Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks

I think Linus really hits the nail on the head here. It's the fact that core libs, like glibc, are CONSTANTLY changing their ABI making it damn near impossible to ship a binary from one version of the platform to the next [VIDEO] . You can still run windows 95 apps in windows 10. But running a ubuntu 12.04 binary in ubuntu 21.04? No way.

Linus recently said something that left me thinking that Linux on the desktop has much deeper problems that need to be addressed before it's worth even thinking about the fine details of GUI toolkits. [VIDEO]

I remember a Linus Torvalds video on this exact problem. I found it both blunt at insightful: Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks : [VIDEO]

I watched a great rant by Linus T himself on how distributing code for Linux is a "pain in the arse", but is comparatively easier on Windows and MacOS: [VIDEO] Something I took away from that is that it is Linus himself, personally, that is responsible (in a way) for Docker existing. Docker depends on the stable kernel ABI in order to allow container images to be portable and "just work" stably and reliably. This is a "guarantee" that Linus gets shouty about if the kernel devs break it. Docker fills a need on Linux because the user-mode libraries across all distributions are a total mess. Microsoft is trying to be the "hip kid" by copying Docker into Windows, where everything is backwards to the Linux situations: The NT kernel ABI is treated as unstable, and changes as fast as every few months. No one ever codes directly against the kernel on Windows (for some values of "no one" and "ever".) The user-mode libraries like Win32 and .NET are very stable, papering over the inconsistency of the kernel library. You can run applications compiled in the year 2000 today, unmodified, and more often than not they'll "just work". There just isn't a "burning need" for Docker on Windows. People that try to reproduce the cool new Linux workflow however are in for a world of hurt, because they'll rapidly discover that the images they built just weeks ago might not run any more because the latest Windows Update bumped the kernel version. I read all the way through this and wept: [LINK]

> You accumulate software yes, but you also accumulate habits and knowledge. Changing OS means discarding all the accumulated knowledge, which 0% of "normal users" want to do. I only ever hear Linux users make this argument. Mac users are confident enough in MacOS UX that they know it’s not a significant barrier to transition. The same is not true of Linux. So many solutions to problems require opening the CLI, and that’s just an automatic fail for the vast majority of consumers. Honestly, I would like Linux fans to just accept Linux for what it is: an amazing kernel with incredible GUIs built by and for developers. App developers just do not care about (or do not have the resources for) making simple and intuitive software. Valve is a welcome and notable exception with the Steam Deck. Linus Torvalds explains it perfectly: [VIDEO]

glibc breaks ABI quite often. Linus has roasted about it openly in the past [VIDEO] Notable quote from that: If there's a bug that people rely on, it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Okay I had to look up what Flatpak was since the link doesn't begin with a summary, abstract, thesis statement, or overview of whatever the subject is. Would it be so hard to start with "Flatpak, a cross distribution package format [1] for distributing Linux applications, is a security nightmare. We'll outline some flaws we believe to be deal breakers"? On the other hand, this seems like an attempt to fix application packaging on Linux which is something Linus has, rightly, complained about very publicly [2]. [1] I don't know what to call it exactly, is it a package format or a package manager? Could be something else entirely, I'm not sure. [2] [VIDEO]

This is common indeed, and isn't a bug in the affected source languages for reasons. How it displays when printed is irrelevant. Here's Linus Torvalds explaining it better than I could: [VIDEO] And sure you can transfer your string that someone else does not consider a string using alternative mechanisms, but then you are only not doing anything wrong because you are not doing it at all for entire categories of languages. There is no integration story for these, and once one mixes with optimizations like compact strings or has multiple encodings under the hood one cannot statically annotate the appropriate type anyhow. And sadly, adapter functions won't help as well when the fundamental 'char' type backing the 'string' type is already unable to represent your language's string. I also do not understand where the idea that a single language always lives in a single component comes from. Certainly not from npm, NuGet, Maven or DLLs. Extended this post to provide additional relevant context. It's not a bug, it's a feature.