• Polar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I said desktop. You literally quoted it.

    Linux server and Linux desktop aren’t the same thing.

    • AnomalousBit@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They totally are the same thing, it’s called a Linux Distribution and you run the same exact software that runs on a server. There’s not Debian Desktop and Debian Server, it’s just one distribution. It’s clear you’re just looking to be dismissive without really understanding what you’re talking about.

      It’s not like whatever software you can’t do your job without would have to be written twice for Linux Servers and Desktops, it’s the same thing. Where again is this distinction you’re trying to make?

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Debian doesn’t make that distinction, but Ubuntu does. And even on the distros that don’t, you’d have to be an idioit to deny that the suite of applications desktop users use and the suite of applications you would ever, and I mean ever, deploy on a server have pretty close to zero overlap.

        • AnomalousBit@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s great you found a distribution that has two different images, one for desktop and and one for server. Does that mean that the desktop version of Ubuntu isn’t a “real” operating system as Polar says? Only the server distribution is a “real” operating system? That was the whole crux of the argument to begin with.

          • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it’s saying that your “proof” that Linux is a viable operating system in all spaces simply because it is the primary operating system in the server space is invalid.

            • AnomalousBit@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This is not a very “real” response of you. Your response isn’t applicable to all problem domains. Let’s just keep moving the argument to whatever imaginary boundary fits your personal opinion.

              Edit: I’m just as big of an idiot for trying to argue with polar’s toothless and subjective “real” claim as I am with you about some pointless server shit. They all use the same packaged software anyways! 😂

              • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Literally what? “Linux is good on the desktop because Apache isn’t available for Windows” is a non-argument. End users don’t care that Linux can run server software, and people who own servers don’t care that Linux can run a desktop. The fact that both can use the same kernel, userspace, and package manager does not change the fact that there is a very real dichotomy. You might as well argue that MacOS is good for gaming because it can run productivity software just fine, and the latest Macs have GPUs that are (according to Apple’s inscrutable benchmarks, anyway) as good as a midrange NVidia chip.

                Authors of server software develop primarily for Linux. This is great, but not especially useful to desktop users, who have no use for server software, and who productivity software developers and game developers frequently ignore. None of that has ANYTHING to do with whether or not Linux is a “real” operating system. What Polar was trying to argue was that Linux is not viable for desktop use since it is rarely if ever considered by authors of software that desktop users actually need.

      • Polar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The distinction I am making is that most software developers don’t consider Linux Desktop a real OS, and that’s why Linsux nerds are begging for developers to release Linux versions.

        • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Linux isn’t trying to compete with Windows for the desktop market. Making fun of it for failing to do that is dishonest at best. It caters to the very specific needs and wants of programmers, and it does that incredibly well. The fact that it can now run some quite high-end art and video production packages is a bonus, and if Linux is one day able to present itself as a viable alternative to Apple’s walled garden and Microsoft’s data-mining adware, so much the better, but no one with an ounce of sense (coughgardinerbryantcough) would seriously argue that Linux will be ready for mass adoption at any point within the next ten years.

          • Polar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Linux isn’t trying to compete with Windows for the desktop market. Making fun of it for failing to do that is dishonest at best.

            2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 IS THE YEAR OF LINUX!!!

            It caters to the very specific needs and wants of programmers, and it does that incredibly well.

            Too bad Linux users don’t understand this. Lemmy is full of Linux nerds acting like Linux is a viable replacement to Windows/MacOS, when it’s not for the majority of users.

            The fact that it can now run some quite high-end art and video production packages is a bonus

            Ya, despite the fact Davinci free cannot edit h.264 or h.265 video on Linux, or that neither the free or PAID versions can use AAC audio. Very professional.

            but no one with an ounce of sense (coughgardinerbryantcough) would seriously argue that Linux will be ready for mass adoption at any point within the next ten years.

            You’ve guys been saying this for decades lol.

            • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I stand by my point that no one with an ounce of sense will seriously argue that Linux is ready for mass adoption. The extremely vocal minority that does not have an ounce of sense does not invalidate my point.