Windows just works and Other OS improvements

[ChadD]

They did not break compatibility with established standards, from what I can understand. Also, amazing because it does just work, just as I showed you. Wow, there is a single issue that will not be updated, that must mean the thing does not just work. Oh, like Linux perhaps? Or Android for that matter, since people have issues with those devices as well?

They have issues with google not adhering to standards ? I don't think so.

That is a unique MS issue. As I have said before as someone who has had to deal with workarounds and coding duplicate copies of web stuff since the time of IE version 1... F ms and their purposeful non conformance. They claim to have changed their ways... and yet you seem to detail a pretty recent repeat of exactly that. From what you wrote yes Garmin was saying MS isn't following the rules and we aren't chasing their code forever. I mean I have enjoyed having to go back to clients and charge them for my time to chase MS and their compliance breaking code... to be honest though I would have rather not have had to.

 

[BulletDust]

Logically, if a problem means that it does not just work, then nothing just works, including Windows 7, Linux and Android. Basic logic 101.

But it's effectively useless, the platform is not supported anymore and the issue is going to continue to get worse.

I love AmigaOS, but I it would be plain outlandish to claim that as a daily OS it 'just works' even though it allows me to play games just fine.

....MorphOS, 'just works'.

 

[ManofGod]

This is the exact message I was given in the chat when I asked about future updates:

Probably not, Microsoft continues to create issues via Bluetooth compatibility between the App and our devices. We are currently not compatible with most Windows phones and it seems that the more updates that come out from Microsoft the smaller the window gets with compatibility with ANY of our devices

Oh well, can say I blame them since MS no longer sells any phones and they have made their stance pretty clear, at least when it comes to Windows 10 Mobile and its future. Therefore, bluetooth itself works fine hardware wise but, the changes effect the app and they see no point in updating it, can say that I blame them. (Never have issues connecting the watch itself.)

 

[Lunar]

Ok, so I'm late to the party, but here's my two cents. You're all wrong, and you're all right. The common theme I've seen in this thread has been someone claiming an OS is perfect, someone saying their wrong and that their chosen OS is perfect, and then denying that they said their OS is perfect.

NEWS FLASH!!! No man made product is perfect. Not ever. Windows sucks, Linux sucks, Mac OS X sucks. They all suck. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.

Now that that's out of the way, here's my experiences:

Windows 10: By and large, it works great for me. Sure I don't like how locked down it's getting, but I also understand why MS is doing it from a security standpoint for MOST end users. However, for a techie all of this control ripped away from us can be annoying. I will say that for me Windows 10 has been the most stable and reliable version of Windows I've ever used. I've not experienced any of the driver issues described by others in this thread, nor have I experienced any issues related to Windows Updates not working. Every application I've attempted to run has worked just fine, and I've experienced no fatal system crashes and very few application crashes.

Windows 7: Also a great OS, but one that is old and dated in today's day and age, and depending on the hardware you are using (HiDPI screens comes to mind) can be a nightmare to use. However, I do miss the control it provided the end user, but as we all know this is a double edged sword, especially for an inexperienced user who gets a UAC prompt and just clicks Yes without understanding why it's there.

Linux: This is now my primary OS (Manjaro GNOME on my desktop and Manjaro Cinnamon on my laptop). I love it, but I also fully admit that it isn't perfect, it has issues, and I also admit that a lot of the problems I do have tend to be due to my lack of understanding of something within Linux. That being said however, I'm a perfect example of how hardware compatability is in NO WAY perfect on Linux. The reason I'm running GNOME instead of Cinnamon on my desktop is because NVIDIA drivers, Xorg, and Muffin (Cinnamon's WM/Compositor) don't play nice with each other resulting in some unbearable judder when moving windows around. This is in no way my fault outside of the fact that I prefer the Cinnamon desktop to all others available. Linux's biggest strength (openness and choice) is also its biggest weakness. A lot of the issues I've found come from a lack of standardization. Some applications are written in GTK, others in QT. This is and of itself is fine, but it can create a problem. If I prefer GNOME, but want to use Kdenlive to edit videos I have to install almost all of the KDE backend. That's huge by the way. Just for one application. Now, I ultimately love the choice of desktop environments, and the openness enough to deal with the issues that come from Linux, but to claim that it's perfect or doesn't have issues is either disingenuous or just plain stupid.

Mac OS X: Can't be bothered to write a big piece of all my issues with OS X, but I will sum it up with Vulkan and proprietary technologies. Vulkan support on OS X? Never gonna happen. Why? Because Apple said so, and that's all there is to it. At least Microsoft doesn't prevent competitive technologies from being present on their platform.

Phew, that was kind of a long one. In conclusion, can't we all just take a breath, calm down, and realize that what OS someone chooses to like or not has absolutely no impact on us? A friendly debate is fine, but there has been so much hyperbole and personal insults thrown about in this thread that it's just exhausting.

 

[BulletDust]

Well said Lunar and I do agree with most of your points. My Windows 10 experience is going to vary greatly in comparison to most as I'm exposed to a far greater number of Windows 10 machines than most, machines that are owned by the ordinary masses and not protected by enterprise environments, locked down installs, controlled hardware and enterprise firewalls. What I see in comparison to Windows 7 isn't worth mentioning here as I've mentioned my experiences re: Windows 10 in the past, needless to say there's very little in the way of positives to report. In relation to HiDPI settings, they've improved in comparison to Windows 7 when you consider multi monitor, mixed resolution setups; But in comparison to single monitor HiDPI 4k displays, I don't see much of a practical improvement over Windows 7 - There's more settings, they just don't practically offer much benefit. OSX still holds the candle here.

Considering OSX/macOS, the default file manager, Finder, sucks...Bad...

A lack of proper NTFS support is a major PITA and I find windows snapping to be odd under OSX. Totally agreed that Apple's arrogance re: Vulkan is a major downfall of OSX, however their hardware/drivers aren't really optimised for gaming anyway in my experience, with the exception of the cheesegrater Mac Pro (still an awesome machine) which is way overpriced even on the second hand market. Considering the flexibility of Linux, coupled with Vulkan support and better Nvidia drivers, I believe Linux to be far superior as a gaming OS.

The updater under OSX/macOS is vastly superior to the updater under Windows 10, the issue I find is that updates are too infrequent. If malware or a virus infects an OSX based machine, there is no doubt that in my experience the malicious software doesn't do anywhere near the damage it does on a Windows based machine as malicious software never seems to damage important system files. As a result malicious software is usually a breeze to remove under OSX/macOS, under Windows it's not uncommon for malicious software to completely wipe out the network stack or worse.

I have experienced the issue under Cinnamon using Nvidia hardware that you are experiencing, I just switched to software rendering which had no noticeable impact on desktop composition whatsoever (with the exception that it obviously fixed the issue!) but theoretically should have improved gaming performance - The effect of changing this setting in relation to gaming performance was one I never actually tested.

Depending on how you look at it, I honestly believe the issue you are experiencing highlights why a lack of choice is actually a bad thing under Linux as the fact that you cannot switch WM under Gnome 3 to something better than Muffin is the root cause of the issue here. If you could switch WM all of your issues would be resolved in an instant. It all depends on whether you're a glass half full or a glass half empty kind of person.

I can only inform people of my experiences using Linux on a number of machines and with the exception of a particular DTV tuner card, I can honestly report that everything 'just works' as well as it does under any other OS with numerous other advantages that suit my particular usage scenario. I'm still looking for the issues Windows folk talk about when they claim Linux isn't ready as a desktop OS. Updating under Linux is spot on perfect and actually something I look forward to.

In relation to Kdenlive, the install is actually far smaller than Nvidia drivers under Windows and even many modern printer drivers under Windows (which are quickly becoming an annoying source of bloatware). Take a look at the screenshot below:

 

[Lunar]

Well said Lunar and I do agree with most of your points. My Windows 10 experience is going to vary greatly in comparison to most as I'm exposed to a far greater number of Windows 10 machines than most, machines that are owned by the ordinary masses and not protected by enterprise environments, locked down installs, controlled hardware and enterprise firewalls. What I see in comparison to Windows 7 isn't worth mentioning here as I've mentioned my experiences re: Windows 10 in the past, needless to say there's very little in the way of positives to report. In relation to HiDPI settings, they've improved in comparison to Windows 7 when you consider multi monitor, mixed resolution setups; But in comparison to single monitor HiDPI 4k displays, I don't see much of a practical improvement over Windows 10 - There's more settings, they just don't practically offer much benefit. OSX still holds the candle here.

Considering OSX/macOS, the default file manager, Finder, sucks...Bad...

A lack of proper NTFS support is a major PITA and I find windows snapping to be odd under OSX. Totally agreed that Apple's arrogance re: Vulkan is a major downfall of OSX, however their hardware/drivers aren't really optimised for gaming anyway in my experience, with the exception of the cheesegrater Mac Pro (still an awesome machine) which is way overpriced even on the second hand market. Considering the flexibility of Linux, coupled with Vulkan support and better Nvidia drivers, I believe Linux to be far superior as a gaming OS.

The updater under OSX/macOS is vastly superior to the updater under Windows 10, the issue I find is that updates are too infrequent. If malware or a virus infects an OSX based machine, there is no doubt that in my experience the malicious software doesn't do anywhere near the damage it does on a Windows based machine as malicious software never seems to damage important system files. As a result malicious software is usually a breeze to remove under OSX/macOS, under Windows it's not uncommon for malicious software to completely wipe out the network stack or worse.

I have experienced the issue under Cinnamon using Nvidia hardware that you are experiencing, I just switched to software rendering which had no noticeable impact on desktop composition whatsoever (with the exception that it obviously fixed the issue!) but theoretically should have improved gaming performance - The effect of changing this setting in relation to gaming performance was one I never actually tested.

Depending on how you look at it, I honestly believe the issue you are experiencing highlights why a lack of choice is actually a bad thing under Linux as the fact that you cannot switch WM under Gnome 3 to something better than Muffin is the root cause of the issue here. If you could switch WM all of your issues would be resolved in an instant. It all depends on whether you're a glass half full or a glass half empty kind of person.

I can only inform people of my experiences using Linux on a number of machines and with the exception of a particular DTV tuner card, I can honestly report that everything 'just works' as well as it does under any other OS with numerous other advantages that suit my particular usage scenario. I'm still looking for the issues Windows folk talk about when they claim Linux isn't ready as a desktop OS. Updating under Linux is spot on perfect and actually something I look forward to.

In relation to Kdenlive, the install is actually far smaller than Nvidia drivers under Windows and even many modern printer drivers under Windows (which are quickly becoming an annoying source of bloatware). Take a look at the screenshot below:

So, with Kdenlive you aren't showing the whole picture. Look at the dependencies required to install it. It's almost all of KDE that is required for it. If you note, I said that it requires the KDE backend which is huge, not the Kdenlive package itself. Also, I understand that choice is a great thing under linux, which is why I'm using it. I just said that while it's Linux's biggest strength, it's also it's biggest weakness. But, should I really have to change WM's to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place? That's what I was getting at. The fact that the problem exists, and has existed as long as it has is a problem. Granted, it's one that NVIDIA is mostly responsible for, which is why Linus Torvalds hates them, but it shouldn't be a problem. If choice is the strength, then the choice to use the DE I want to use without having to go to another because things don't work is effectively not having choice. That was my main point. Sure MATE works fine, but I hate MATE. GNOME 3 works as well, but it's too tablet oriented without a lot of tweaking, and KDE is a buggy mess. So, yes there is choice, but for me my choice is limited due to issues with available DE's and issues with hardware compatibility. All that being said, I still enjoy linux, but I'm willing to acknowledge that it isn't perfect, and that it has just as many issues as any other piece of software.

Windows has its own share of issues though too, and a lot of them are created artificially by Microsoft. For instance, the requirement to use Windows 10 with Kaby Lake and Ryzen CPU's. Utter nonsense, and is nothing more than Microsoft strongarming the market. That kind of thing really pisses me off and is part of why I decided to make the jump to linux in the first place. There is no logical reason for them to restrict updates on Windows 7 (an operating system they still officially support) just because I'm running a Kaby Lake or Ryzen CPU. Sure, I don't expect them to optimize Windows 7 for those CPU's, but there is no reason that security updates should be halted for the system because of them. It's just ridiculous. That is the kind of behavior that will most definitely get me to vote with my wallet and tell them to pack sand.

As far as OS X, I couldn't agree more, but I don't want to derail the thread considering most of the discussion has been about Windows and Linux.

 

[BulletDust]

So, with Kdenlive you aren't showing the whole picture. Look at the dependencies required to install it. It's almost all of KDE that is required for it. If you note, I said that it requires the KDE backend which is huge, not the Kdenlive package itself. Also, I understand that choice is a great thing under linux, which is why I'm using it. I just said that while it's Linux's biggest strength, it's also it's biggest weakness. But, should I really have to change WM's to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place? That's what I was getting at. The fact that the problem exists, and has existed as long as it has is a problem. Granted, it's one that NVIDIA is mostly responsible for, which is why Linus Torvalds hates them, but it shouldn't be a problem. If choice is the strength, then the choice to use the DE I want to use without having to go to another because things don't work is effectively not having choice. That was my main point. Sure MATE works fine, but I hate MATE. GNOME 3 works as well, but it's too tablet oriented without a lot of tweaking, and KDE is a buggy mess. So, yes there is choice, but for me my choice is limited due to issues with available DE's and issues with hardware compatibility. All that being said, I still enjoy linux, but I'm willing to acknowledge that it isn't perfect, and that it has just as many issues as any other piece of software.

Windows has its own share of issues though too, and a lot of them are created artificially by Microsoft. For instance, the requirement to use Windows 10 with Kaby Lake and Ryzen CPU's. Utter nonsense, and is nothing more than Microsoft strongarming the market. That kind of thing really pisses me off and is part of why I decided to make the jump to linux in the first place. There is no logical reason for them to restrict updates on Windows 7 (an operating system they still officially support) just because I'm running a Kaby Lake or Ryzen CPU. Sure, I don't expect them to optimize Windows 7 for those CPU's, but there is no reason that security updates should be halted for the system because of them. It's just ridiculous. That is the kind of behavior that will most definitely get me to vote with my wallet and tell them to pack sand.

As far as OS X, I couldn't agree more, but I don't want to derail the thread considering most of the discussion has been about Windows and Linux.

All dependencies should be included in Synaptic Package manager, note the download size vs the install size? While I never use Synaptic and only installed it to highlight the relative install size of the software, if I uninstall Kdenlive Synaptic will also remove all dependencies related to it as far as I'm aware.

[EDIT]

Dependencies are definitely included in the package as far as I can tell:

 

[BulletDust]

Also, I understand that choice is a great thing under linux, which is why I'm using it. I just said that while it's Linux's biggest strength, it's also it's biggest weakness. But, should I really have to change WM's to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place? That's what I was getting at. The fact that the problem exists, and has existed as long as it has is a problem. Granted, it's one that NVIDIA is mostly responsible for, which is why Linus Torvalds hates them, but it shouldn't be a problem. If choice is the strength, then the choice to use the DE I want to use without having to go to another because things don't work is effectively not having choice. That was my main point. Sure MATE works fine, but I hate MATE. GNOME 3 works as well, but it's too tablet oriented without a lot of tweaking

The reality is this is no different to Windows. I've had Nvidia driver issues under Windows running NVS with two cards in SLI that were never resolved even though the community was going nuts on the Nvidia forums over such issues - NVS actually worked better just after release than it did when I dumped the configuration altogether due to the seemingly unresolvable issues.

No OS is immune to the frustrations of an issue that seemingly never gets resolved, everything's a compromise. The only thing that matters is whether or not it's a compromise you can accept or not.

I'm still actually quite shocked that you cannot change the default WM under Gnome 3 unless you rollback to Gnome 2.

 

[Lunar]

All dependencies should be included in Synaptic Package manager, note the download size vs the install size? While I never use Synaptic and only installed it to highlight the relative install size of the software, if I uninstall Kdenlive Synaptic will also remove all dependencies related to it as far as I'm aware.

[EDIT]

Dependencies are definitely included in the package as far as I can tell:

Yeah, you aren't understanding how Synaptic displays packages then. The Kdenlive package is ~7MB's, but synaptic doesn't group into that display the total size including dependencies. That just isn't how it works. It shows you the dependencies, but not a sum total of all their sizes together. See screenshot below for actual install size.

 

[BulletDust]

Yeah, you aren't understanding how Synaptic displays packages then. The Kdenlive package is ~7MB's, but synaptic doesn't group into that display the total size including dependencies. That just isn't how it works. It shows you the dependencies, but not a sum total of all their sizes together. See screenshot below for actual install size.

I think Synaptic shows what I downloaded, I think most of the dependencies are already present in an updated Ubuntu 16.04 install. To compare your results under Ubuntu there is a considerable difference in size, however terminal does not highlight what dependencies I needed to download and what dependencies I did not need to download. Even considering dependencies I don't find that install size to be overly bad at all? Sure, the Windows download is 77MB, but that's not the installed size and we're talking two completely different operating systems.

 

[Lunar]

I think Synaptic shows what I downloaded, I think most of the dependencies are already present in an updated Ubuntu 16.04 install. To compare your results under Ubuntu there is a considerable difference in size, however terminal does not highlight what dependencies I needed to download and what dependencies I did not need to download. Even considering dependencies I don't find that install size to be overly bad at all? Sure, the Windows download is 77MB, but that's not the installed size and we're talking two completely different operating systems.

So, I think we got a little lost in the weeds. The install size isn't the problem. The problem is that I for all intents and purposes I have to install almost every component of another DE in order to use one application. As another example of this, I really like smb4k, but to install it on Gnome also requires most of KDE. Sure it isn't a problem, but it's just kinda silly and it's all due to the fragmentation in the linux ecosystem.

 

[BulletDust]

Here's the results of purge, bearing in mind that purge is not going to remove still needed shared dependencies. I know what you're saying, but you can't really compare downloaded sizes of software under Windows directly to Linux as dependencies are completely different considering the obvious differences in operating systems and under Linux you will only download and install those dependencies you need - So download size can vary considerably depending on what dependencies you already have installed.

 

[BulletDust]

Sorry, wrong image, see results here:

[/IMG]

What you're experiencing is the fact that your distro doesn't already have the needed dependencies installed.

 

[BulletDust]

Sorry to hijack the thread, I just think this is interesting as Lunar raises a point that I've never considered before - Especially across varying distro's.

Here we go, I completely purged kdenlive as well as autoremoved all unnecessary dependencies and now I get an accurate size for kdenlive including dependencies. Overall, 77MB under Windows vs 127MB under Ubuntu, I don't think that's too bad?

 

[muz_j]

Windows 10: By and large, it works great for me. Sure I don't like how locked down it's getting, but I also understand why MS is doing it from a security standpoint for MOST end users. However, for a techie all of this control ripped away from us can be annoying. ....

Generally I agree with your comment, but I am going to point out that Win 10 is as configurable and offers the user as much control as prior releases.
It's a fallacy to think it doesn't.
I will admit though that it's harder to exercise that control and a lot of things now require a degree of technical knowledge that the average user has no hope of understanding. So it's harder to configure it in the same manner as before on prior releases - Win 7 being an example and seems to be flavor of the month for comparisons - but that control _is_ still there. (granted some things are now bordering on being a pain in the ass to configure).
So for Joe Average home user who doesn't give a f#ck about their OS - Windows 10 is a fr1ggen nightmare - which is a shame in my opinion, but like you I can understand the intent and why MS have made some decisions.
...I am not going to claim any version of Windows is better or worse than any other OS though - I'm a "horses for courses" kind of guy. I do find the reminiscing in this thread about Amiga's nice though - I have a huge emulator collection including most stuff for the Amiga. That computer had the best games in the day. The Turrican series springs to mind as a unique side scrolling shooter that's quite addictive once you get into it.

 

[BulletDust]

Generally I agree with your comment, but I am going to point out that Win 10 is as configurable and offers the user as much control as prior releases.
It's a fallacy to think it doesn't.
I will admit though that it's harder to exercise that control and a lot of things now require a degree of technical knowledge that the average user has no hope of understanding. So it's harder to configure it in the same manner as before on prior releases - Win 7 being an example and seems to be flavor of the month for comparisons - but that control _is_ still there. (granted some things are now bordering on being a pain in the ass to configure).
So for Joe Average home user who doesn't give a f#ck about their OS - Windows 10 is a fr1ggen nightmare - which is a shame in my opinion, but like you I can understand the intent and why MS have made some decisions.
...I am not going to claim any version of Windows is better or worse than any other OS though - I'm a "horses for courses" kind of guy. I do find the reminiscing in this thread about Amiga's nice though - I have a huge emulator collection including most stuff for the Amiga. That computer had the best games in the day. The Turrican series springs to mind as a unique side scrolling shooter that's quite addictive once you get into it.

In the case of Windows 10 Home the control isn't there, at all...

 

[muz_j]

Sorry, wrong image, see results here:

You should probably edit that image for privacy reasons.
...just saying.

 

[muz_j]

In the case of Windows 10 Home the control isn't there, at all...

...oh yeah, fair comment. Sorry I don't consider the Home versions a valid option, where as I guess most people run that. My fault there.
Fair call too - the home versions out right suck b@lls.

 

[BulletDust]

...oh yeah, fair comment. Sorry I don't consider the Home versions a valid option, where as I guess most people run that. My fault there.
Fair call too - the home versions out right suck b@lls.

The issue of course is that on release, it didn't.

 

[heatlesssun]

In the case of Windows 10 Home the control isn't there, at all...

It mostly is without GP management.

 

[BulletDust]

It mostly is without GP management.

Without group policy all you can do is completely disable the service.

 

[heatlesssun]

Without group policy all you can do is completely disable the service, bearing in mind that on release Windows 10 Home had GP available for the local machine.

I don't recall that. However groups policies generally correspond to registry settings which generally work across all versions of Windows. Like disabling driver updates, simply a registry setting that does work in 10 Home. Not guaranteed in all versions to be support but there have always been tons of customization options available through the registry across all aspects of Windows that simply don't have a UI in the box in any version and never had. Like adding seconds to the taskbar clock.

 

[BulletDust]

Starting with 15019 none of what you are describing will work, adding a .reg file used to be an option, however I haven't tried it as there is no way I will add an unknown .reg file to an OS install. The only real option is to disable Windows update compleately.

https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials...iver-updates-windows-update-windows-10-a.html

I'm well aware of the registry and it's purpose under Windows.

 

[Lunar]

Bullet, in regards to the Kdenlive thing, we're talking about two very different concepts. You're stuck thinking about file size only. My point was and still is that it's crazy that I have to install almost all of the KDE backend to run a video editor when I'm running GNOME. I don't care about the file size, I just showed dependencies to illustrate my point. I was trying to point out the lack of focus and fragmentation that can come from a completely open platform that has little to no standardization, especially in terms of UI creation, design, and backends. I'm not saying it's a bad thing necessarily, but I am saying that it can be a weakness. For example, one of the packages required by Kdenlive is knotifications. Why can't there just be a standardized notifications daemon that handles notifications sent out by applications that is then interpreted by the currently running desktop environment? That way, one common daemon would handle notifications, and the DE would just handle putting it on the screen. That would a much simpler and more effective way of handling it, but instead I have to install KDE's notification handler to run a video editing application on my GNOME desktop. Why have multiple teams dedicate resources to replicating effort for something like notification handling, when the entire community could come together and create the worlds best notification handler? This goes for several other "system" type processes. Then there's the systemd debacle. The amount of forks of software in the linux world is almost insane, but at the same time it's awesome. People hated GNOME 3 so they forked it and we got Cinnamon, Deepin, and Budgie. All interesting and different DE's. That is why I say the openness of Linux is a strength and a weakness. Standardization has it's advantages and disadvantages, just like openness does.

muz_j, I wasn't trying to say that Windows 10 is locked down, I'm saying that it's getting there. The push by Microsoft to appify Windows makes it obvious that it's their end goal to at least some extent, and I get why. For the average user Windows 10 S will be perfectly fine, and almost ideal, because of its locked down nature. They just need to get the store built up to support it. Now, those of us here cringe at the thought of only being able to install applications from some curated store, but for the average user it'll make their lives much easier. This is obviously the path MS is headed down. I bet that within the next couple of years, assuming MS can build up the Windows Store app ecosystem, Windows 10 S will replace Windows 10 Home, and the only editions of Windows 10 available will be S, Pro, and Enterprise. This excludes server versions of Windows of course.

 

[BulletDust]

Bullet, in regards to the Kdenlive thing, we're talking about two very different concepts. You're stuck thinking about file size only. My point was and still is that it's crazy that I have to install almost all of the KDE backend to run a video editor when I'm running GNOME. I don't care about the file size, I just showed dependencies to illustrate my point.

Lunar, You don't have to install any KDE backend, you have to install the necessary dependencies (ie: mostly tookits used to create the software). As shown in my screenshot below, the total disk space used including dependencies is 127MB. This will vary depending on what dependencies you already have installed and what version those dependencies are.

[EDIT] Fukin pictures.

 

[muz_j]

muz_j, I wasn't trying to say that Windows 10 is locked down, I'm saying that it's getting there. The push by Microsoft to appify Windows makes it obvious that it's their end goal to at least some extent, and I get why. For the average user Windows 10 S will be perfectly fine, and almost ideal, because of its locked down nature. They just need to get the store built up to support it. Now, those of us here cringe at the thought of only being able to install applications from some curated store, but for the average user it'll make their lives much easier. This is obviously the path MS is headed down. I bet that within the next couple of years, assuming MS can build up the Windows Store app ecosystem, Windows 10 S will replace Windows 10 Home, and the only editions of Windows 10 available will be S, Pro, and Enterprise. This excludes server versions of Windows of course.

Oh - right I took your comments out of context then - my mistake.
I'm probably slight stuck in the mind-set of people bitching about how annoying Win 10 is, which I can relate to, but think it's over blown.

But re: your comments - yes, for most people what you're talking about is viable. A large degree of corporate users could accept that too, as quite a few businesses have adopted cloud based infrastructure and use software as a service solutions - the classic being Office 365, but there's obviously tons of other things available too - pretty much anything you can think of.
But once you get into more customised applications, anything unusual, power users etc - that model won't work, which is consistent with your comments.
Agreed. But that doesn't mean I'll like it personally or want to use it.
But I'll happily inflict it on people, while being paid for it in my day job

 

[heatlesssun]

Starting with 15019 none of what you are describing will work, adding a .reg file used to be an option, however I haven't tried it as there is no way I will add an unknown .reg file to an OS install. The only real option is to disable Windows update compleately.

https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials...iver-updates-windows-update-windows-10-a.html

I'm well aware of the registry and it's purpose under Windows.

Using the Registry to block driver updates

• This will work for Windows 10 Creator Home edition, Professional edition or Enterprise edition.
• Note: Professional / Enterprise users could instead use their Group Policy Editor if they prefer.

https://www.windows10forums.com/art...-from-downloading-hardware-driver-updates.54/

 

[ChadD]

So, I think we got a little lost in the weeds. The install size isn't the problem. The problem is that I for all intents and purposes I have to install almost every component of another DE in order to use one application. As another example of this, I really like smb4k, but to install it on Gnome also requires most of KDE. Sure it isn't a problem, but it's just kinda silly and it's all due to the fragmentation in the linux ecosystem.

I don't really consider that an issue. It would be an issue if your package manager didn't take care of it and didn't let you know before hand what it was installing. Its no different then downloading a windows program and having to download Java, or Python libraries and DLL files. The only difference is when windows programs do it they often include those DLL files in their installers and don't properly leave an uninstall, or install method for your OS. (its why in rare cases installing one program breaks another when it overwrites a DLL with an older version or something silly) Its also partly why Windows can get so bloated after a few years of use... with tons of files and folders being left behind when you uninstall not to mention a ton of Registry entries that windows doesn't keep track of.

Yes installing KDE or GNOME software when you don't have the required libraries... requires them. That isn't an issue.

The easy way to think about is... the KDE video editor is a 40-50 MB program by itself. If you count all required libraries its like 127mb. I can't think of very many 40-50mb windows video editors. I can think of plenty in the 100-150mb range though. The bulk of that is library and framework files. I just went and checked as I know the Kdenlive guys have been working on a windows version... its 77mb not counting FFmpeg which also has the be installed for windows and is another 17mb making the windows version 94mb.

The advantage with Linux.. (and its a MASSIVE advantage) is now that you have the KDE framework files any other programs you install using the KDE framework (and their are a ton as KDE and GNOME are the 2 major application frameworks in Linux) don't have to download second versions, you don't have to download 100mb .exe install files that overwrite .dll files you installed previously for other software. In Linux your package manager knows what you have and what you don't. So if one program uses the KDE framework and requires X and Y libraries your PM will install them, if tomorrow you install another KDE framework program and it needs X, Y and Z libraries it will simply download Z.

Your considering it an issue perhaps if your a bit new to Linux... and your not used to having your software being open and honest about what its doing. (I don't mean that as a dig in anyway at all.... for non programmer types the idea of multiple frameworks is odd, the windows world just packages the names better but its no different)

The KDE (Qt) framework and the Gnome framework (GDI) are the 2 main graphical user interface frameworks in Linux. (and one fact most newer users don't realise is every major desktop env is based on one or the other... KDE and GNOME are the source of all the others hence things like LXQt is KDE based, just stripped to the boards and Mate is Gnome 2 ect)

I would always always always suggest installing the required libraries for both... (not that you have to think about it anymore every modern PM takes care of dependencies as needed and removes them if not). If you want to compare it to windows its like having W32 and UWP programs... they both run on the same system, but they both have their own backend framework files. MS simply doesn't give you a choice they install both no matter if you plan to use both or not. In Linux you will never ever have to ensure you have the newest version of Java installed or any other third party framework or codec package ect, if needed your PM will take care of it.

 

[Chuklr]

Lunar, I understand the point you're trying to make and I think it's valid.

 

[ChadD]

Lunar, I understand the point you're trying to make and I think it's valid.

Well he is claiming that installing framework files has something to do with fragmentation which is just not true really.

I mean if someone chooses to write a windows program in Java. No one is claiming its BS that they have to go and download Java, or saying look windows is fragmented. When it comes down to it both Linux and Windows programming is very fragmented. Linux has 2 major GUI frameworks... that's really it. Windows has far more... .net is one everyone has heard of and yes you have to install .net libraries from MS to run .net programs.

With Linux at least end users don't have to chase framework downloads... there is no hunting .net downloads, or third party java frameworks.

What he is talking about isn't downloading an entire DE, hes downloading the frameworks which which are what those major DE are written with. The DE is just a software program. GTK and QT are both used for software written for other Operating systems as well their are windows and mac programs written using both. Some categories of software just make more sense for specific frameworks.(as their are advantages for the programmers in terms of tools and language hooks ect) Not every piece of windows software is going to be written for the .net framework. Frameworks excel at different tasks. Also its important to note QT is dual-licensed under commercial and open source licenses. So it makes QT popular with commercial Linux software developers.

GTK libs are written in C, QT are in C++. In general QT is understood to be more friendly to code intended to be cross platform. You will in general see more QT programs with windows ports for instance. At the end of the day both are just programmer tools, that do much the same job in very different ways. Your going to run into software that use both... just like if your a windows user you are likely going to see software written for standard w32, and .net or java.

http://www.differencebtw.com/difference-between-gtk-and-qt/

If you want to see real framework fragmentation get into web programming.

 

[Chuklr]

ChadD, what part of my post telling Lunar that I understand the point he was trying to make and personally feel it is valid caused you to try to convince me otherwise and base it on the fact that other OSes have dependencies? Lunar seems to understand this concept, as do I.

 

[ChadD]

ChadD, what part of my post telling Lunar that I understand the point he was trying to make and personally feel it is valid caused you to try to convince me otherwise and base it on the fact that other OSes have dependencies? Lunar seems to understand this concept, as do I.

The part where you where wrong.

What his package manager was installing was not part of a DE... its an application GUI framework. (that those frameworks are what the 2 biggest open source DE are based on is what confuses people). If you install the LXQt DE... or Mate or cinnamon, any of the Linux Desktop programs, you are going to have install those same GTK or Qt files he was referencing. They are not DE files... they are GUI framework files. Simple mistake to make, I attempted to clear up your misconceptions. Perhaps I did a poor job.

https://www.gtk.org/
https://www.qt.io/developers/

His package manger was downloading those framework packages... not another X % of another desktop software. (although sure it is true if you did download a Desktop that was used one of those frameworks you wouldn't have to reinstall it.... that's semantics though any software that uses one of those frameworks is going to need it installed. Which is why I used the perhaps hamfisted Java comparison assuming most people have had to install java at some point)

 

[Chuklr]

I still understand the point Lunar was trying to make and I still think it is valid. I understand you disagree.

 

[Lunar]

The part where you where wrong.

What his package manager was installing was not part of a DE... its an application GUI framework. (that those frameworks are what the 2 biggest open source DE are based on is what confuses people). If you install the LXQt DE... or Mate or cinnamon, any of the Linux Desktop programs, you are going to have install those same GTK or Qt files he was referencing. They are not DE files... they are GUI framework files. Simple mistake to make, I attempted to clear up your misconceptions. Perhaps I did a poor job.

https://www.gtk.org/
https://www.qt.io/developers/

His package manger was downloading those framework packages... not another X % of another desktop software. (although sure it is true if you did download a Desktop that was used one of those frameworks you wouldn't have to reinstall it.... that's semantics though any software that uses one of those frameworks is going to need it installed. Which is why I used the perhaps hamfisted Java comparison assuming most people have had to install java at some point)

So, I do understand that they are the KDE frameworks, although I misspoke and called them a backend. And I get your point, and I think it has some merit to it, however I still feel that things could be done better. If you look at one of my earlier posts about the knotification framework. I think it's absurd that there are multiple frameworks to handle notifications. In my mind, a better way to handle notifications would be at the system level. Notifications are a system level task in my opinion. So instead of GNOME and KDE their own notification frameworks that applications now have to support, wouldn't it be better to have a standardized system level notification daemon that GNOME, KDE, LXQT, etc could all hook into to receive notifications from the system and applications that they could then display however the DE developers intended? It would prevent me from seeing top-center notifications that are in the KDE style on my GNOME desktop. If a system level process handled this then it wouldn't matter what DE I'm running as long as it hooked into it. All notifications would behave in the same way across the board, and would make the system feel more polished. Instead, we live in a world where Linux developers are duplicating effort performed by other teams for no good reason.

Now, I'm not saying that everything could be done this way, but there are definitely some tasks that could and should be handled at a system level that just aren't. I'm also not saying that Windows is necessarily any better than this, although I think your Java example is a bit misguided. The Java example applies to all platforms, and it's a framework designed to run non-native code on any platform with the runtime environment installed. What we're talking about are native application frameworks that duplicate some effort unnecessarily. That being said, I think I've also said multiple times that I consider this openness and flexibility a strength and a weakness. Everything in life has a positive and a negative side. I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that application frameworks are better implemented on Linux than they are for Windows or Mac OS X. The open nature of the platform, and the almost insane amount of libraries and frameworks available is crazy. Now, like you said, we thankfully have package managers that make handling all of this much much easier, but if you really want to see who has package/application management handled the best, you need only look at Mac OS X.

In almost all cases, applications on OS X are self contained files that package everything into one self contained container. This is beautiful because you never have to install a -compat library because a package update broke your applications. I just had to do this myself because package updates broke every game ported by Feral for me. Now, linux is getting it's own taste of this in the form of Snap, Flatpak, and Docker, but those are still a little ways off from replacing existing package management. And of course, MS is trying to do the same by pushing their UWP apps hard. Everyone is tackling this problem in their own way.

So, to close, I really hope that what people take away from this is that I'm not trying to say that Linux is crap, or that Windows is crap. I like them both, although I'm liking Linux more these days, but I'm never going to try and sell either one of them as perfect or really any better than each other. Both of them have their advantages and disadvantages. There are things that Windows does much better than Linux, especially in terms of general usability and polish, and there are things that Linux does better than Windows such as package management, transparency, etc.

 

[BulletDust]

I have proven beyond all doubt that the total install size, including all dependacies and packages, is around 127MB, vs 77MB for the Windows install of the software not including any other packages that may be nessecary for the software to run: The difference is so negligible that it's a point not worth arguing about!

I'm with ChadD, I honestly can't see the issue here and 127MB for a video editing suite is pocket change compared to some alternate suites available under Windows?

What Lunar experienced is extreme and I stand by the reasoning that his chosen distribution doesn't have much in the way of updated dependacies installed by default.

 

[Lunar]

I have proven beyond all doubt that the total install size, including all dependacies and packages, is around 127MB, vs 77MB for the Windows install of the software not including any other packages that may be nessecary for the software to run: The difference is so negligible that it's a point not worth arguing about!

I'm with ChadD, I honestly can't see the issue here and 127MB for a video editing suite is pocket change compared to some alternate suites available under Windows?

What Lunar experienced is extreme and I stand by the reasoning that his chosen distribution doesn't have much in the way of updated dependacies installed by default.

You've got to move on from install size. We all did. None of us are debating file size, we're debating the merits of multiple application frameworks. Get off of file size already. Please. Not sure how many ways I need to try and get that point through to you.

 

[BulletDust]

You've got to move on from install size. We all did. None of us are debating file size, we're debating the merits of multiple application frameworks. Get off of file size already. Please. Not sure how many ways I need to try and get that point through to you.

The install size includes everything Lunar. Dependencies and packages - There is nothing else to install.

Note: Disk Space, that's everything. I can take a screen capture of the software installing if you want. I totally understand what you're saying, I am not in any way confused here, but that screenshot shows everything required to install kdenlive.

 

[ChadD]

So, I do understand that they are the KDE frameworks, although I misspoke and called them a backend. And I get your point, and I think it has some merit to it, however I still feel that things could be done better. If you look at one of my earlier posts about the knotification framework. I think it's absurd that there are multiple frameworks to handle notifications. In my mind, a better way to handle notifications would be at the system level. Notifications are a system level task in my opinion. So instead of GNOME and KDE their own notification frameworks that applications now have to support, wouldn't it be better to have a standardized system level notification daemon that GNOME, KDE, LXQT, etc could all hook into to receive notifications from the system and applications that they could then display however the DE developers intended? It would prevent me from seeing top-center notifications that are in the KDE style on my GNOME desktop. If a system level process handled this then it wouldn't matter what DE I'm running as long as it hooked into it. All notifications would behave in the same way across the board, and would make the system feel more polished. Instead, we live in a world where Linux developers are duplicating effort performed by other teams for no good reason.

Now, I'm not saying that everything could be done this way, but there are definitely some tasks that could and should be handled at a system level that just aren't. I'm also not saying that Windows is necessarily any better than this, although I think your Java example is a bit misguided. The Java example applies to all platforms, and it's a framework designed to run non-native code on any platform with the runtime environment installed. What we're talking about are native application frameworks that duplicate some effort unnecessarily. That being said, I think I've also said multiple times that I consider this openness and flexibility a strength and a weakness. Everything in life has a positive and a negative side. I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that application frameworks are better implemented on Linux than they are for Windows or Mac OS X. The open nature of the platform, and the almost insane amount of libraries and frameworks available is crazy. Now, like you said, we thankfully have package managers that make handling all of this much much easier, but if you really want to see who has package/application management handled the best, you need only look at Mac OS X.

In almost all cases, applications on OS X are self contained files that package everything into one self contained container. This is beautiful because you never have to install a -compat library because a package update broke your applications. I just had to do this myself because package updates broke every game ported by Feral for me. Now, linux is getting it's own taste of this in the form of Snap, Flatpak, and Docker, but those are still a little ways off from replacing existing package management. And of course, MS is trying to do the same by pushing their UWP apps hard. Everyone is tackling this problem in their own way.

So, to close, I really hope that what people take away from this is that I'm not trying to say that Linux is crap, or that Windows is crap. I like them both, although I'm liking Linux more these days, but I'm never going to try and sell either one of them as perfect or really any better than each other. Both of them have their advantages and disadvantages. There are things that Windows does much better than Linux, especially in terms of general usability and polish, and there are things that Linux does better than Windows such as package management, transparency, etc.

Apple has the advantage of having a true closed system. So of course they will be the most consistent in regards to programming frameworks and APIs ect. That can be looked at as a strength as far as consistency as you suggest. Can't deny that... I don't think it outweighs the massive weakness I believe it be though. I wouldn't really want to run a OS as my main driver that isn't free to adopt other frameworks and APIs. Things like Vulcan support isn't part of macos or ios because apple can simply say no.

As for the snaps and flatpaks ect... they aren't ever intended to replace the Linux package manager. Really all those ideas seem more aimed at attracting a handful of commercial software companies that prefer to do things their own way. For such companies providing a snap/flatpak type install where they know everyone will be using the same libs regardless of distro ect as they have included them has value to them in terms of unifying support ect. I wouldn't expect those types of containers to ever be the normal... they may simply make it easier for specific software companies with large commercial projects to more easily support say any "flatpak compliant" distro ect. (I guess as you say the same thing can happen to game software... I have never had an update break any of my games, as you say though its possible I guess) Linux will continue to evolve in that regard no doubt... I do prefer that it is built on a solid foundation compared to the mess that is windows software installation, and the fragmentation of their ecosystem. Its the reason MS has had to code stupid things in their OS like compatibility mode... never mind the stupidity that is different DX versions ect. I know DX is a graphics API not a GUI... it just always bothered me that games would ship with DX 8/9/10/11/12 ect its painful and well fragmented. There isn't really any technical reason why they need to segment games... if software is created for OpenGL it may require a feature of say 4.5 to run, but if you have older software written for say 3.2 you don't have to keep an older version on your machine. Anyway that's another rant isn't it.

Your point about notifications isn't completely off their are a lot of backend ways to handle notifications in Linux being a completely open and free for programmers to develop as they see fit. Still that isn't to say their isn't a unified notification system for Linux.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Desktop_notifications
If you take a look at this... and if you check your package installs (you mentioned your using Manjaro Gnome) you should find you have Libnotify installed. It is independent of GTK and QT... provides a hook to the DBus based system level notification systems. Your notifications shouldn't jump around if your run a Qt program in Gnome its notifications shouldn't be behaving any differently then GTK based programs. The major DE go they all run capable system level notification services, that should hook into Libnotify meaning GTK or QT notifications should display in the area and themed as your DE instructs. Manjaro Gnome is my distro of choice as well... I run plenty of QT based software and haven't had any issues with system notifications. Some programs of course like music players like Clementine have the option to use multiple notification systems. Clementine can show system tray or their own onscreen notifications... I always just turn all that off and flip System notification on. I guess its possible someone could program a Qt or GTK software that skips the system notification system and does its own thing.... the cost of allowing programmers to control their software instead of one all knowing company like Apple I guess.

And for the record I know you where not saying anything negative about Linux... perhaps I get a bit defensive when people claim Linux is terribly fragmented. Linux is no different in that regard from windows. I really do believe its actually less fragmented in many ways, programmers can attack software in multiple languages and still conform to the same Frameworks that make software look imo pretty consistent. The 2 main options their are GTK and Qt, neither locks out software from any DE or even stripped down windows managers like openbox.

 

[BulletDust]

You have to understand that to lock Linux down to what is essentially the one distro in order to avoid what you perceive to be an issue, would completely go against what open source and freedom is all about. Linux is not Windows, there is no prerequisite for it to behave even remotely like Windows.

The day Linux is centred around one distro, one DM, one WM, one framework, one installer is the day I stop using Linux. Having said that it'll never happen as that's not how open source works.

I'm not attacking you, but you need to let go of everything you're used to with Windows. Once you've downloaded those packages/dependencies that's it until a newer version is released, under Windows you download those packages/dependencies every time you install software - In my mind that's unnessecary bloat.

 

[ManofGod]

You have to understand that to lock Linux down to what is essentially the one distro in order to avoid what you perceive to be an issue, would completely go against what open source and freedom is all about. Linux is not Windows, there is no prerequisite for it to behave even remotely like Windows.

The day Linux is centred around one distro, one DM, one WM, one framework, one installer is the day I stop using Linux. Having said that it'll never happen as that's not how open source works.

I'm not attacking you, but you need to let go of everything you're used to with Windows. Once you've downloaded those packages/dependencies that's it until a newer version is released, under Windows you download those packages/dependencies every time you install software - In my mind that's unnessecary bloat.

Take it to the Linux forums if you are so adamant. Otherwise, no one but you cares about this stupid size thing you are getting into. (Or are you just compensating. )

Edit: This was directed at the person I quoted and no one else. I have no issue with the Linux discussion in this thread, any civil discussion is appreciated.