack.

I will provide evidence of my claim right here. You will snip it, move
the goal posts and continue to attack me though but I will post it
anyway.

And again, this is but a single example. Google is filled with others.

https://itsfoss.com/myths-about-linux/

"You are he Home / List / 5 Myths About Linux That Scares Away New
Users
5 Myths About Linux That Scares Away New Users
Last updated March 4, 2019 By Abhishek Prakash 94 Comments

Myths about Linux debunked
Are there really myths about Linux? I mean there are plenty of facts
about Linux and how powerful and secure it is that the entire tech
world is relying on it.

Yes, the world relies on Linux to power its technologies but we are
not talking about the ‘industrial Linux’. We are talking the desktop
Linux. The Linux that a normal user should be using as its daily
driver for surfing web, for document editing, listening to music and
casual gaming.

When it comes to the desktop version, there are actually some famous
myths about Linux and if one believes them, he/she will be very
reluctant to use Linux.

5 myths about Linux that you shouldn’t believe

In this article, I will bust these myths about Linux. I am not going
to trick you in switching to Linux by lying, I’ll counter these rumors
with facts, the best way to do it.

Myth 1: Linux is very difficult to use
Myth about Linux: It's difficult to use
If you think Linux is difficult to use, let me ask you this. When you
used a computer for the very first time, how did you feel?

The answer would be that you just didn’t know how to navigate or use
the operating system (Windows, I presume). Creating new files,
installing software, troubleshooting issues, everything seems
complicated at beginning. But did you quit it at that point?

No, you kept using it and gradually, you get comfortable with it.
Linux is no different. Things might seem a little complicated in the
beginning but give it enough time before being judgemental.

Still not convinced? Okay! You do know that Apple’s macOS is a popular
desktop operating system. But have you ever tried to use macOS?

macOS is as much confusing in the beginning as Linux. You will have a
hard time figuring out how to navigate to files, folders. Installing
new software in macOS is another challenge when you just don’t know
how to do it.

Linux is no different. Perhaps it gives so many options that it
overwhelms a newcomer but this doesn’t mean it is difficult to use
Linux.

Myth 2: You need to know commands to use Linux
Myth about Linux: You need to know commands
This is another myth that scares a new user. Using command line for an
operating system? That could be a nightmare for many.

Linux has a powerful command line interface, there is no doubt about
it. In fact, you can use Linux entirely in the command line.

But this is not what you have to do while using desktop Linux. If you
know a few commands, it will help you troubleshoot issues you may
encounter (like in any other operating system). But you don’t have to
know commands or become a command line ninja for that.

Most beginner friendly Linux distributions provide a complete
graphical interface. You might never need to use the command line.

At worst, if you find some issue or if you are trying to install
software in Linux, you might come across commands suggested by people
on the internet.

Using those commands is very simple. Open a terminal and copy-paste
the commands.

However, basic knowledge of Linux commands will help you at this point
to avoid using dangerous Linux commands that might harm your system.
Linux command line is like a very sharp knife. You can do wonder with
it but you can also cut yourself. It depends on how you handle the
knife.

To sum it up, use a Windows like Linux distribution that will have
almost no requirement to use the command line."

Try it yourself.

How about you prove your ridiculous claim.

So you can snip it like you did my other claims?
I just did.

The vast majority would have no idea. Those who had an idea would not
be assuming what you claim. If anyone, at all, thinks that Linux is a
"GUI-less operating system", they are a tiny, insignificant number of
people.

While it is true most people may not even know about Linux, from the
ones that do, many still believe it's a CLI system for geeks.

Nonsense.

See above.

I strongly suspect you will soon be resorting to your usual "snipped
unread" routine as you have once again been out debated.

If you don’t like Linux there is a simple solution. Don’t use it. Don’t
go to groups that do and waste your day talking about that which you do not
use. If the community is so bad, just leave and go to a community you like.
There is no need for you here.

--
Beedle

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 16:07:00 +0000, Melzzzzz wrote:

Linux does not compete as it does not belong to anyone. Linux is for all
people that can appretitate freedom...


Linux now belongs to RedHat/Poettering because the distros gave
it to them.

GNOME, and soon a lot more things, will not function without
systemd.

Linux is much less free than it used to be before systemd.

On 2019-09-14, F Russell wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 16:07:00 +0000, Melzzzzz wrote:

Linux does not compete as it does not belong to anyone. Linux is for all
people that can appretitate freedom...


Linux now belongs to RedHat/Poettering because the distros gave
it to them.

GNOME, and soon a lot more things, will not function without
systemd.

Linux is much less free than it used to be before systemd.

You mean desktop Linux?



--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ni�emu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala

T wrote:
[...]
What a crock.

The user does not give a s*** what OS he is using. He
only cares if his programs work. And Windows owns
the program base. From the user's point of view, if
his QuickBooks and his Turbotax does not work, then
the OS does not work. He does not care why. Here is
a quarter. Go tell it to some who cares.

It's not only "Windows own the programs base", but that if you buy any
additional hardware, that hardware *will* come with Windows software/
support, it *might* come with Mac software/support and only if you're
very, very lucky, it might come with some - often limited - Linux
software/support.

FYI, I've been - mostly professionally - supporting, managing and
using (real) UNIX systems for three decades, but for my private/
personal/whatever use, Windows is the only realistic choice, because
it runs the software and hardware I need/want [1]. (And I use Cygwin to
still feel at home.)

Yes, I could of course use Linux for web-browsing, e-mail, (basic)
printing, storage, etc., but while that may be sufficient for Joe
Average (who will be using Windows anyway), it's not enough - by a long
shot - for people like me/'us'

But the Linux folks will be pleased to hear that this post is composed
by vi[m](1) and posted by tin(1), a CUI newsreader of (mainly) Unix
heritage! :-)

Linux's desktop have come into their own. There
are several that are very well done and much better
than Windows 10. Linux need to concentrate on taking
over the install base of software.

Linux is technically superior to Windows but it
does not matter. Windows runs all the software.

Exactly.

[1] At one time I tried a Linux system, but Linux did not support the
hardware I needed (USB 2G/3G modem and USB DVB-T tuner).

And I indeed encountered the obnoxious and pompous attitude of some of
the 'Linux community' that was mentioned in this thread.

Their 'helpful' comments ranged from saying I bought the 'wrong'
hardware (Uhhh? 'wrong'? It came with Windows support and *worked* in
Windows! Wasn't Linux 'superior' to Windows? So it's 'superior, but
doesn't work!? Makes perfect sense! NOT!) to claiming that Linux *did*
support my hardware, while the Linux driver documentation clearly did
*not* mention the chipsets which were *actually* in my device, i.e. it
*could not* work.

Getting such comments from clowns which were still in diapers - if that
much - when I was coding (very) low-level utility/OS/driver code, was
rather unimpressive.

So yes, part of 'the Linux community' *is* Linux worst enemy. IME, and
as demonstrated by some posters in this thread, it's even a rather large
- but at least rather vocal - part of 'the Linux community'.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 20:30:12 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:


FYI, I've been - mostly professionally - supporting, managing and
using (real) UNIX systems for three decades, but for my private/
personal/whatever use, Windows is the only realistic choice,


You are an antiquated "has been" of a bygone generation.

Beat it, grandpa. Go shopping for a funeral casket.

GNU/Linux has been king of the hill for many, many years now
but your decrepit, semi-comatose brain has been unable to fathom
that basic fact.

Micro$oft Windoze has no excuse for existence. It is being kept
alive by totally incompetent and crippled idiots like you.

When it comes to TRUE and COMPREHENSIVE superiority, it is all
inherent in the designation of GNU/Linux.

Now go and change your oxygen bottle.

Asshole idiot.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:02:26 -0400, TheRealFlatfish wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 08:59:05 -0700, Snit wrote:

On 9/13/19 11:58 PM, T wrote:
On 9/13/19 9:40 PM, Snit wrote:
And even basic word processing, spread sheets, and the like. Apple's
Pages and Numbers, for example, are really good. I have been using
Google Docs recently and am surprised how much is "missing" -- and
the AppleÂ*onesÂ*haveÂ*nativeÂ*apps.

I have a customer that adores them too.Â* Safari sucks, but you can run
Firefox and Brave, so does not matter.

I mostly use Safari -- but there are some sites which work better with
Chrome. One of the things I like about Safari is the "Develop" menu
which has built in Open Page With [List of Browsers].

You an also run Libre Office, but those knuckleheads don't seem to
care about intuitive ease of use.Â* I can't get anyone to (keep)
use(ing) it.

I have moved a few clients to it through the years -- one who was using
old Word Perfect files and needed a way to read them. LO does a pretty
good job there. Others just want a way to open MS Office docs. My dad
is actually like that, though his needs are very light. He rarely
authors documents but when he gets an MS Office document he can usually
read it.

Current MS Office allows you to read for free -- so I suppose I could
move him to that, but just never been worth it.

But for small business, there always seems to be at least one or more
killer app that does Linux and Apple in.

In many cases true... though I know a number of small businesses that
run on Macs. My dentist does, for example. He is very much a Mac
die-hard. My optometrist used to run on Linux but moved to Windows.

All the Apple shops I have seen, use both Apple and Windows together.Â*
They proudly call themselves Apple shops, but they are not. They are
hybrid shops.Â* Which is okay.Â* It is what works for your business.

Right. Just like until not long ago I was a hybrid house -- my media
machine ran on Linux.

When I ran schools I actively worked to get Mac, Windows, and Linux so
students could be exposed to all three.

By the way, who came up with the bright idea to run Point of Sales
machines that take credit card ON WINDOWS!
You want (credit card) security, DON'T USE WINDOWS !!!!

Pretty much.

When I was recently in the hospital it was all Macs and iPads. I have no
idea what the back end was but the doctors, nurses and technicians all
carried iPads with them.
It was the same thing when I was in physical therapy.

Too bad you didn't die, ****tard.

On 9/14/19 5:56 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
T wrote:

Quick books is still flaky.Â* What the customer sees is Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* great.
^^^^^^^^^
In the blank is the word "sorta" ?

What is in the back end, well, I am not suppose
to cuss.

Flaky is a frigg'n understatement. Not too bad if you have it running as
a standalone single-system setup, but a multi-user to server setup is
pure garbage. Since there are so many new web-based options that even
Intuit is transitioning toward for small business which is OS agnostic
the MUST have Windows client is not so mandatory.


You hit the nail on that head!

In article , Rabid Rogue
wrote:

GNU/Linux relies basically on ffmpeg or libav for video
compression/decompression,
and each contains every codec "out of the box."

Because of patent concerns, however, some distros may omit some
codecs but others may not.

But GNU/Linux is able, out of the box, to handle it all.

not all, and since it's ffmpeg and libav, not that well.

ffmpeg 1.0 handles everything beautifully. I'm not sure where you're
getting the impression that it doesn't.

from having used it and other tools.

In article , Rabid Rogue
wrote:

platforms used for creating video, namely mac and windows, have the
widest support of formats for obvious reasons.

Only after software and codecs have been purchased and installed. Once
again, I'm talking about the OUT OF THE BOX experience.

yep, out of the box, and one of many reasons why creative professionals
choose windows and particularly mac over linux.

It's funny that you should say that because my h.264 and h.265-encoded
videos didn't play in Windows 10 when I first loaded them. Why do you
think that is, friend?

i have no idea what you did or didn't do, but there are no issues here
playing h.264 on a standard win10 install without anything extra having
been installed, app or codec. the movie icons in explorer are even the
movie poster frame instead of a generic icon. however, h.265 is audio
only.

macs will play both of those out of the box, with recent macs decoding
via hardware, for faster frame rates and also conserving battery.

If what you're claiming were true, there would be no reason for people
to download things like the K-Lite Codec Pack.

people download all sorts of things they don't actually need.



If it includes h.265 support, that's great since it's
very popular as a result of its tiny file size and excellent quality
(identical to h.264 as far as I can tell). However, will your beloved
play the obscure file encoded in Theora the way that Linux will
successfully do? I doubt it.

obscure enough that nobody cares.

It was the first fully free codec and videos of early movies made
available on the Internet once their copyrights ran out were encoded in
that format. Obscure for you, but well known to people who like Laurel
and Hardy.

obscure for everyone.

the amount of content available in theora is not even a roundoff error.


Install Linux Mint and you will play every imaginable video _without_
needing to install a codec. I only clarified my statement in case
someone bothered to mention that Fedora, Trisquel, PureOS or OpenSuse
doesn't play everything out of the box.

not true.

https://www.infoworld.com/article/30...ont-include-mu
ltimedia-codecs.html
Linux Mint is one of the most popular desktop distributions around.
And one of its most appealing features was that it shipped with
multimedia codecs. But that practice will end with Linux Mint 18,
and users will have to install the codecs themselves.

Ah, a recent change. Good to know.

thereby disproving your claim that it plays everything.

On 2019-09-14, Frank Slootweg wrote:
T wrote:
[...]
What a crock.

The user does not give a s*** what OS he is using. He
only cares if his programs work. And Windows owns
the program base. From the user's point of view, if
his QuickBooks and his Turbotax does not work, then
the OS does not work. He does not care why. Here is
a quarter. Go tell it to some who cares.

It's not only "Windows own the programs base", but that if you buy any
additional hardware, that hardware *will* come with Windows software/
support, it *might* come with Mac software/support and only if you're
very, very lucky, it might come with some - often limited - Linux
software/support.

That is why one have to examine if there is Linux support or not.
Puzzingly I bought genius mouse and now can't control DPI and see
battery level ;(

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ni�emu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala

On 2019-09-14 4:56 p.m., F Russell wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 20:30:12 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:


FYI, I've been - mostly professionally - supporting, managing and
using (real) UNIX systems for three decades, but for my private/
personal/whatever use, Windows is the only realistic choice,


You are an antiquated "has been" of a bygone generation.

Beat it, grandpa. Go shopping for a funeral casket.

GNU/Linux has been king of the hill for many, many years now
but your decrepit, semi-comatose brain has been unable to fathom
that basic fact.

Micro$oft Windoze has no excuse for existence. It is being kept
alive by totally incompetent and crippled idiots like you.

When it comes to TRUE and COMPREHENSIVE superiority, it is all
inherent in the designation of GNU/Linux.

Now go and change your oxygen bottle.

Asshole idiot.

Ladies and gentlemen, your typical Linux advocate.


--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue

On 2019-09-14 9:46 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Rabid Rogue
wrote:

GNU/Linux relies basically on ffmpeg or libav for video
compression/decompression,
and each contains every codec "out of the box."

Because of patent concerns, however, some distros may omit some
codecs but others may not.

But GNU/Linux is able, out of the box, to handle it all.

not all, and since it's ffmpeg and libav, not that well.

ffmpeg 1.0 handles everything beautifully. I'm not sure where you're
getting the impression that it doesn't.

from having used it and other tools.

Considering how often you're wrong. I truly doubt that you've ever
loaded it up.


--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue

On 2019-09-14 9:46 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Rabid Rogue
wrote:

platforms used for creating video, namely mac and windows, have the
widest support of formats for obvious reasons.

Only after software and codecs have been purchased and installed. Once
again, I'm talking about the OUT OF THE BOX experience.

yep, out of the box, and one of many reasons why creative professionals
choose windows and particularly mac over linux.

It's funny that you should say that because my h.264 and h.265-encoded
videos didn't play in Windows 10 when I first loaded them. Why do you
think that is, friend?

i have no idea what you did or didn't do, but there are no issues here
playing h.264 on a standard win10 install without anything extra having
been installed, app or codec. the movie icons in explorer are even the
movie poster frame instead of a generic icon. however, h.265 is audio
only.

So if Windows 10 doesn't play HEVC (h.265) content out of the box, you
can hardly say that it does better than Linux which includes support for
it in ffmpeg.

macs will play both of those out of the box, with recent macs decoding
via hardware, for faster frame rates and also conserving battery.

Macs are toys to me so I don't really care what they do or don't do.
However, it seems that since MacOS Sierra, h.265 support is indeed
included and hardware accelerated on some of their devices.

If what you're claiming were true, there would be no reason for people
to download things like the K-Lite Codec Pack.

people download all sorts of things they don't actually need.

It must be needed for it to still have that many downloads.

If it includes h.265 support, that's great since it's
very popular as a result of its tiny file size and excellent quality
(identical to h.264 as far as I can tell). However, will your beloved
play the obscure file encoded in Theora the way that Linux will
successfully do? I doubt it.

obscure enough that nobody cares.

It was the first fully free codec and videos of early movies made
available on the Internet once their copyrights ran out were encoded in
that format. Obscure for you, but well known to people who like Laurel
and Hardy.

obscure for everyone.

the amount of content available in theora is not even a roundoff error.

Irrelevant. Macs don't play Theora content out of the box but Windows 10
does. Score one for Windows 10 and Linux.

Install Linux Mint and you will play every imaginable video _without_
needing to install a codec. I only clarified my statement in case
someone bothered to mention that Fedora, Trisquel, PureOS or OpenSuse
doesn't play everything out of the box.

not true.

https://www.infoworld.com/article/30...ont-include-mu
ltimedia-codecs.html
Linux Mint is one of the most popular desktop distributions around.
And one of its most appealing features was that it shipped with
multimedia codecs. But that practice will end with Linux Mint 18,
and users will have to install the codecs themselves.

Ah, a recent change. Good to know.

thereby disproving your claim that it plays everything.

Yes, because we all know that Linux Mint is the only distribution on the
planet.

--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue