Linux runs like 90% of the world’s servers. You can’t even get half of Microsoft’s shitty software on AWS. Not to mention that development outside of C# (even that’s a pain in the ass to deploy) on Windows is an exercise in BDSM.
But sure buddy, whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night. I’m sure you’re making 10x more money than the rest of us as a (checks notes) photo and video editor 🙄
Well, you know, for starters I don’t pull up posts about Windows and go through the comments flinging shit like Polar did here. But sure, I’m the troll for telling the troll his way isn’t the only way.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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! 😂
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.
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.
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.
Linux runs like 90% of the world’s servers. You can’t even get half of Microsoft’s shitty software on AWS. Not to mention that development outside of C# (even that’s a pain in the ass to deploy) on Windows is an exercise in BDSM.
But sure buddy, whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night. I’m sure you’re making 10x more money than the rest of us as a (checks notes) photo and video editor 🙄
deleted by creator
Well, you know, for starters I don’t pull up posts about Windows and go through the comments flinging shit like Polar did here. But sure, I’m the troll for telling the troll his way isn’t the only way.
deleted by creator
[deleted]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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! 😂
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.
Take a deep breath, buddy. We’re on programminghumor
[deleted]
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.
[deleted]
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.
So nuanced and articulate