> There is a difference between just liking the way things behave because you're comfortable with it and preferring the way it behaves because it is better.

indeed there is. However the vast majority of people fall into the former category while assuming theyre the latter category.

Or to put it another way, everyone cannot be right that their preference is technically superior. Ergo our preferences must be subjective.

> To this day there is a good chance that if I want to run the latest version of any piece of Linux software I will have to compile it from source like it's the 1970s in order to do so. That is a problem that Windows and MacOS have never had, and the Linux Desktop community has been very slow and reluctant to do anything about.

That’s a huuuuge generalisation there. The truth is it depends on the Linux distribution (Arch and Fedora are bleeding edge, Debian and CentOS are not) what repos you have enabled (stable, testing, etc) and even what software you’re running. Eg some niche cross platform thing on GitHub might require compiling for all OSs never mind just Linux.

Linux will see more regular platform updates than Windows and macOS where you’re limited to service packs and new OS releases. You also don’t have to wait until “patch Thursday” for patches on Linux. They get released as soon as they’ve passed build and test pipelines.

So there are definitely plenty of examples where the generalisation is a way off. But for the sake of impartiality I do agree that some niche software and some distros will make you compile from source. However its definitely not the norm for common software and hasn’t been for 20 years.

> Hell, even today as Flatpak beings to emerge as the dominant cross-distro application packaging format, it is still lacking basic features of 1980s Desktop software distribution and gets a lot of flak from the community for existing at all.

Yeah cross platform package management is broken in Linux. Snap, flatpak, etc. all have problems. Personally I think the real issue is that Linux is trying to emulate Windows and Mac with portable installers. If you want a platform where the responsibility is on the user to download and install applications manually then there are already mature options available for that (Windows and macOS). So there’s no point trying to compete there. Where Linux excels is with its package management taking the risk of application installation away from the operator.

This won’t be to everyone’s preference but that’s fine because not every platform should behave the same. Just because a specific paradigm makes sense for one platform doesn’t mean it makes sense for every platform.

Just look at how fundamentally different remote management on Windows vs Linux is. Windows is based around RPCs while Linux is based around scripting. Neither is wrong or right. Both work effectively despite being completely different approaches.

And here lies the problem with people who say one is better than another: they look at the differences and say “I don’t like it” but think it’s a technical decision when in fact it’s just an emotive response based on what they’re comfort zone is.

> indeed there is. However the vast majority of people fall into the former category while assuming theyre the latter category.

That sounds arrogant and condescending. In order for that to be true you would have to presume that any given behavior was objectively better, and therefore anyone who prefers different behavior only does so because they are comfortable with the 'wrong' behavior.

> That’s a huuuuge generalisation there. The truth is it depends on the Linux distribution

No, it doesn't, and I'm really tired of hearing "you chose the wrong distro, bro" for literally every distro because none of them actually do what I, and many others, want. Why is it considered so insane to want a stable base system and be able to install applications of any level of bleeding-edgeness on top of it without jumping through a bunch of hoops?

> Linux will see more regular platform updates than Windows and macOS where you’re limited to service packs and new OS releases.

You clearly haven't kept in touch with Windows through the Windows 10 era.

> Yeah cross platform package management is broken in Linux. Snap, flatpak, etc. all have problems. Personally I think the real issue is that Linux is trying to emulate Windows and Mac with portable installers. If you want a platform where the responsibility is on the user to download and install applications manually then there are already mature options available for that (Windows and macOS). So there’s no point trying to compete there. Where Linux excels is with its package management taking the risk of application installation away from the operator.

I disagree with literally every statement in here except the first two sentences. There is no reason one cannot have "portable" applications that are also managed with a store or package manager! It just means that you don't actually have to and you don't need an army of unpaid volunteers to repackage shit constantly. And Linux, in my experience, doesn't excel at taking the risk away as I have seen updates break other package's dependencies plenty of times.

We're getting off in the weeds. My original point, I think, stands: Linux doesn't behave the way I think is best, therefore it isn't 'comfort' that makes me not like the way it behaves, it's my preference for a different --better in my reasoned opinion-- behavior.

> This won’t be to everyone’s preference but that’s fine because not every platform should behave the same.

If this is truly your opinion then you have phrased your initial assertion in a very poor and condescending sounding way. You very much make it sound like "people who don't like the way Linux behaves are just idiots who can't learn new things".

> And here lies the problem with people who say one is better than another: they look at the differences and say “I don’t like it” but think it’s a technical decision when in fact it’s just an emotive response based on what they’re comfort zone is.

Oh, I see, it's because you actually did think they're just idiots.

> That sounds arrogant and condescending. In order for that to be true you would have to presume that any given behavior was objectively better, and therefore the anyone who prefers different behavior only does so because they are comfortable with the 'wrong' behavior.

That’s the literal opposite of what I said. I was saying what’s “right” is often subjective and people (ie not just technical users but non-technical users too) often (ie not always but in a great many cases) chose what’s right based on what is familiar or comfortable.

That’s basic human psychology. There’s a number of published papers that demonstrate this exact phenomenon.

> > That’s a huuuuge generalisation there. The truth is it depends on the Linux distribution

> No, it doesn't

Of course it does. A bleeding edge distro is going to have packages mainlined sooner than a conservative enterprise distro. This isn’t some shocking news, it’s Linux 101.

The whole point of distributions is they are different distribution of packages on Linux. So it should be pretty obvious that some will ship different packages to others.

> and I'm really tired of hearing "you chose the wrong distro, bro" for literally every distro because none of them actually do what I, and many others, want

I didn’t actually say you chose the wrong distro though. I said the age of packages depends on a number of factors including what distro you use (but not limited to).

The second part of your statement reaffirms my point about how there’s not right or wrong with preference. Linux doesn’t do what you want it to do your preferences lay else where. You’re even admitting there that others have told you that you’re trying to bend Linux into behaving in a way that distro wasn’t designed to. Thus that’s a preference you’re demonstrating and not a statement of something being technically superior nor inferior.

> Why is it considered so insane to want a stable base system and be able to install applications of any level of bleeding-edgeness on top of it without jumping through a bunch of hoops?

It’s not insane and there are platforms out there that manage that better than others. However it’s pointless me listing them because there are a myriad of other reasons you don’t like Linux too.

> And Linux, in my experience, doesn't excel at taking the risk away as I have seen updates break other package's dependencies plenty of times

No software is infallible but package managers are robust and have been for at least 15 years. The only times I’ve seen a package manager go tits up is when I’ve intentionally overridden it’s default behaviour and then forced it to proceed regardless. Basically knowingly forced it to break. I’ve had Linux (and FreeBSD too) running for years, constantly upgrading it from the package manager without a single issue. So I don’t doubt you’ve ran into issues but with package management on Linux, after all you seem to find all the problems on Linux, but generally it does work well for most people.

The same is true for Windows. If you’re competent then you can run a stable Windows install for years without any issues. And equally on Windows people might bork the system installing the wrong software. Such as accidentally installing a dodgy copy of Firefox from a spoofing website.

This doesn’t mean manually installing software is worse - I’m just exampling where package management tools do help. Microsoft would agree too since they provide a number of tools for pushing software out in an automated way.

> You clearly haven't kept in touch with Windows through the Windows 10 era

I don’t see why you make that statement when Windows 10 still proves my point: updates happening slower and less frequently than on Linux.

That’s not a bad thing though. It’s just a different operating model.

> We're getting off in the weeds. My original point, I think, stands: Linux doesn't behave the way I think is best, therefore it isn't 'comfort' that makes me not like the way it behaves, it's my preference for a different --better in my reasoned opinion-- behavior.

“Better” in your context is subjective to your preference though. Which is the point you keep missing. And if the term is subjective then it cannot be argued as technically superior.

Then there’s the question of why do you subjectively prefer the platform that you’re already familiar and comfortable with rather than this other platform that feels alien to you. Could it perhaps be because it’s familiar?

> If this is truly your opinion then you have phrased your initial assertion in a very poor and condescending sounding way.

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones:

> You very much make it sound like "people who don't like the way Linux behaves are just idiots who can't learn new things".

> Oh, I see, it's because you actually did think they're just idiots.

We don’t have to agree on everything but the ridiculously hostile way you’re twisting my post makes it hard to have a sensible conversation with you.

> And here lies the problem with people who say one is better than another: they look at the differences and say “I don’t like it” but think it’s a technical decision when in fact it’s just an emotive response based on what they’re comfort zone is.

Give me a way to interpret this other than condescension. You're saying that people who espouse a preference are not doing so based on valid reasoning, and the only evidence you have offered for this is that you have a different preference.

I agree that 'better' is subjective, I don't think I ever said otherwise.

You don't give people the benefit of the doubt that when they say the prefer some behavior over other behavior that they have legitimate reasoning behind it. That's arrogant nonsense entirely deserving of the stereotype that IT people are arrogant, and I for one am sick of people acting like this in our industry.

You’re literally the only one who’s been name calling and insulting people. You keep making wildly inaccurate technical claims that even a beginner in Linux would know better then admit that others have pointed out to you how deeply ignorant you are on this subject. And at no point agreed your opinions were subjective, repeatedly stating they were based on technical merit and even going as far as accusing me of thinking people were “idiots” for being subjective.

…and now that you finally grasp enough comprehension skills that you’re not making wild presumptions and insulting interpretations of my posts, now you accuse me of being arrogant and the “stereotypical problem with people in IT” in your very same post that’s agreeing with the entire point that sparked all the initial venom? Even now you cannot bring yourself to be polite with other people and instead insult them while simultaneously agreeing with them.

We’ve chatted a few times before and each and every time you’ve failed miserably at even the most basic comprehension while repeatedly making aggressive and insulting remarks. On one occasion even berating me with the same point I’d literally made the post before. And Ive seen you do this to other people too. So I’ve been more patient in this conversation than you deserve. There’s one tangent where you can’t even follow the thread and keep referring back to the wrong parent while making a big hoohar about how everyone else has misunderstood the conversation.

Maybe the reason everyone in IT always disagrees with you and comes across a certain way is because you are the one being an illiterate ass to them? Communication is a two way street and I don’t have this issue with literally anyone else on HN apart from yourself. And after this experience of insanity I’ll certainly make sure I don’t bother to engage with you again too.

You know what? You're right, I have been a little more insulting here than need be and I apologize for that. Twenty years of the same arguments from Linux Desktop's die-hard fanboys has made me a bit unkind to people I interpret to be Linux Desktop evangelists.

However, I submit that your language is not as clear as you might think it is. I am still not sure if you're trying to say that most people prefer certain behaviors purely out of comfort, or if you're agreeing with me that there is a good chance they prefer behaviors for legitimately technical reasons that just happen to be subjective. Your initial post on the subject very much strikes me as the former, and frankly so do nearly all your posts after that, yet you seem to insist that I am misunderstanding.