These posts always skip over the problem of the GUI. Compared to macOS, I've never found a Linux desktop even remotely as good, and the problem on the BSDs is even worse.
Then there are the details that everyone seems to miss, like the fact that OpenBSD has no bluetooth support at all.
For 99% of the world, macOS is still the best option.
These posts always skip over the problem of the GUI. Compared to macOS, I've never found a Linux desktop even remotely as good, and the problem on the BSDs is even worse. Then there are the details that everyone seems to miss, like the fact that OpenBSD has no bluetooth support at all.
90% of the time it's from people who just do coding on the backend and/or web development, plus use web and mail.
If you work or have hobbies that have to do with photography, music, audio editing, video, multimedia in general etc, it's more of a wasteland.
E.g. when it gets to DAWs your options get very limited, very fast (BitWig, Reaper, iirc, and some FOSS ones that are not up to the task). Same or worse for VSTs.
If you work or have hobbies that have to do with photography, music, audio editing, video, multimedia in general etc, it's more of a wasteland.
I'm quite fascinated by this dilemma: on one hand there's too much choice with Linux (desktop environments, package managers, shells, ...) while on the other hand there's the complaint that there's too little choice (graphics suites, DAWs, CAD/CAM packages, 3D rendering apps, video editing...).
The actual complaint, however, is that there's no Pro Tools, no Final Cut, no Adobe Suite - because that's what people actually mean when it comes down to it.
The perceived "wasteland" primarily refers to just a handful of very specific products, most of which do have equivalents in Linux (not all FOSS, mind you), albeit often with vastly different workflows associated with them.
They do have equivalents, mostly FOSS, some not FOSS (e.g. Reaper and Bigwig are not FOSS), but they generally those aren't the top picks of pros (or hobbyists for that matter).
That said, for 3D it's a much better situation, but for video, music, and graphic design it's much bleaker. And even when you do 3D you still want some Photoshop, video editing and other stuff, unless you're part of a large team and only do modelling etc.
Then there's a big ecosystem of smaller utilities, plugins, specialty drivers, and stuff, that also doesn't work.
[...] but they generally those aren't the top picks of pros (or hobbyists for that matter)
But that's exactly what I said: the complaint isn't that there is no software available. The complaint is that VERY specific software isn't available.
There's Gimp, Krita, and Darktable for image- and photo editing, but people still keep asking for Photoshop. More often than not the very same people, mind you, who also complain about Adobe's subscription model and pricing in general!
They don't want to be able to do the same work - they want to do the same work the exact same way using the exact same software. Same goes for video editing as well - there's kdenlive, OpenShot, DaVinci Resolve, Lightworks, and yes, even Blender can do it. But, nope. People want Premiere, Sony Vegas, and Final Cut - the rest doesn't even cross their mind.
That's the issue at hand - not lack of software. It's unwillingness to learn (pros don't count - they have different needs and concerns) and all to often just plain ignorance of alternatives.
The big ecosystem of smaller utilities is met by FOSS - here marketing and communication (as well as terrible naming in most cases) are the biggest factor.
Plugins and special drivers can be a problem, I fully agree with that. The question is however, whether this is relevant for hobbyists and people who just want to get started.
Seeing as special drivers are only required for special hardware (graphics cards and studio equipment comes to mind) and that plugins can easily exceed the cost of a small workstation, we're starting to leave hobbyist territory again.
They don't want to be able to do the same work - they want to do the same work the exact same way using the exact same software.
They don't merely want to the same work. They also want the best of class software. GIMP is not Photoshop by a large margin, for example. Ardur is too little to be compared to Logic or Cubase or ProTools (even without the issue of plugins). And so on...
Same goes for video editing as well - there's kdenlive, OpenShot, DaVinci Resolve, Lightworks, and yes, even Blender can do it. But, nope. People want Premiere, Sony Vegas, and Final Cut - the rest doesn't even cross their mind.
No, many would be happy with DaVinci Resolve. But then they'd need many other parts of a video/post production workflow still not available on Linux in good form or any form.
It's not just "you're a videographer, you use Premiere on Windows, just switch to Davinci on Linux". Because I also e.g. might use AfterEffects, tons of video plugins not available on Linux, Photoshop and Audition for post-production work, several post production utilities, drivers for different peripherals I use for video, and so on. Oh, and plus all the saved presets and automations and such they've made for those.
DaVinci on Linux is great, but only solves a small (albeit core) part of the workflow.
Also, it's very understandable that professionals have invested in learning programs and constellations of programs.
Would a heavy Emacs user move to another platform that doesn't have Emacs - but offers e.g. Jove?
So it's not about unwillingness to move from Photoshop to say Gimp and Krita because they're "different". It's that Gimp and Krita are quite behind in several aspects, and that their presence only solves a small part of a professional (or hobbyist for that matter) workflow.
That's exactly what I doubt (again - professionals and semi-pros aside).
People associate video editing with Final Cut Pro or Premiere. Image editing? Photoshop! Recording, editing and mixing - Pro Logic or Cubase of course!
Is it because the vast majority of hobbyists and occasional users need the features these packages offer? No! It's because "the pros" use it and therefore it has to be good and what I need. It's because these are names that pop up when I search the internet. It's because that's what the tutorials on YT use.
Nobody needs Photoshop to crop an image, to do some quick colour correction, make a collage or a meme.
You don't need Pro Logic to do a podcast or edit a recording of your daughter's garage band.
Premiere and AfterEffects are overkill times 20 for editing the footage of your brother's wedding shot on a variety of smartphones, etc.
Sure, some users may want move on from the likes of Kdenlive, Krita, Inkscape, Gimp, Ardour or Reaper at some point. For the average user, however, lack of functionality or workflow support is not the problem.
Actually, the underlying reason for at least the successful stories behind such migrations stems from non-GUI thinking. The power lies in the CLI and engagement with POSIX-compliance with an open arm. This sometimes turn out highly liberating for developers (which lead them to write such stories).
In my experience (because of my work I have macbooks, linux machines and a windows machine), linux with i3 beats mac os x and windows on battery life by a (very) large margin; in some cases 3x (for instance on x220 2011 with 9 cell, I get 4 hrs under windows and 15 under linux/i3) with the same workload. Obviously I run the Linux battery tools, but so do the other OSs their own.
i3 here is the ‘magic’ part because with other, more mac/windows like window managers, the battery life is comparable, however, I cannot turn those off on mac/win so I cannot test if that is really the case. But if I use, say, unity, the battery life drops to at or below what it does with it’s native system.
How many people are using Bluetooth with their computers? Most wireless keyboards/mice usually include their own receivers which plug into a port.
And 3.5mm audio jacks are still a thing on the think pad, so you can get a cheaper, higher quality headset for this device which unlike Bluetooth ones does not run out of power every couple
of hours.
How many people are using Bluetooth with their computers?
No idea about the numbers, but my n=1 uses Bluetooth a lot. I use my Airpods Pro on my laptop all the time, for calls and music and watching videos with others in the room, the noise cancelling is really good and I don't have to drain my phone battery as much. I really like the Magic Mouse, which is Bluetooth as well, and I have a keyboard with 3 Bluetooth IDs that I can switch back and forth between my phone, gaming PC and laptop with a single keypress, and I use that a lot and would use it even more if it could handle five devices instead of three. Apart from that, I have a stationary bluetooth speaker I often stream music to from my laptop to conserve my phone battery, and, finally, one of my electronics projects that I never seem to get around to finishing is a lipo-powered glove-shaped bluetooth midi controller.
Macbooks do retain their 3.5mm jacks, but I hate that I have to be mindful of the cable (i.e. can't move around the room), and good wired headphones tend to be bulkier. I don't really mind a 10-15 minutes charging break every couple of hours, and sound quality and noise cancelling are really good for my standards.
Apple is an expensive oem offering a a finite number of models in a product category with an extremely broad selection.
Take powerful desktops. It's never been cheaper to build a powerful expandable box but whereas you can have something great for 700-1200 apples start at 6000 for something that might not beat the 1200 option.
Alternatively take their very well reviewed laptops that start at 50% more than than the average person pays for a computer. They may be a good value but the average buyer prefers to spend their money on other affairs.
How about a laptop with a modest screen size and dedicated gpu, doesn't exist.
How about a dedicated gpu. You'll need to buy the highest end model starting at 2400 instead of paying 1000 at Walmart.
Comments
These posts always skip over the problem of the GUI. Compared to macOS, I've never found a Linux desktop even remotely as good, and the problem on the BSDs is even worse.
Then there are the details that everyone seems to miss, like the fact that OpenBSD has no bluetooth support at all.
For 99% of the world, macOS is still the best option.
90% of the time it's from people who just do coding on the backend and/or web development, plus use web and mail.
If you work or have hobbies that have to do with photography, music, audio editing, video, multimedia in general etc, it's more of a wasteland.
E.g. when it gets to DAWs your options get very limited, very fast (BitWig, Reaper, iirc, and some FOSS ones that are not up to the task). Same or worse for VSTs.
I'm quite fascinated by this dilemma: on one hand there's too much choice with Linux (desktop environments, package managers, shells, ...) while on the other hand there's the complaint that there's too little choice (graphics suites, DAWs, CAD/CAM packages, 3D rendering apps, video editing...).
The actual complaint, however, is that there's no Pro Tools, no Final Cut, no Adobe Suite - because that's what people actually mean when it comes down to it.
The perceived "wasteland" primarily refers to just a handful of very specific products, most of which do have equivalents in Linux (not all FOSS, mind you), albeit often with vastly different workflows associated with them.
They do have equivalents, mostly FOSS, some not FOSS (e.g. Reaper and Bigwig are not FOSS), but they generally those aren't the top picks of pros (or hobbyists for that matter).
That said, for 3D it's a much better situation, but for video, music, and graphic design it's much bleaker. And even when you do 3D you still want some Photoshop, video editing and other stuff, unless you're part of a large team and only do modelling etc.
Then there's a big ecosystem of smaller utilities, plugins, specialty drivers, and stuff, that also doesn't work.
But that's exactly what I said: the complaint isn't that there is no software available. The complaint is that VERY specific software isn't available.
There's Gimp, Krita, and Darktable for image- and photo editing, but people still keep asking for Photoshop. More often than not the very same people, mind you, who also complain about Adobe's subscription model and pricing in general!
They don't want to be able to do the same work - they want to do the same work the exact same way using the exact same software. Same goes for video editing as well - there's kdenlive, OpenShot, DaVinci Resolve, Lightworks, and yes, even Blender can do it. But, nope. People want Premiere, Sony Vegas, and Final Cut - the rest doesn't even cross their mind.
That's the issue at hand - not lack of software. It's unwillingness to learn (pros don't count - they have different needs and concerns) and all to often just plain ignorance of alternatives.
The big ecosystem of smaller utilities is met by FOSS - here marketing and communication (as well as terrible naming in most cases) are the biggest factor.
Plugins and special drivers can be a problem, I fully agree with that. The question is however, whether this is relevant for hobbyists and people who just want to get started.
Seeing as special drivers are only required for special hardware (graphics cards and studio equipment comes to mind) and that plugins can easily exceed the cost of a small workstation, we're starting to leave hobbyist territory again.
They don't merely want to the same work. They also want the best of class software. GIMP is not Photoshop by a large margin, for example. Ardur is too little to be compared to Logic or Cubase or ProTools (even without the issue of plugins). And so on...
No, many would be happy with DaVinci Resolve. But then they'd need many other parts of a video/post production workflow still not available on Linux in good form or any form.
It's not just "you're a videographer, you use Premiere on Windows, just switch to Davinci on Linux". Because I also e.g. might use AfterEffects, tons of video plugins not available on Linux, Photoshop and Audition for post-production work, several post production utilities, drivers for different peripherals I use for video, and so on. Oh, and plus all the saved presets and automations and such they've made for those.
DaVinci on Linux is great, but only solves a small (albeit core) part of the workflow.
Also, it's very understandable that professionals have invested in learning programs and constellations of programs.
Would a heavy Emacs user move to another platform that doesn't have Emacs - but offers e.g. Jove?
So it's not about unwillingness to move from Photoshop to say Gimp and Krita because they're "different". It's that Gimp and Krita are quite behind in several aspects, and that their presence only solves a small part of a professional (or hobbyist for that matter) workflow.
That's exactly what I doubt (again - professionals and semi-pros aside).
People associate video editing with Final Cut Pro or Premiere. Image editing? Photoshop! Recording, editing and mixing - Pro Logic or Cubase of course!
Is it because the vast majority of hobbyists and occasional users need the features these packages offer? No! It's because "the pros" use it and therefore it has to be good and what I need. It's because these are names that pop up when I search the internet. It's because that's what the tutorials on YT use.
Nobody needs Photoshop to crop an image, to do some quick colour correction, make a collage or a meme.
You don't need Pro Logic to do a podcast or edit a recording of your daughter's garage band.
Premiere and AfterEffects are overkill times 20 for editing the footage of your brother's wedding shot on a variety of smartphones, etc.
Sure, some users may want move on from the likes of Kdenlive, Krita, Inkscape, Gimp, Ardour or Reaper at some point. For the average user, however, lack of functionality or workflow support is not the problem.
I wonder why these people even bother with OS/GUIs? It really shouldnt matter as long as you have a terminal and an ssh connection, right?
The GUI is precisely the reason I dislike macOS. It's chaotic.
To quote the article, GNOME for me:
I dislike Gnome. i3 on the other hand is extremely good. The advantage with linux is that, I can choose the ui interface I want.
Actually, the underlying reason for at least the successful stories behind such migrations stems from non-GUI thinking. The power lies in the CLI and engagement with POSIX-compliance with an open arm. This sometimes turn out highly liberating for developers (which lead them to write such stories).
As if 99% of the world can afford a MacOS machine.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t the best choice. Although I think 99% is exaggerated.
it's a hyperbole
And battery issues?
In my experience (because of my work I have macbooks, linux machines and a windows machine), linux with i3 beats mac os x and windows on battery life by a (very) large margin; in some cases 3x (for instance on x220 2011 with 9 cell, I get 4 hrs under windows and 15 under linux/i3) with the same workload. Obviously I run the Linux battery tools, but so do the other OSs their own.
i3 here is the ‘magic’ part because with other, more mac/windows like window managers, the battery life is comparable, however, I cannot turn those off on mac/win so I cannot test if that is really the case. But if I use, say, unity, the battery life drops to at or below what it does with it’s native system.
And issues of not being able to run software (often from Adobe) that are required for work.
And issues of not being allowed to run software for "security" reasons.
MacBook Pros definitely don't have a great battery life.
How many people are using Bluetooth with their computers? Most wireless keyboards/mice usually include their own receivers which plug into a port.
And 3.5mm audio jacks are still a thing on the think pad, so you can get a cheaper, higher quality headset for this device which unlike Bluetooth ones does not run out of power every couple of hours.
No idea about the numbers, but my n=1 uses Bluetooth a lot. I use my Airpods Pro on my laptop all the time, for calls and music and watching videos with others in the room, the noise cancelling is really good and I don't have to drain my phone battery as much. I really like the Magic Mouse, which is Bluetooth as well, and I have a keyboard with 3 Bluetooth IDs that I can switch back and forth between my phone, gaming PC and laptop with a single keypress, and I use that a lot and would use it even more if it could handle five devices instead of three. Apart from that, I have a stationary bluetooth speaker I often stream music to from my laptop to conserve my phone battery, and, finally, one of my electronics projects that I never seem to get around to finishing is a lipo-powered glove-shaped bluetooth midi controller.
Macbooks do retain their 3.5mm jacks, but I hate that I have to be mindful of the cable (i.e. can't move around the room), and good wired headphones tend to be bulkier. I don't really mind a 10-15 minutes charging break every couple of hours, and sound quality and noise cancelling are really good for my standards.
Apple is an expensive oem offering a a finite number of models in a product category with an extremely broad selection.
Take powerful desktops. It's never been cheaper to build a powerful expandable box but whereas you can have something great for 700-1200 apples start at 6000 for something that might not beat the 1200 option.
Alternatively take their very well reviewed laptops that start at 50% more than than the average person pays for a computer. They may be a good value but the average buyer prefers to spend their money on other affairs.
How about a laptop with a modest screen size and dedicated gpu, doesn't exist.
How about a dedicated gpu. You'll need to buy the highest end model starting at 2400 instead of paying 1000 at Walmart.
It seems like 89% disagree with your assessment.