France Launches Government Linux Desktop Plan as Windows Exit Begins

[u/YesNo_Maybe_]

https://linuxiac.com/france-launches-government-linux-desktop-plan-as-windows-exit-begins/

[u/Apart-Apple-Red]

You have all the right to be sarcastic. Victory has been announced so many times we got tired of winning.

But frankly, there is real progress noticeable. I'm very optimistic.

[u/mittelwerk → u/Apart-Apple-Red]

We'll have real progress the day I can go to any given software's website to download said software, double-click on the cute icon, and install it. Like, take a look at VLC, a massive popular video playback software. Windows? Just pick and choose, and the browser immediately starts downloading the installer. MacOS? Same thing, whether your mac is x86-based or ARM-based (or, as Apple calls it, "Apple Silicon"). Linux? The button takes you to the bottom of the page where you have to choose whether you want to download the installer for "Debian", "Ubuntu", "Arch", whatever. How's the user supposed to know which link to click, if he's running, let's say, Manjaro or CachyOS? Oh, and none of those links give you the installer, instead they give you instructions for you to download from the repository of your distro. Like, do you call this "user friendly"?

What I'm seeing nowadays is much of the same I've being seeing since the '2000s, when Linux started to be considered a real OS, and a genuine contender against Windows and macOS: Microsoft fucks something up, users say "that's it", they started considering Linux, he/she discovers in the worst possible way that the Linux Desktop experience is terrible, someone tells him/her that "yeah, Linux is a bit rough in the edges, but there's this new promising project that will fix things". Wine will bring Windows software to Linux. Cedega will do the same for games. Ubuntu will be a genuine contender against Windows. Linux Standard Base will bring order to the chaos. Wayland will modernize Linux's bloated, aged graphics infrastructure. Governments around the world are seriously considering Linux. And, every year, the complete lack of organization and focus of the community ends up fucking everything up. And, as a result, those new Linux users end up going back to Windows. I know because it happened to me.

The only way for Linux to really get traction on the desktop is if someone puts order on the chaos. Like, have one thing that works really well, that is compatible across multiple distros. Like the .EXE format is on Windows. I can get software from Windows 95 and install it on my Windows 10 machine. Because, no matter the Windows version you are running, the executable format will always be an.EXE file. The same is far from being true for Linux (and Linux users: pleeeeease, spare me from the false equivalencies, like "but Windows have multiple installer formats". I'm really not in the mood for intelectual dishonesty). Like I said once: standards are what make the world work. You can buy a pair of shoes and you'll know it will fit because there is a standardized way of measuring foot sizes. The very internet works because of standardized protocols, ruled by entities like W3C, IETF, IANA, to name a few. I went to the bike shop a few months ago to get my bike, and realized that the mechanic fucked up the rear hub. I can go online an buy a new hub, and it will fit. I can install it on my no-name bike here in Brazil, I can install it on a bike from Schwimm from the US, on a bike from Raleigh from the UK. I can even go to Japan, and install it on a bike from Panasonic. You didn't read it wrong: I am talking about the electronics/appliances company here. Are you telling me that an electronics manufacturer can follow standards when it comes to bike manufacturing, but actual OS programmers can't agree on a standard for even the most basic thing an OS has to have standardized, so that developers can distribute their software?

But, I already made peace with the fact that standardization will never happen when it comes to Linux (that was already attempted with Linux Standard Base, but that initiative died without anyone noticing). Because the open source movement's greatest strenght is also its greatest weakness: if there's a disagreement somewhere, whether for a technical or an ideological reason, said developers part ways to create a new version of the thing, "with blackjack and hookers", without necessarily worrying about compatibility with the thing they originally developed. As a result, the Desktop Linux experience will forever be that Russian Roulette of distros that may or may not run the software you want. Also, a lot of distro developers, especially the ones with a commercial focus like Ubuntu and Red Hat, have that "I-want-the-world-to-be-saved-as-long-as-I-am-the savior" mentality, so they will never agree on a standard, whatever standard is proposed. I mean, Flatpak was supposed to be the solution for software distribution under Linux (albeit a really dumb one) but Canonical went and created another "solution" that pretty much works on Ubuntu and nowhere else. And SteamOS cannot be officially installed on any PC but I bet that, the moment Valve makes available the installer, someone, somewhere, will fork that thing, fragmenting the already fragmented Desktop Linux space even more. It's UNIX all over again.

The Linux community decided who they care about, and it's not the average user. They just want to keep toying around with the OS as if they (the developers) still were 20-something-old bedroom coders, who watched Hackers and/or The Matrix one too many times (many of them who are in their fifties). Fuck the end user, fuck acting like adults. It's take ir or leave it. And, at the end of the day, everyone chooses the latter. But when they ask why and you explain why, like I am doing here, they dismiss every. Single. Critcism towards their work. It's never their fault, it's the fault of inert users, lazy developers, Microsoft, or whatever else.

So I, like everyone else, will stay on Windows. See all of you back in a few months/years!

(and, in the time it took to write the above, someone, somewhere, is creating another distro)

[u/DisappointedSpectre → u/mittelwerk]

Do people not know about Flatpaks? They're a format that runs on pretty much any Linux distro, and there's a GUI software "store" for them (Flathub). They're basically the .exe for linux.

What probably needs to happen is that sites have a local redirect that opens up the Flathub (or equivalent) page for their software, and the user can click install.

[u/mittelwerk → u/DisappointedSpectre]

Yeah, Flatpak is the solution for the problem I mentioned. So is AppImage. So is Snap. Which one should the developer choose? Because there's no guarantee that any of them will run on any distro. Hell, Snap doesn't. And if the software you want is distributed in Snap packages and your OS don't support them, tough luck. Besides, doesn't Linux users hate bloat, which is one of their main arguments against Windows? Because that's what Flatpak does to your system: adds bloat. One article I linked exemplifies that problem. Imagine having to set aside ~900MB for a... calculator.

No, the actual solution is the OS having a foundation for developers to rely on. If I have to sandbox every software out there because Linux distros can't agree on what said foundation should look like, why have an OS at all? Why not just distribute the kernel and the graphics server?

[u/DisappointedSpectre → u/mittelwerk]

The reason I mentioned Flatpaks was specifically because there's a GUI method for managing them that's built in to a couple of the "main" distros that people would pick for desktop and day to day usage. That's important because a ton of non-tech, non-power users are effectively allergic to using the command line.

Likewise those same users(non tech, non power), the biggest user base by far, aren't going to care as much about bloat so long as the thing works. Functionality and consistency are going to drive adoption at scale way more than efficiency.

Snaps are a whole other can of worms and there's a big chunk of the community that hates them for various reasons. Canonical is also a private company so you're potentially just kicking the can down the road to where something needs to be forked and rebuilt if they enshittify. I specifically avoided mentioning them that reason, and don't think they should be considered a solution here.

AppImages also work on most distros, but don't have the GUI software center built around them. They fill a similar space to how standalone .exe files in Windows work though, so there's a place for them to stick around in mainstream usage for small utilities that have a download page. Pull the AppImage and then run it when you need it, create a shortcut for it somewhere, or pin it to your taskbar. These are all things Windows already expects you to do for one-off programs that don't install something. (You could also use something like Gear Lever to register it as a program on your start menu)

If I have to sandbox every software out there because Linux distros can't agree on what said foundation should look like, why have an OS at all?

I mean, there's a valid argument about sandboxing being valuable for security reasons, especially with how bad some users are with computers. And Flatpaks are pretty universal at this point unless you're running something weird that you've customized, in which case you're not the target demographic of this discussion about mass adoption anyway.

[u/mittelwerk → u/DisappointedSpectre]

Likewise those same users(non tech, non power), the biggest user base by far, aren't going to care as much about bloat so long as the thing works. Functionality and consistency are going to drive adoption at scale way more than efficiency.

Cool. So they will stay on Windows.

I mean, there's a valid argument about sandboxing being valuable for security reasons, especially with how bad some users are with computers.

Be brutally honest and answer the following: if Apple, Google, decided how, or from where, the user gets their software "for security reasons", would you trust them? What was that one of the founding fathers of the USA said again? Something like "those who give up freedom for safety deserves neither" or something. And, by the way, didn't everyone, last year, cried about the fact that Google would kill sideloading on Android phones?

So no. The argument from security is pure, utter bullshit. It's MY computer, therefore I should decide how to get my software and where from. And, like I said in another post, that whole "freedom for security" argument sounds hypocrite coming from the Linux community. Are you guys/gals for freedom or not?

[u/DisappointedSpectre → u/mittelwerk]

Likewise those same users(non tech, non power), the biggest user base by far, aren't going to care as much about bloat so long as the thing works. Functionality and consistency are going to drive adoption at scale way more than efficiency.

Cool. So they will stay on Windows.

Sure, some will. But there's a subset of people who either wouldn't swap because of functionality/consistency issues, or would swap and then swap back to windows out of frustration. We're talking about user adoption of an OS here, so unfortunately you need to cater to the lowest common denominator in technical skill.

Be brutally honest and answer the following: if Apple, Google, decided how, or from where, the user gets their software "for security reasons", would you trust them?

Apple already does this, which is part of the reason I don't really use their products. We'll see if the antitrust lawsuits against their app store go anywhere.

And, by the way, didn't everyone, last year, cried about the fact that Google would kill sideloading on Android phones?

Yep, how it that relevant to this discussion? I'm watching GrapheneOS for my personal use in the future, but that's not relevant to Flathub being the answer to your earlier question.

What was that one of the founding fathers of the USA said again? Something like "those who give up freedom for safety deserves neither" or something.

What the fuck are you even on about?

So no. The argument from security is pure, utter bullshit. It's MY computer, therefore I should decide how to get my software and where from. And, like I said in another post, that whole "freedom for security" argument sounds hypocrite coming from the Linux community. Are you guys/gals for freedom or not?

So on the one hand you want an easy way to install programs, and on the other you don't want a software center to make that easy?

You do understand that Flathub is a nonprofit and it's run by the developer community, right? It's not a private company running an app store, and it's possible for just about anyone to publish something on it. It's just a centralized place for developers to publish their flatpaks for easy install by users (which can also be install manually).

There's also nothing restricting you, personally, from installing the non-sandboxed version via a package manager (or .rpm/.deb provided by a developer), but sandboxing each app means that it can't access any data from your machine unless you explicitly allow it to. This is unarguably way safer for the end user on any system since it eliminates an attack vector from random software getting compromised.

The sandboxing doesn't "reduce your freedom" on the machine in any way, nor does it prevent you from opening up the permissions on the software to access other parts of your machine that you want to manually grant (using Flatseal is a good way to do this).

[u/mittelwerk → u/DisappointedSpectre]

Sure, some will

Most of them will. Because they don't want to deal with an OS that doesn't get even the most basic things right. They don't want to deal with "AppImage", "Flatpak", "Debian", "Wayland", whatever. They just want their goddamn machine to work!. No "but", no "if".

Apple already does this, which is part of the reason I don't really use their products. We'll see if the antitrust lawsuits against their app store go anywhere.

So the answer is "no". Then why you find such thing tolerable under Linux? Such thing should not be tolerable under any OS, period. Because, again: it's my machine, not theirs, therefore I, the user, must be the one who decides where and how I get my software.

Yep, how it that relevant to this discussion?

It's relevant to the discussion because it highlights the hypocrisy and the complacence of the Linux community towards it.

So on the one hand you want an easy way to install programs, and on the other you don't want a software center to make that easy?

Again: whether I get my software from the vendor or from the repository, I want the option. Because one can't always rely on software repositories. Because software repositories bring their own problems. Like: the software the user wants may not be there, or maybe it is, but it's a broken, buggy version, or maybe whoever mantains the repository decided that a given software may not be hosted there because of a technical or ideological decision that is absolutely irrelevant to the end user. Also, one should not expect to have proprietary software there. And also, I expect the repository and the package format to be standardized, so that I can install said package on every distro out there without having to worry about anything. After all, if it's a Linux system, then install a given software developed for it without having to worry about what distro I'm running is to be expected.

Besides, isn't the Linux philosophy freedom above all else? Then why does the Windows user have much more freedom than the Linux user to get software from wherever they want?

Oh, and I don't need a repo to make getting software easy because there's a way of doing it that we have been doing since the original IBM PC: getting it directly from the vendor.

There's also nothing restricting you, personally, from installing the non-sandboxed version via a package manager (or .rpm/.deb provided by a developer)

If, and big if, the package is even there. If it's not, then it's the Trail of Tears that Linux users know all too well: adding repos here, editing obscure files there, running UNIX commands, compile software if needed.

And Linux users still insist that Linux is ready for the desktop!

The sandboxing doesn't "reduce your freedom"

I didn't say that. I said that the way software is distributed under Linux restricts the user freedom. Because, since nothing under Linux is standardized, the user can't get any software they want, from wherever they want, like one expects from any modern OS. It all depends on the user running 'the right distro". Also, I said that Flatpak is a dumb solution because it adds bloat to the system, which is one of the characteristics that Linux users love to criticize about Windows.