A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 13th 19, 01:19 AM posted to alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Charlie Tuna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

In article ,
says...

On 2019-09-12 5:31 p.m., Charlie Tuna wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Wingnut wrote:
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

Let me know when there's a transcript available; I don't 'do' video
interviews.

That recent Shuttleworth interview on Kubernetes had a transcript.


What's the matter, can't you get Linux to play the video?
Too bad for you.


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


Yea. Now try and get your sound interface to play it.
So how do I get for example a Presonus Quantum to work
with Linux?

Trivial under Windows.

While your at it please tell me how I can, without a
degree in programming, get my Logitec MX Master 2S to
EASILY assign all buttons under Linux.

With Windows it's trivial.

Ads
  #32  
Old September 13th 19, 04:15 AM posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
AnonLinuxUser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

On 9/12/2019 12:29 PM, chrisv wrote:

You've just won the "Golden Shower Award".

LOL!!!

  #34  
Old September 13th 19, 02:04 PM posted to alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rabid Rogue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

On 2019-09-12 8:15 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Rabid Rogue
wrote:

Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

Let me know when there's a transcript available; I don't 'do' video
interviews.

That recent Shuttleworth interview on Kubernetes had a transcript.

What's the matter, can't you get Linux to play the video?
Too bad for you.


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.

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. 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.

--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue
  #35  
Old September 13th 19, 02:23 PM posted to alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rabid Rogue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

On 2019-09-12 11:19 p.m., AnonLinuxUser wrote:
On 9/12/2019 6:13 PM, Rabid Rogue wrote:
On 2019-09-12 5:31 p.m., Charlie Tuna wrote:
In article ,
lid says...

Wingnut wrote:
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

Let me know when there's a transcript available; I don't 'do' video
interviews.

That recent Shuttleworth interview on Kubernetes had a transcript.

What's the matter, can't you get Linux to play the video?
Too bad for you.


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


I've ran into that particular situation, and it never did say what was
wrong or where to get the necessary libs or codecs.
OpenSuse has a one-click install of VLC that does work.


I used OpenSuse a few times and I believe that, out of the box, it only
includes software which is certified to be free. Even though most codecs
now have free versions which work quite well, it's quite possible that
OpenSuse, for some reason, doesn't make them available to the user
unless they add a repository here and there. It's not my favorite
distribution to say the least.


--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue
  #36  
Old September 13th 19, 05:23 PM posted to alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

In article , Rabid Rogue
wrote:

Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

Let me know when there's a transcript available; I don't 'do' video
interviews.

That recent Shuttleworth interview on Kubernetes had a transcript.

What's the matter, can't you get Linux to play the video?
Too bad for you.

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.

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

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.

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.
  #37  
Old September 13th 19, 06:08 PM posted to alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rabid Rogue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

On 2019-09-13 12:23 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Rabid Rogue
wrote:

Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

Let me know when there's a transcript available; I don't 'do' video
interviews.

That recent Shuttleworth interview on Kubernetes had a transcript.

What's the matter, can't you get Linux to play the video?
Too bad for you.

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.
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.

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. 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.

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.

--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue
  #38  
Old September 13th 19, 06:21 PM posted to alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
F. Russell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With MarkShuttleworth

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:08:51 -0400, Rabid Rogue vomited this verbiage that
I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible
reasons:


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.


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.

Furthermore, the FOSS libraries of ffmpeg or libav also power much
of Winblows/Apple software.


  #39  
Old September 13th 19, 06:34 PM posted to alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Steve Carroll[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

On 2019-09-13, F. Russell wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:08:51 -0400, Rabid Rogue vomited this verbiage that
I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible
reasons:


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.


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.

Furthermore, the FOSS libraries of ffmpeg or libav also power much
of Winblows/Apple software.


"In 2011, he created a minimal PC emulator written in pure JavaScript."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrice_Bellard

Recognize the name?

"Original author(s) Fabrice Bellard"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFmpeg#Open_standards


  #40  
Old September 13th 19, 06:45 PM posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Soviet_Mario
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

Il 12/09/19 16:41, Mr. Hand ha scritto:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 23:44:59 -0600, AnonLinuxUser
wrote:

On 9/11/2019 6:51 PM, Rabid Robot wrote:
On 2019-09-11 4:19 p.m., Wingnut McSprocket wrote:
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

https://www.tfir.io/2019/05/15/why-l...p-failed-mark-
shuttleworth/

https://linux.slashdot.org/story/19/.../why-linux-on-
desktop-failed-a-discussion-with-mark-shuttleworth

"Mark Shuttleworth, founder and CEO of Canonical, summed it in a
few words: "I think the bigger challenge has been that we haven't
invented anything in the Linux that was like deeply, powerfully
ahead of its time." He also said that "if in the free software
community we only allow ourselves to talk about things that look
like something that already exists, then we're sort of defining
ourselves as a series of forks and fragmentations." He added that
it seems the desktop Linux people want to be angry at something. We
wanted to do amazing things with Unity but the community won't let
us do it, so here we are. He also commended Google folks for what
they have built for Chrome OS."

I, for one, thought that Unity was pretty good and that some of the
ideas were pretty clever but yeah, the Linux zealots are pretty
resistant to any kind of decent innovation. If it doesn't look like it's
from the 90s or the early 70s, it's not worth using apparently.


McSprocket nym looks more like a snit sock puppet than anything else.
He's used McNuggets from what I recall.


I agree it appears to be a snit sock puppet but in the slim chance
that it's not I will offer my 2 cents.

I think Shuttleworth is right, over the years, desktop Linux hasn't
been able to offer anything substantial to the user experience that
has been better than Windows already offers. At least not for the
typical, non programmer user.
Linux's advantages of cost and source code mean nothing to the average
person ordering a PC via Amazon.

That being said, the biggest obstacle to Linux's acceptance as a
desktop system has been Windows being pre-installed on systems.


not to say that, once preinstalled, Windows tries to prevent
other system to disable its "locks" (safeboot, fastboot,
other complacent, yes not compliant, complacent BIOS
features ) who prevent the non-skilled curious to even
grant a try to linux.
Live CD/DVD experience cannot be compared with the speed and
power and customization of an installed version : so just
trying live versions arouse the sensation of intrinsical
windows superiority.

This is a huge disadvantage for Linux and coupled with the fact that
Windows offers more, again useful to the average user, software, the
user has no motivation to move to Linux.


And moreover, most complacent vendors make void the warranty
if one uninstall windows by force.

but I agree that in some areas expecially professional
windows-related SW park is wider and more mature.



Hardware support, while not as much of a problem now, has definitely
been a problem in the past and stunted Linux growth. Things like


totally agree, with the addendum that "special hardware"
(atypical niche hw, I meet this daily with whiteboards for
school) still suffers from HW producers neglection Linux
while they very promptly disclose their internals to
Microsoft to produce taylored drivers.

also my nokia mobile has a suite that runs only on win

WinModems and WinPrinters, seriously moronic ideas IMHO, torpedoed
Linux during the time frames where they were popular.
Nvidia wasn't always friendly with Linux as well,although that has
obviously changed.

It might be too late though.

I don't believe that fragmentation and multiple distributions have
much of an effect, if any, in Linux adoption.


here I don't agree : i think this is the "mature" point of
wiew of a longstanding linux user.

NOW I'm starting to feel familiar with a variety of distro
more or less and perceive their substantial similitude under
the hood. But in principle it was not so. The sensation was
of great diversity and discomfort.
For a newcomer this diversity in details (he still don't
know they are such) creates indecision. One literally does
not know where to start from (and generally gives a try to
blazoned distro only (Ubuntu family is famous outside)

A free market will sort
itself out and the good will be accepted and the bad will disappear.

The Linux community itself has also been a thorn in Linux's side.
Again over the years and not so much now. Reputations are difficult to
repair.
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.


I skip on thi topic

Sad but true.


Personally, I think Linux has matured and will be fine for the
majority of desktop users who aren't gamers or need specialized
applications.


again the variety is a strong enemy. There are in the FOSS
too many variants, each rather limited, and versatile as a
whole, which need a lot of exploration just to be
discovered, as nobody makes them known out of the official
distro repository.

So to adapt to linux is slow even after years of almost
exclusive use.

And while I like the open source concept and believe it is going to
grow in popularity and ultimately become the de facto system, it's
going to take a while.
The good news is Linux is extremely popular in the server, embedded
device market as well as of course Android etc.


I fear most not the attacks to linux in itself as a family
of technologies, but to the freedom and open concepts : so
attempts to swallow linux world spreading money in the
proper places.





--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
Soviet_Mario - (aka Gatto_Vizzato)
  #41  
Old September 13th 19, 06:57 PM posted to alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rabid Rogue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

On 2019-09-13 1:21 p.m., F. Russell wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:08:51 -0400, Rabid Rogue vomited this verbiage that
I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible
reasons:


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.


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.


I doubt they would anymore. Back when ffmpeg was at 0.10, they had most
of what they needed in that package and relied on proprietary for the
rest. However, they're at 1.0 or higher now and should be able to
support everything without anything additional. The support the current
ffmpeg package contains, as far as I know, is complete and is completely
FOSS.

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

Furthermore, the FOSS libraries of ffmpeg or libav also power much
of Winblows/Apple software.


Exactly and absolutely. We can talk garbage about Linux as a whole
because it has many flaws but some of the stuff it contains, in
comparison to Windows and MacOS, is absolutely marvelous. A whole
open-source operating system is sometimes not the best, but the stuff
inside is worth at least a look.


--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue
  #42  
Old September 13th 19, 07:02 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Commander Kinsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,279
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:07:05 +0100, Rabid Rogue wrote:

On 2019-09-12 10:41 a.m., Mr. Hand wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 23:44:59 -0600, AnonLinuxUser
wrote:

On 9/11/2019 6:51 PM, Rabid Robot wrote:
On 2019-09-11 4:19 p.m., Wingnut McSprocket wrote:
Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

https://www.tfir.io/2019/05/15/why-l...p-failed-mark-
shuttleworth/

https://linux.slashdot.org/story/19/.../why-linux-on-
desktop-failed-a-discussion-with-mark-shuttleworth

"Mark Shuttleworth, founder and CEO of Canonical, summed it in a
few words: "I think the bigger challenge has been that we haven't
invented anything in the Linux that was like deeply, powerfully
ahead of its time." He also said that "if in the free software
community we only allow ourselves to talk about things that look
like something that already exists, then we're sort of defining
ourselves as a series of forks and fragmentations." He added that
it seems the desktop Linux people want to be angry at something. We
wanted to do amazing things with Unity but the community won't let
us do it, so here we are. He also commended Google folks for what
they have built for Chrome OS."

I, for one, thought that Unity was pretty good and that some of the
ideas were pretty clever but yeah, the Linux zealots are pretty
resistant to any kind of decent innovation. If it doesn't look like it's
from the 90s or the early 70s, it's not worth using apparently.


McSprocket nym looks more like a snit sock puppet than anything else.
He's used McNuggets from what I recall.


I agree it appears to be a snit sock puppet but in the slim chance
that it's not I will offer my 2 cents.

I think Shuttleworth is right, over the years, desktop Linux hasn't
been able to offer anything substantial to the user experience that
has been better than Windows already offers. At least not for the
typical, non programmer user.
Linux's advantages of cost and source code mean nothing to the average
person ordering a PC via Amazon.


Exactly. Since none of the people buying hardware ever factor in the
price of the operating system (since it's included on each computer),
the benefit of Linux being free is worthless. It might be worthwhile if
the person is using something like Vista and is shockingly resistant to
the idea of buying more recent hardware, but people who aren't stubborn
mules won't see the advantage.


I don't buy more hardware for the OS, I buy it for the programs I run.
  #43  
Old September 13th 19, 07:05 PM posted to comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 649
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

Soviet_Mario wrote:

again the variety is a strong enemy.


It is not. Variety is an asset.

There are in the FOSS
too many variants, each rather limited, and versatile as a
whole, which need a lot of exploration just to be
discovered, as nobody makes them known out of the official
distro repository.


I don't think that anyone denies that some people, "newbies" in
particular, would like less variety, more "standardization". This is
true in many markets.

However, we can't forget that, for many people, that would not work.
Many people benefit from the more customized, optimized environment
that FOSS allows. If it weren't for these advantages, they may as
well be using Windows.

Just because some people would like less choice, it doesn't mean that
there is too much choice. Some people would like even more!

--
'Have you never heard someone say "There are too many things here I
cant decide"??!?!?' - "OSS Culling Commitee" Chairman "Hadron" Quack
  #45  
Old September 13th 19, 07:35 PM posted to alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Why Linux On Desktop Failed: A Discussion With Mark Shuttleworth

Rabid Rogue wrote:
On 2019-09-13 1:21 p.m., F. Russell wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:08:51 -0400, Rabid Rogue vomited this verbiage that
I considered to be worthy of my attention for one of a variety of possible
reasons:

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.

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.


I doubt they would anymore. Back when ffmpeg was at 0.10, they had most
of what they needed in that package and relied on proprietary for the
rest. However, they're at 1.0 or higher now and should be able to
support everything without anything additional. The support the current
ffmpeg package contains, as far as I know, is complete and is completely
FOSS.


There is NVENC and NVDEC.

If you attempted to build FFMPEG from source,
you'd have noticed this.

There's even hardware support for H.265

https://developer.nvidia.com/video-e...support-matrix

I was not able to finish the build of FFMPEG, because of
some kind of header problem. The tool delivering the indication
of a header problem, was incapable of indicating just which
file was causing the problem. So I had to give up.
(And this was related to NVENC and NVDEC - I managed
to slay the rest of the dragons.)

And this happened, because the FFMPEG developers didn't
really want to "track" what the NVidia people were doing,
so invented a way of "ignoring" the issue.

And the reason this started, is the release version of
FFMPEG in the package manager, didn't have NVENC and NVDEC,
and I wanted it added back in.

And that's the challenge of FFMPEG. Is building it properly
and switching on as many libs as the developers intended.
I specifically wanted to see how much faster, in frames
per second, the Linux NVENC and NVDEC run, because I have
a suspicion the Windows version of FFMPEG isn't showing
the best possible framerates. (The math says, on my system,
it should be over the 330FPS I was getting.) So I wanted
to compare a different environment to it, and see what
kind of frame rate it could manage.

Paul
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.