Linux users? That is, people who use a device that runs Linux? Like Android?
Or you mean desktop Linux users, though there aren't "a lot" of those. There's the business/corpo/science deployments but I don't think we're talking about that, but rather specifically home use. So we're talking mostly enthusiasts. I'd imagine many of those and perhaps even most at least lightly game and Steam is effectively the default place to purchase games on Linux. Do you run anything in an emulator? Impure! Purge with fire!
The software repository+compile from source paradigm isn't "Linux", it's not even "desktop Linux". Linux can execute software in a myriad of different ways, what makes Linux Linux is that it's infinitely flexible.
> > > > Users are expected to either obtain binaries from their distro, or compile them from source.
> > > This purist vision you have of Linux doesn't exist.
> > It does on my computer, and I suspect on a lot of Linux users' computers.
> Linux users? That is, people who use a device that runs Linux? Like Android?
I'm fairly sure the overwhelming majority of Android users only use binaries from "their distro", i.e. from the Play Store.
> The software repository+compile from source paradigm isn't "Linux", it's not even "desktop Linux".
Hey, you were the first to drag Android into this. By your own measure, the overwhelming majority of "Linux" users follow exactly "the software repository+compile from source paradigm" (albeit the "+compile from source" term equals zero in their equation).
Obviously, since that's what the article and this discussion is about.
> there aren't "a lot" of those
Depends on what you consider "a lot", I guess. The article that this discussion is talking about apparently thinks there are enough to make its proposal for "converting Linux to Windows" worth an effort.
> Obviously, since that's what the article and this discussion is about.
I was just making the point that Linux isn't any one thing, it's everything. You want an OS handles things the way you want? Well, you do, and others should be given the same privilege. It's silly to stamp your feet about certain implementations or features existing within the Linux ecosystem, the whole point of FOSS is that they can all exist.
> The article that this discussion is talking about apparently thinks there are enough to make its proposal for "converting Linux to Windows" worth an effort.
From the article:
"Imagine we made a new Linux distro. This distro would provide a desktop environment that looks close enough to Windows that a Windows user could use it without training."
It isn't proposed as a distro for people who use Linux, but for people who use Windows but may want to move to Linux. I was one of those people, I switched my gaming PC from Windows to EndevourOS last year, though I've been using various distros for the past 20 years on other devices. I switched because Windows is becoming a shit show. I know my way around Linux, I use Blender, Krita, Gimp, Inkscape and Reaper, all native apps, but sometimes I just want to install a Windows application since the functionality I require makes it's simply necessary. Dual booting is a massive hassle, VMs fuck up productivity workflows and while I can sometimes get it working with Wine it's a hassle. I might not use the proposed OS, but the components that would allow for seamless installation of Windows software? I'd love for those to exist.
Or you mean desktop Linux users, though there aren't "a lot" of those. There's the business/corpo/science deployments but I don't think we're talking about that, but rather specifically home use. So we're talking mostly enthusiasts. I'd imagine many of those and perhaps even most at least lightly game and Steam is effectively the default place to purchase games on Linux. Do you run anything in an emulator? Impure! Purge with fire!
The software repository+compile from source paradigm isn't "Linux", it's not even "desktop Linux". Linux can execute software in a myriad of different ways, what makes Linux Linux is that it's infinitely flexible.