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

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

APT had (and kinda still has) the opposite problem. "apt-get install" is redundant. And true to Linux fashion, there have been a few implmentations of an "apt install" syntax, which were different enough to be a problem.

Also my OSMC box bitches at me when I run "apt upgrade" because it wants me to type "apt full-upgrade..."

There are some things I'd like to ask the Flatpak developers while holding them 6 inches off the ground by their shirt collar. Like why is it such a bitch to run flatpak update over ssh? It wants you to key in your password 96 times if you do that. It's also really fun to deal with org.whatthefuck.WhatTheFuck too.

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

I don't think apt is as bad as pacman, I use nala on my debian machine. The best syntax in my book has zypper, but I am biased. Simply running a flatpak from cli is a hassle. :P

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah I'll go with that; convention is you run software by evoking its name as a command. apt install vim, then you can run vim by typing "vim." Not with Flatpak, you evoke "flatpak run .org.bullshit.Vim". It's not merely designed to be used through a GUI, it's designed to be not used through a CLI.