105
What happened to elementary OS?
(news.itsfoss.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
105 points (94.1% liked)
Linux
48454 readers
720 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Dead like any other Linux distro that is mainly a desktop.
Here's the issue, elementary OS is made for regular people who want a computer that works, an attempt at replicating macOS, and that same group of people need proprietary software like MS Office that isn't available under Linux. The alternatives won't cut it for people once they've to collaborate with other who use the proprietary stuff.
elementary OS is essentially a misguided marketing exercise where the founders / company failed to study and understand their target market.
Then how do you explain the continued success of Mint?
Because Mint's philosophy is to make a friendly, simple and usable system for everyone.
That may be for people who came from Windows before, or those who like their OS to be a bit more conservative, meaning no flashy stuff, boring, and just working. Just like Windows was "in the good ol' days".
This makes it accessible and usable by everyone, including Linux sysadmins who come home after work and don't want to deal with annoying computers and fixing things.
Everything on Mint feels high quality, functional and cohesive.
ElementaryOS on the other hand feels like a cheap MacOS clone, but nothing works. Those who want Mac, buy a Mac.
Mint/ Cinnamon on the other hand is similar to Windows (XP, 7, etc.), but not a copycat. It's familiar enough to be intuitive for Windows users, but much enough it's own thing.
Mint's main focus is to get a uncomplicated, and usable system, while Elementary's focus is to just do what Apple does. ... Well, did. 15 years ago. They totally forgot how much work maintaining a distro and a desktop with a whole app suite is, and just stopped working on it.
While Gnome and KDE (and other WMs/ DEs) got magnitudes better in just one year (e.g. Plasma 6), Pantheon (and Elementary) just stagnated the last 5 years or so.
They don't even offer/ work on Wayland yet, or other new things.
Either they'll stop working on Elementary, and focus only on Pantheon, so it can live on on other distros, or it will just continue dying like it does currently.
TBH, they should put all their effort into making Pantheon better. NixOS's installer has Pantheon, and it feels pretty much the same; that's clearly 90% of what makes elementaryOS unique.
Trying to make a walled garden in Linux with their software choices was what turned me off to the project, and you'll never attract Linux-minded people by forcing them into a box.
Totally agree.
I think they had or have commercial aspirations. That along with the strong desire to curate the experience are likely what lead to the walled garden effect.
The problem with walled gardens ( well, I hate them always ) is that they only work if you have the resources to pull off the full experience by yourself. Elementary really never had that and, before they could get there, they stumbled internally and killed their execution. It is going to be really hard to get it back.
Whatever their original aspirations, salvaging what they have into a distro agnostic DE is probably their best hope for relevance and survival. With a curated Flatpak store, they may even be able to someday pull off their walled garden in a cross-distro way. If it ever became big enough, they could take another run at being a full distro.
As it is, Elementary is on borrowed time. That would be the case even if the Wayland clock was not ticking but ticking it is.
I don't really think that's fair. I agree with your suggestion that it should be a multiplatform DE rather than just its own distro but I think having polished and design opinionated distros is important. I know a few Mac guys who have become interested in Linux when they heard about ElementaryOS.
I get that a lot of people hate on GNOME too for being annoying to customise and being highly opinionated but I think that's the key to getting the average person interested in Linux. The average person just wants their desktop to look nice out of the box and maybe offer a dark mode. Anything more than that gets too complicated.
Edit: and yeah having access to programs like the MS apps is important but it's not like that has to come before having an appealing desktop
I agree with this ideia, however GNOME lacks desktop icons and forces people into an activities view - all stuff that said average people don't want to deal with. GNOME isn't already dominating the DE space, and we still have other DEs, because of their poor decisions based on a "vision" that revolves around reinventing the wheel ever 2 years or so.
This is one of the major hurdles with Linux desktop and the Steam Deck just confirmed it. People like the ones you're talking about require software, be it Adobe, MS Office, Autodesk or some other and without it there's no way they're going to move. Alternatives may work for some isolated people but if you're collaborating with people that expect those proprietary formats it won't just work out.
Libreoffice is not my first choice for document preparation, but I use it only because I need to collaborate with people who use MS Office. I've had no problems that weren't easy to fix.
Yup. Same issue will plague all Windows-alternative distros. Unless serious work is done to fix Microsoft 365 and Adobe creative cloud, there's genuinely little benefit trying to claim Linux is an alternative for all but a minority of people.
That, or we can work on improving the alternatives to those apps. GIMP, Inkscape, and OnlyOffice are on a spectrum of laughably bad to just-about-comparable to their proprietary counterparts.
I don't think it's an insurmountable issue: I think there's more we could do to bring Apple software to Linux (using a BSD-based kernel means a lot less complexity!) and with it the few applications that currently don't play well with WINE.
Ubuntu, Mint, and to some extent PopOS are pegged as easy Windows/MacOS alternatives, just like ElementaryOS. They're still popular.
Ubuntu was the “original” easy-to-use Linux desktop. It expanded into that demand and still enjoys the market share it got when nobody else was really filling that niche.
Mint exists explicitly as a fork of Ubuntu and enjoys less success as a result. Many, including me, think Mint does a better job at being a solid desktop option than Ubuntu and is kind of the goto distro for that now ( not still not as popular as Ubuntu still is ).
Elementary is a curated desktop for people that really like coherence and design. That is, first of all, a more demanding target. It is perhaps too ambitious for their scale. And they have stumbled in execution. The task might be easier if they focussed on just being a DE ( desktop environment ) that other distros could use.
An “official” Ubuntu or Mint spin would have a real shot.
Pop is the only one that really ever makes any reference to windows in its marketing. I'm more talking about distros like Zorin which are targeting public sector orgs and windows users by bundling windows compatibility apps and features into the ISO.
The other examples definitely do also target "new users" which of course means Windows users too, but they aren't explicitly tying their distros to Windows software compatibility the same way some are.
First line of the the description of Zorin on zorin.com/os
“Zorin OS is the alternative to Windows”
https://zorin.com/os/
What minority is that?
So your take is that instead of trying to make Windows binaries run Linux it would be way easier to just get macOS binaries because it is all BSD. That's an interesting take indeed.
They are probably saying the shared POSIX underpinnings means greater commonality between macOS and Linux and therefore easier porting. That is likely true to some extent but real apps are written to Apple proprietary APIs and therefore that advantage is largely nullified.
In terms of effort to bring apps over, there has been far, far more effort put into porting Windows apps and so that task ( at this point ) is generally easier. It may have been less effort to port macOS at the start ( eg. GNUstep ) but that work has still largely never been done.
It is easy to move POSIX world apps to macOS. It is not as easy to go the other way.
I think (aka speculate) that the fact that Windows is the largest OS plays into the fact that Linux-Mac compatibility isn't more developed.
I bet some 90% of desktop software is available on Windows (even many core KDE are on Windows!) so targeting them brings most Apple apps onto Linux "for free". Especially since Apple's insistence on trying to make Metal a thing hurts gaming support, which is a big driver behind Linux compatibility development.
The few applications that MacOS has over both Linux and Windows are usually so embedded into the Apple ecosystem that you're not getting much by porting them anyway. iTunes? The App Store? Garage Band? Probably doesn't help that many of those apps also use Apple's own UI framework which isn't really portable.
However, stuff not designed to live in Apple land like Teams for Mac or Adobe CC might be more possible. But still far too few applications to necessitate the effort to bring them over.
Absolutely.
A lot of it is just the organization and leadership within the projects themselves. The GNUstep guys struggled for a long time. Just agreeing to implement the Mac APIs instead of just the NeXTstep ones is a thing.
Regardless of how attractive projects are, they can be run well or badly. Without trying to disparage anybody, look at the progress of WINE vs ReactOS for example. And if you think it is just because kernels are hard, look at Linux or Haiku or SerenityOS vs ReactOS instead.
But the popularity of Windows made the Win32 APIs more commercially viable as well and so you get companies like CodeWeavers and Valve that really accelerate the WINE effort. That wind at your back really helps.
The development complexities of this would be insane. Plus modern Apple uses ARM chips.which doesn't help since most Linux users (desktop and server) are on x86.
MacOS still ships x86 builds, and most software either provides binaries for both platforms or some kind of universal/hybrid binary. Still a few years before that becomes an issue.
At some point an ARM->x86 translation layer is going to be needed too, regardless. It's not long until ARM becomes popular enough to make it necessary to translate both ways.
ARM is a recent development and frankly not that big a problem at the API level.
zorin seems to be doing fine.
Yes, in addition to MS Office, MacOS is particularly used by a lot of people who work in art or music, and none of the programs they use professionally for that will run on Linux. You can't just go it alone with free software when all your colleagues expect you to use proprietary tools. And what people like about MacOS is that it is reliable for running these programs with a minimum of fuss, has a solid low-latency sound system (for musicians), and has easy access to Apple features like cloud backup. Imitating its desktop brings none of that.
Yeah that's my point.