Linux

48741 readers

1202 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

252

The future of Linux (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 1 year ago by pmk@lemmy.sdf.org to c/linux@lemmy.ml

187 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm not proposing anything here, I'm curious what you all think of the future.

What is your vision for what you want Linux to be?

I often read about wanting a smooth desktop experience like on MacOS, or having all the hardware and applications supported like Windows, or the convenience of Google products (mail, cloud storage, docs), etc.

A few years ago people were talking about convergence of phone/desktop, i.e. you plug your phone into a big screen and keyboard and it's now your desktop computer. That's one vision. ChromeOS has its "everything is in the cloud" vision. Stallman has his vision where no matter what it is, the most important part is that it's free software.

If you could decide the future of personal computing, what would it be?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dino@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Clicking buttons doesn't mean you understand what they do. And often time they don't do what you would think they do. CLI on the other hand is actually much more direct, because the entered command does the same thing on almost any machine and you can read about what it does with "man command".

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

GUI have context and user feedback

Command line has :0: error: Undefined temporary symbol :0: error: Undefined temporary symbol

[–] dino@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What? Is this sarcasm? CLI offers much more debug potential than GUIs.

[–] ultrasquid@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For someone who knows what they're doing maybe, but this is about those who don't, which is 99% of people.

[–] dino@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what are you doing when a GUI tells you "error"? You give up and do something else?

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A GUI tells you a lot more about the current status and what you can do, in an intuitive way, than the cli ever can

[–] dino@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

This is no argument, this is simple opinion without any base. How does a "next/proceed/ok" button tell you anything? Also windows is hilariously known for its horrendous error messages. Stop trolling please.